Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

New F-35 combat jet's UK debut cancelled

33 posts in this topic

The first UK appearance of the combat jet due to be used on Britain's new aircraft carriers has been cancelled.

It was hoped the F-35B Lightning IIs would be at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Fairford, Gloucestershire which, starts on Friday.

But last week the entire fleet of F-35's was grounded in the US following an engine fire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-28257349

Previous thread -

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=266551

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the first time the f-35 has been grounded, unfortunately the media have jumped on the band wagon, the F-22 had problems aswell

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an incredibly over priced machine that performs no where near what Lockheed promised. They basically lied to get the contract over Boeing. They now have such a short range that they will potentially put the Carrier within the range of a target that it considerably increases over all risk to the Carrier. Lockheed promised a radar signature radius the size of a marble, but now it is as big (if not bigger) then a basketball. You may think that they are both a small radar signature radius, but the size difference is hundreds of percent larger then promised!

I'm hoping the British drone program for the Taranis will make the F-35 obsolete so that we can cancel buying them all together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Taranis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Next chance to see the F35 should be at the Farnborough air Show, 19th -20th July.

When it comes to the F35B, Do people want to revert back to the Sea Harrier? Because as its stands by 2025 we'll have two super STOVL carriers. the F35B and the Harrier are the only two options. unless we design and build a new version.

Australia is going to fly their F35B's off their new Canberra Class.(LHD's) (HMAS Canberra & HMAS Adelaide) Hull based on the Spanish design Juan Carlos class, the Hull was actually built in Spain and transported to Australia for completion by BAE systems. Spain is going to operate their F35B's off the same class of ship. LHD's

HMAS Canberra

Juan%20Carlos%2004.jpg

The F35 partners.

USA

United Kingdom

Canada

Australia

Denmark

Italy

Norway

Netherlands

Israel

Turkey

Japan

South Korea

The F35 will be at the forefront for the RAF and Royal Navy for the next 15 years. im sure once in service it'll show its worth. Think, 2020, F35B, Typhoon tranche 3, Taranis. all three give us great flexibility.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sea Harrier wouldn't be able to cut it with modern naval aircraft being built today.

As good an aircraft it is, the fact is some of the design is 40 years old. They are still brilliant in specific situations but not as an interceptor capable of protecting the fleet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lockheed got BAE onboard the F-35 project to put pressure on the UK govt to commit to buying the aircraft. That was fine when it was a pie-in-the-sky design on paper, promising to be "everything", but the reality is that the aircraft as built is not up to spec as commissioned. The UK govt should not be held to ransom by BAE to "safeguard BAE jobs", because the defence of the nation is more important.

That is what this has become, however - the UK govt is wasting taxpayer money to protect BAE.

While the F-35B is a step up from the Sea Harrier, it is not such a significant improvement to justify the enormous cost.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is it called a 'Lightning II'?

it bears no relation to a Lightning whatsoever.

.

http://en.m.wikipedi...ctric_Lightning

.

im not sure, good question. the yanks had a P38 lightning in WW2. also made by Lockheed martin so maybe related in some way? i cant remember if the original name for the F35 was lightning II but changed to JSF, but we've chose to keep calling it the lightning II not sure.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the yanks had a P38 lightning in WW2. also made by Lockheed martin so maybe related in some way?

.

still not sure of the correlation Steve-

.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning

.

this is even more differenterer than the English Electric version!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

still not sure of the correlation Steve-

.

http://en.m.wikipedi..._P-38_Lightning

.

this is even more differenterer than the English Electric version!

It is, i was starting to think it was only the UK who was calling it the lightning II. but looking at the Royal Australian Air Force website they're also calling it the lightning II. - I wonder if the reason is for the export orders? F-35 JSF US, outside the US, called the F-35 Lightning II.

http://www.airforce.gov.au/Technology/Future-Acquisitions/F-35A-Lightning-II/?RAAF-ZRnYQhJUh1u0e44uR32olOT1rt+Ym4K3

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure, good question. the yanks had a P38 lightning in WW2. also made by Lockheed martin so maybe related in some way? i cant remember if the original name for the F35 was lightning II but changed to JSF, but we've chose to keep calling it the lightning II not sure.

