Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II

30 Nov 2015 15:11 #21 by flatusmaximus
Replied by flatusmaximus on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
Still a highly flawed design that could still get the chop after many billions of dollars have been spent on it. The version with the arrestor hook, which we really need, has had endless problems missing the arrestor wire and structural failure of the rear fuselage. The other version, the VTOL type has a MAJOR problem in that it cannot land vertically if still 'tooled up' with bombs, missiles, etc., as it doesn't have enough power to cope with the weight, so on a carrier without 'cats and traps' it has to dump millions of pounds worth of munitions into the sea before it can land !!
I keep thinking of those Harrier GR9s and Sea Harriers, with the uprated Pegasus engine and the best avionics suite in the business bar none, superb laser target designating pod, etc.. My son had just finished a hangar full of them at Cottesmore when they were grounded, probably the worst 'knee-jerk' Government decision since TSR2.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Nov 2015 15:48 #22 by Harboda77
Replied by Harboda77 on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
Having spent three decades working for an American Company their system appears to be that you can order what ever you fancy however what they will deliver may be completely different providing of course that the White House permits delivery.

Hoping that we will be impressed when the first versions land in the UK on their way to Germany.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Nov 2015 16:00 #23 by canberra
Replied by canberra on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
Back in the late seventies Canada bought the F18 despite the F16 being cheaper and the reason was that the F18 has two engines. Because of Canadas vast size and lack of airfields the Canadian Forces demanded (and got) a twin engined aircraft. So why on earth are they replacing the F18 with the F35?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Nov 2015 18:48 #24 by Harboda77
Replied by Harboda77 on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
I was lead to believe that most of the US friendly powers wanted to purchase an Air Superiority Fighter squadron but export was prohibited by the WH and the next best option which they could purchase ( providing there were no political U-turns in the near future ) was the Joint Strike Fighter that had been developed from the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter & Joint Advanced Technology Fighter projects.

Therefore the Air Superiority Fighter program production was limited to meet the requirements of the USA and it was projected to be operational until at least 2030 when the Joint Strike Fighter program would be up and running to support all projected defense program requirements.

The way I read it was that the first planes released for US use would be Alfa production models and non US would be Beta production models.

I assumed that the first fully debugged production models would be delivered around 2022.

I believe that Canada is in a similar position to the UK in that we can only purchase what complies with what ever WH approvals exist at the time ~ Our financial contribution to the program only gives us favorable purchasing position not a right to own.

Eventually we may have to fund our own defence requirements if national security world situation prevents the politicians from taking the easy option.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Nov 2015 19:39 #25 by kebecker
Replied by kebecker on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
It is very probable that Canada will not go ahead with the F35 according to media reports before and after the election, it was one of the election platform promises of the Liberal Party.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Nov 2015 20:04 #26 by Peter Kirk
Replied by Peter Kirk on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
It makes you wonder if aircraft are being designed to include every modern feature whether they are required or not. What are are Tornadoes and Typhoons being used for and does it need a highly complex aircraft or just a superb weapons system?

Is the F-35 less prone to a SAM strikes than a Hawk, say?

No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Nov 2015 22:21 #27 by Harboda77
Replied by Harboda77 on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
Peter ~ I don't believe that the politicians could answer that question however it did get partially covered in the 2015 SDSR that caught my attention.

If I've remembered its introduction accurately the Tornado was planned to be retired some time in 2010 to 2020 that has now been extended to at least 2030 and I believe that it was designed as an Interceptor that turned into a very successful low altitude bomber in service.

The Typhoon had a service life estimated until 2030 which has also been extended to 2040 and I believe was planned as the aircraft that the F35 would have replaced.

When the Tornado & Typhoon were on the drawing board they were addressing a slightly different threat to the one which they face today.

Theater Flexibility will be its primary function so I expect the politicians will want it to do everything at no extra cost while in reality it will do some things very well and everything badly.