I think this is the reason for the name. The Lockheed P-38 was a twin boom/engine fighter/bomber and was a very impressive aircraft. In fact the US top ace (Richard Bong) flew one in the Pacific. They were also used in the assassination of Yamamoto.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the reason for the name. The Lockheed P-38 was a twin boom/engine fighter/bomber and was a very impressive aircraft. In fact the US top ace (Richard Bong) flew one in the Pacific. They were also used in the assassination of Yamamoto.

very interesting, that's why i like this forum, learn something new virtually everyday.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping the British drone program for the Taranis will make the F-35 obsolete so that we can cancel buying them all together.

http://en.wikipedia....Systems_Taranis

I really don't think drones or remotely piloted devices could ever replace manned aircraft in an actual combat environment (not what they've been used for so far, which is basically just assassination by remote control); I really don't think a remote pilot could possibly react to the rapidly changing circumstances of actual combat, with multiple targets and/or threats all around on the ground and in the air, anywhere near quickly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry Britains for here is a substitute to satisfy your Lightning II fetish!

Watch it as it goes in a straight line! And then bank the wings and make a turn! And then just when you think it couldn't look like any worse of a demo, it lands vertically! OMG the Harrier did that 45 years ago.

F-35! (it's better than Harrier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspected that the name Lightning II might have been chosen as a marketing gimmick showing respect for the Lightning by BAE Systems, a very important interceptor in the RAF for almost 30 years and thus making the new F-35 aircraft more acceptable on an emotional/patriotic level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning

Britons are used to their Lightnings getting the job done. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope any future enemies do what people on here have done. underestimate the planes ability and potential. if they do, they've already made mistake number one. and would surely give us the advantage. :tu:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think drones or remotely piloted devices could ever replace manned aircraft in an actual combat environment (not what they've been used for so far, which is basically just assassination by remote control); I really don't think a remote pilot could possibly react to the rapidly changing circumstances of actual combat, with multiple targets and/or threats all around on the ground and in the air, anywhere near quickly enough.

Just to add to the Admirals response. ...drones and unmanned fighters would be effective over enemies that don't have ground to air capabilities or air to air power. The UAV's are slow and predictable and easy to shoot down and so would unmanned fighters. They are the perfect low cost spies and assassins over inferior enemies and over low risk area's but against well armed nations, they pose little risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Restriction on the F35 has been lifted, the F35A which suffered the engine fire as been written off. The report stated: The rubbing of a engine blade caused the Fire - It took place in the third-stage fan of the integrally bladed rotor (IBR) in the low pressure section of the F135 engine. The three-stage IBR sits behind the front fan in the F135 and compresses the air before passing it into the high-pressure core. Each stage is separated by a stator and rotates within the casing, which is lined with an abradable strip to maintain tight clearances between the blade tips and the inner wall of the compressor casing. This enables tight tolerances while reducing pressure loss and some rubbing is acceptable. In the engine for AF-27, the blades were rubbing far in excess of the design, creating excessive heat and microcracking in the blades. The resulting high cycle fatigue failure forced the section to “come apart,” The pilot safely egressed and the flames were extinguished with foam. Senior officials say the problem thus far appears isolated; officials have inspected all 98 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines in service, “All 98 of the other engines did not indicate the same phenomena as the one that failed,”

There was a speculation the four F35B's could now have flown across the Atlantic to the UK. as early as yesterday 15th July. no conformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First two F-35s for Australia rolled-out

1522242_-_main.jpg

The first two Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) were rolled-out at the company's Fort Worth production facility in Texas on 24 July. The ceremony, which was attended by the chief of the RAAF Air Marshal Geoff Brown and other dignitaries, marked the beginning of deliveries of a current 72-aircraft order book for Australia. Aircraft AU-1 and AU-2 are now scheduled to undergo functional fuel system checks before being transported to the flight line for ground and flight tests in the coming months. They are scheduled to be delivered to the RAAF later this year, and will be based at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, where they will be used for Australian and partner country pilot training. The first F-35s are expected to arrive in Australia in 2018, with initial operating capability slated for 2023.

Recently, it has been suggested that Australia might be considering a split-buy, with the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B to equip the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN's) two Canberra-class landing helicopter dock amphibious ship currently under acquisition. If this were to happen, it would mark a return to fixed-winged carrier operations for the first time since the RAN decommissioned the HMAS Melbourne in 1982. It is not clear at this stage if any F-35B procurement would be in addition to the expected 72 to 100 F-35A buy, or if it would form part of that number.

According to Lockheed Martin, the Australian aerospace industry has already been signed up to USD412 million of F-35 contracts, and is billed to reap up to USD6 billion in expected manufacturing orders over the life of the programme. The government recently outlined a plan to establish an in-country maintenance, repair and overhaul facility for the F-35.

With this roll-out, Australia (Tier 3) becomes the fourth partner country to receive F-35 aircraft, after the United States (Primary customer), the United Kingdom (Tier 1), and the Netherlands (Tier 2). The other partners comprise of Italy (Tier 2), Canada (Tier 3), Denmark (Tier 3), Norway (Tier 3), and Turkey (Tier 3), with Israel and Singapore being Security Cooperative Participants. Japan and South Korea are also onboard as the programme's first two Foreign Military Sales customers.

http://www.janes.com/article/41201/first-two-f-35s-for-australia-rolled-out

In this months NavyNews Magazine they had a piece on the F35B. its available to read free online. on page four it as a comparison with the F35B & Sea Harrier FRS1.

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2zafy/201407NavyNewsJul14/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope any future enemies do what people on here have done. underestimate the planes ability and potential. if they do, they've already made mistake number one. and would surely give us the advantage. :tu:

What am I underestimating? How are you going to have an advantage if someone doesn't underestimate you? You can't fly right in and directly take on real fighters that can dogfight because the F-35 cannot dogfight. Are you going to use it for long range interdiction? You don't have long range, so you can't do that either. Are you going to escape to higher altitudes instead and intercept enemy Flankers? Nope, you can't catch enemy Flankers. You're way too slow. Are you going to fly in low and slow then and bomb the enemy to death? Not with the F-35 you're not. I don't know what mission you're preparing for here but whatever it is, you're outclassed before you even write the check.

If the world didn't already have aircraft designed for every purpose we can discuss, the F-35 would do a great job up there all by itself. If stealth was a reliable technology not already obsolete, then maybe you wouldn't be wasting your money. But it's not 1989 anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so sick of hearing about these rubbish planes. Over-developed, overly expensive and years overdue. We'd seriously be better off throwing rocks from the Wright Brothers plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I underestimating? How are you going to have an advantage if someone doesn't underestimate you? You can't fly right in and directly take on real fighters that can dogfight because the F-35 cannot dogfight. Are you going to use it for long range interdiction? You don't have long range, so you can't do that either. Are you going to escape to higher altitudes instead and intercept enemy Flankers? Nope, you can't catch enemy Flankers. You're way too slow. Are you going to fly in low and slow then and bomb the enemy to death? Not with the F-35 you're not. I don't know what mission you're preparing for here but whatever it is, you're outclassed before you even write the check.

If the world didn't already have aircraft designed for every purpose we can discuss, the F-35 would do a great job up there all by itself. If stealth was a reliable technology not already obsolete, then maybe you wouldn't be wasting your money. But it's not 1989 anymore.

We are going to have two super carriers STOVL variant so we need planes that will fly off them, that plane is the F35B. the only other choice is the Harrier. seeing that the F35B out performs the Harrier in every way that's a step up in capability. The main role for the F35B is Fleet defence. or CAP the whole Carrier Program is centred around an amphibious capability.