If global conflict escalates over the next decade then its possible they could all be operational together for a period of time and then theater attrition will answer the question.

I'm confident that the MoD have every base covered so that we will be protected while still being sharp enough to let the politicians think that they saved the day.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Dec 2015 10:59 #28 by Peter Kirk
Replied by Peter Kirk on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
As politicians are "here today gone tomorrow" it's lucky their egos are easily satisfied :)

No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Dec 2015 16:49 #29 by Gone
Replied by Gone on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II


If I've remembered its introduction accurately the Tornado was planned to be retired some time in 2010 to 2020 that has now been extended to at least 2030 and I believe that it was designed as an Interceptor that turned into a very successful low altitude bomber in service.


The Tornado was designed from the outset as a "Multi Role Combat Aircraft" while the Interceptor or Air Defence Variant was produced for the RAF as a long range interceptor with a lengthened fuselage, increased fuel and a different radar among changes. I believe it was sold to one or two other countries subsequently

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Jun 2016 22:58 - 30 Jun 2016 22:58 #30 by stevie
Replied by stevie on topic Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
I meant to post this yesterday but better late than never.

The F-35's have arrived in the UK at Fairford ahead of their display debuts at the Royal International Air Tattoo & Farnborough -

Lightning strikes: Britain's first F-35B supersonic fighter lands (www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/30/first_f...ke_fighter_lands_uk/)

The first of the Royal Air Force's new F-35B Joint Strike Fighter jets landed on British soil last night, heralding a new era for the Royal Air Force.

The supersonic Lightning II, as it will be known in RAF service, was flown across the Atlantic by RAF Squadron Leader Hugh Nicols, in the company of two US Marine Corps F-35Bs.

The transatlantic flight set off from Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina, landing at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire just before 8pm last night.

The BBC reports that the three fighters were supported by air-to-air tankers for the transatlantic phase. Various bloggers claimed these were USAF KC-10s on the west of the Atlantic and a KC-130J over Ireland.

While aviation geeks are very excited about the arrival of the first British F-35 in the UK, the aircraft's history to date has been chequered. In March it was revealed that the fighter's radar software had a bug that caused it to fail in mid-air, while just weeks ago the US Senate heard that other software bugs in USAF F-35As forced ground engineers, during a scramble exercise, to reboot the aircraft just to get them started up.

The Lightnings will form the core of Britain's carrier-borne strike aviation, being based in wings of 12 aboard HM Ships Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, the two 70,000-tonne aircraft carriers under construction at BAE Systems' Rosyth dockyard. Queen Elizabeth is substantially complete and her sea trials are scheduled to begin in August this year, her crew having moved aboard the new warship in May. The two carriers can each carry up to 36 F-35Bs if required.

Controversy arose earlier in the carrier procurement programme over the decision not to equip the ships with conventional cat-and-trap aircraft launch and recovery systems. Instead, the Queen Elizabeth class are fitted with ski jumps in order to launch their F-35Bs as Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft, similar to the faithful old Harrier jump-jets which went out of Fleet Air Arm service in 2006. The RAF's Harriers were withdrawn in 2010, with the remains of both aircraft fleets eventually being sold to America for spares. The US Marine Corps still operates Harriers to this day.

The RAF will reactivate its famous 617 Squadron to operate the F-35 and the unit will be based at RAF Marham, with the Air Force hoping the unit will achieve full operational status by 2019. Alongside 617 Sqn will be 809 Naval Air Squadron, providing the Fleet Air Arm's contribution to the F-35 fleet. Deck landing trials of the UK's F-35s are reportedly scheduled for autumn 2018. ®
Ignore the usual Daily Mail drivel & check out the photographs & video clips -

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3666644...usters-Squadron.html

& a few more photographs from the UKAR forum -
forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=73504

Steve
:)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jon Booty

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.057 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of this site have already been set. By continuing to use this site you are agreeing to this. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy policy.

  
EU Cookie Directive Module Information