Who said the F35 cannot dog fight? dog fighting as changed to such an extent a dog fight is now a mere radar contact. the F35 is not going to be a F22 or Typhoon but we don't want it to be. We have the Typhoon Tranche3 and the F35B two of the worlds most capable military aircraft ever. The Avionics -the f35b's radar is fourth generation 3 times better than the F22's third gen. The F35 is way ahead of the Typhoon. and with an array of weapons loads which increase the strike range to over 800nm what more do you want? the Pilot helmet for example allows the pilot to look through the plane in a full 360 degrees. if he looks down at his feet he will see through the planes floor.

the Best thing about F-35 is not the stealth. It's the unsexy stuff only geeks know about, like being a digital weapon able to switch mission modes in-flight, fly all-weather and day or night, having integrated and encrypted communication, navigation and IFF through high-speed data links, capability to communicate via SMS with units on the ground, use its own sensors (EO, IR and AESA radar) - and act as a hub for the sensors of other non-line of sight platforms - to give the pilot as much information as only theatre controllers have previously had, provide terrain-mapping capability comparable to that onboard E-8 JSTARs, show that information to the pilot on a MFD bigger than the computer screen you are reading this on now, see - and automatically identify - threats to the aircraft from any angle through its distributed aperture sensor system, co-ordinate small fleets of UCAVs, guide weapons launched from other platforms, launch a wide-range of its own A2A and A2G weapons, allow off-boresight shooting of missiles, use it's own AESA radar to conduct electronic attacks, diagnose it's own component problems, automatically schedule maintenance cycles, have high-commonality with augmented reality training simulators, have common training regimes between the three variants, and benefit from a lifetime 'service desk' to take the aircraft back to the shop for upgrades and significant maintenance on any of it's three (triple-redundant) computers. Oh and it's got a bit of stealth, flies as good as a Block 52 F-16 and some of it will be built in the UK.

There are well over 100 x F-35 in service now with the aircrew of 3 nations and 6 services. The aircrew and engineers from those services - including the RN - are immensely enthusiastic. Perhaps the USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, RN, RNLAF are all wrong and people with no relevant experience of military aviation are correct. But I suspect not.

compared to the Harrier the F35B's 470nm's strike range on internal fuel versus a Harrier that could barely reach 250nm's with a couple of bombs and required drop tanks to do it. maximum weapons take off weight (carrier) F35B 15,000lbs Sea Harrier 4.000lbs.

I no im got going to change your mind on the F35. So no matter if i copy what the people who deal with the plane say you will still think its rubbish plane. so we'll just have to wait until 2020 to see exactly how good or Bad the F35B is. and not long after than im sure we'll see it in action for real.

weapons. impressive.

JSFweapons1.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I addition the Harrier only overwhelmed the much more agile Argentinian fighters because it used the Sidewinder heat seeking missile. Both sides agree without it the air superiority would not have been gained by the British.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going to have two super carriers STOVL variant so we need planes that will fly off them, that plane is the F35B. the only other choice is the Harrier. seeing that the F35B out performs the Harrier in every way that's a step up in capability. The main role for the F35B is Fleet defence. or CAP the whole Carrier Program is centred around an amphibious capability.

Who said the F35 cannot dog fight? dog fighting as changed to such an extent a dog fight is now a mere radar contact. the F35 is not going to be a F22 or Typhoon but we don't want it to be. We have the Typhoon Tranche3 and the F35B two of the worlds most capable military aircraft ever. The Avionics -the f35b's radar is fourth generation 3 times better than the F22's third gen. The F35 is way ahead of the Typhoon. and with an array of weapons loads which increase the strike range to over 800nm what more do you want? the Pilot helmet for example allows the pilot to look through the plane in a full 360 degrees. if he looks down at his feet he will see through the planes floor.

the Best thing about F-35 is not the stealth. It's the unsexy stuff only geeks know about, like being a digital weapon able to switch mission modes in-flight, fly all-weather and day or night, having integrated and encrypted communication, navigation and IFF through high-speed data links, capability to communicate via SMS with units on the ground, use its own sensors (EO, IR and AESA radar) - and act as a hub for the sensors of other non-line of sight platforms - to give the pilot as much information as only theatre controllers have previously had, provide terrain-mapping capability comparable to that onboard E-8 JSTARs, show that information to the pilot on a MFD bigger than the computer screen you are reading this on now, see - and automatically identify - threats to the aircraft from any angle through its distributed aperture sensor system, co-ordinate small fleets of UCAVs, guide weapons launched from other platforms, launch a wide-range of its own A2A and A2G weapons, allow off-boresight shooting of missiles, use it's own AESA radar to conduct electronic attacks, diagnose it's own component problems, automatically schedule maintenance cycles, have high-commonality with augmented reality training simulators, have common training regimes between the three variants, and benefit from a lifetime 'service desk' to take the aircraft back to the shop for upgrades and significant maintenance on any of it's three (triple-redundant) computers. Oh and it's got a bit of stealth, flies as good as a Block 52 F-16 and some of it will be built in the UK.

There are well over 100 x F-35 in service now with the aircrew of 3 nations and 6 services. The aircrew and engineers from those services - including the RN - are immensely enthusiastic. Perhaps the USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, RN, RNLAF are all wrong and people with no relevant experience of military aviation are correct. But I suspect not.

compared to the Harrier the F35B's 470nm's strike range on internal fuel versus a Harrier that could barely reach 250nm's with a couple of bombs and required drop tanks to do it. maximum weapons take off weight (carrier) F35B 15,000lbs Sea Harrier 4.000lbs.

I no im got going to change your mind on the F35. So no matter if i copy what the people who deal with the plane say you will still think its rubbish plane. so we'll just have to wait until 2020 to see exactly how good or Bad the F35B is. and not long after than im sure we'll see it in action for real.

weapons. impressive.

You've convinced me to an extent actually. It's cheaper not to refit your carriers. And it's better than Harrier, I wasn't being facetious when I said that. But much of the capabilities you're listing here are systems that can be fitted on other aircraft. And no matter how good they are on paper, they have to perform. When you're putting stresses and impacts on the airframe you can't have sensitive computer electronics malfunctioning. Repeated flight testing is the only way to know for sure. The main reason why our front-line fighter jets are still using ancient computers from the '80s is because they're built like tanks and can withstand the punishment of flight.

The F-35 to me is somewhat analogous to Mercedes Benz. Engineers put technology into the cars for no reason other than because they can. There's so many buttons, bells, whistles, and sensors on the car, most owners don't even know what half the buttons do. People who are actually happy with their Mercedes are the ones who lease them for three years and then get rid of them. After all that plastic wears out, they're hideously expensive to maintain.

If your mission parameters are to do a little of this and a little of that, the F-35 will get the job done for a lot of Sterling. Unfortunately reality is much less forgiving and we don't get to fight in the missions or the parameters we would pick in an ideal world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You've convinced me to an extent actually. It's cheaper not to refit your carriers. And it's better than Harrier, I wasn't being facetious when I said that. But much of the capabilities you're listing here are systems that can be fitted on other aircraft. And no matter how good they are on paper, they have to perform. When you're putting stresses and impacts on the airframe you can't have sensitive computer electronics malfunctioning. Repeated flight testing is the only way to know for sure. The main reason why our front-line fighter jets are still using ancient computers from the '80s is because they're built like tanks and can withstand the punishment of flight.

The F-35 to me is somewhat analogous to Mercedes Benz. Engineers put technology into the cars for no reason other than because they can. There's so many buttons, bells, whistles, and sensors on the car, most owners don't even know what half the buttons do. People who are actually happy with their Mercedes are the ones who lease them for three years and then get rid of them. After all that plastic wears out, they're hideously expensive to maintain.

If your mission parameters are to do a little of this and a little of that, the F-35 will get the job done for a lot of Sterling. Unfortunately reality is much less forgiving and we don't get to fight in the missions or the parameters we would pick in an ideal world.

I guess the same was said with 3rd Gen, 4th Gen and no doubt eventually 6th Gen. the F35's Avionics is way ahead of anything in the sky. certainly faster and more manoeuvrable fighters around. but the on board systems on the F35 more than make up for this. you can have a situation whereby one F35 makes contact and can then pass this information to nearby F35's who might be out of radar range but within missile strike range. you then have a situation where a enemy plane is being fired upon by a F35 that's not even on the enemy radar. that ability is a game changer. how it works for real is another matter.

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.