some F35 info (5 Viewers)

[GrauGeist]

How has the RN's stand-off AtS ordnance improved since the Harrier was in service?
I'd imagine that the air-launched weapons have not only been improved with range, but electronics that would increase lethality, too.

 

[ThomasP]

The RN bought the QE and POW as they are, and are acquiring F-35B instead of the F-35C, due to their perceived probable and possibly problematic mission requirements. They see the need to project power against sea and land targets, possibly without a carrier available. Obviously, if you can afford (in terms of the number of carriers and airframes and/or in terms of having shore bases with improved runways available to operate from) then a CTOL carrier would be best. But if you have to operate on the possibility (probability most likely) of having to operate your airframes away from ship, then VTOL and/or STOVL is the way to go.

The USMC is buying around 350x F-35B for 16 operational Sqn. They are also buying around 70x F-35C, but I think this is only to placate the USN by supplying 2x operational Sqn for the CVNs. So as far as the USMC is concerned (who historically have faced many of the same operational problems that the RN/FAA has - ie operating form shore in somewhat primitive conditions in order to continuously provide support for their ground forces) the F-35B is the way to go.

The USN with its ability to move multiple CVN to the area of conflict can potentially put as many or more high performance aircraft in an area than all but 3 or 4 countries. The RN with only 2 or even 3 carriers (CTOL or otherwise) does not have the ability to hammer any serious threat country into the ground.

 

[buffnut453]

How has the RN's stand-off AtS ordnance improved since the Harrier was in service?
I'd imagine that the air-launched weapons have not only been improved with range, but electronics that would increase lethality, too.

The UK's F-35s can currently only carry LGBs, AMRAAM and ASRAAM. In short, zero stand-off air to ground/surface capabilities.

Plans to integrate Storm Shadow onto the F-35 have been canned. Instead, they're working to integrate SPEAR 3 but it's a small missile with a range of less than 87 miles.

Of note, the UK's switch from F-35C to B prevented internal carriage of ASRAAM. It's only cleared as an external store….so not exactly stealthy.

 

[buffnut453]

The RN bought the QEII and POW as they are, and are acquiring F-35B instead of the F-35C, due to their perceived probable and possibly problematic mission requirements. They see the need to project power against sea and land targets, possibly without a carrier available. Obviously, if you can afford (in terms of the number of carriers and airframes and/or in terms of having shore bases with improved runways available to operate from) then a CTOL carrier would be best. But if you have to operate on the possibility (probability most likely) of having to operate your airframes away from ship, then VTOL and/or STOVL is the way to go.

The USMC is buying around 350x F-35B for 16 operational Sqn. They are also buying around 70x F-35C, but I think this is only to placate the USN by supplying 2x operational Sqn for the CVNs. So as far as the USMC is concerned (who historically have faced many of the same operational problems that the RN/FAA has - ie operating form shore in somewhat primitive conditions in order to continuously provide support for their ground forces) the F-35B is the way to go.

The USN with its ability to move multiple CVN to the area of conflict can potentially put as many or more high performance aircraft in an area than all but 3 or 4 countries. The RN with only 2 or even 3 carriers (CTOL or otherwise) does not have the ability to hammer any serious threat country into the ground.

Again, I go back to my point about doctrine and training. The UK stopped training to operate the Harrier GR7/9 under austere conditions (ie dispersed ops away from traditional airfields) in the mid-90s. AFAIK, they've never tried to operate the F-35 under austere conditions.

The USMC has done some trials operating the F-35 from a disused highway but I think they're still a long way from being able to do that operationally for an extended period.

I'll believe the propaganda about the F-35 fighting from austere environments when I actually see consistent, realistic training by either military. Talking about it is one thing. Doing it consistently and effectively is entirely different. If you're not training to do it today, then you either won't do it during conflict…or you'll apply the "learn as you go" principle which could lead to all sorts of logistical, personnel, and technical problems.

Also, it's worth noting that carrier-capable aircraft can be flown from traditional airfields. The EA-18G fleet includes dedicated "concrete squadrons" (officially they're "expeditionary") that are not carrier-qualified.

If the UK and USMC are serious about STOVL as a means of delivering survivable air power, then they need to train for it…and train hard. In the good old days of the Cd War, the Harriers worked up to completing full TACEVALs while operating from dispersed hides off-base. We need to be able to do that with F-35 to demonstrate it's a real capability rather than just a romantic pipe-dream.

 

[ThomasP]

I do not know how much the USMC and the RAF/FAA have done on their ownsome in terms of training for operations from other than regular airfields and carrier decks. However, about a year ago the USMC and personnel from the RAF/FAA spent some time working out what was needed for landing and take-off using roadways and PSP with special mattress type runways. The 'exercise' was held here in the US using US supplied F-35Bs and lasted about 2 months IIRC.

 

[buffnut453]

I do not know how much the USMC and the RAF/FAA have done on their ownsome in terms of training for operations from other than regular airfields and carrier decks. However, about a year ago the USMC and personnel from the RAF/FAA spent some time working out what was needed for landing and take-off using roadways and PSP with special mattress type runways. The 'exercise' was held here in the US using US supplied F-35Bs and lasted about 2 months IIRC.

Yep, that was the series of trials I mentioned. I've heard nothing since about any more regular training for austere ops.

 

[ThomasP]

I think Norway and the UK (maybe the US as well?) did something similar more recently - maybe last summer or fall?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do not know how much the USMC and the RAF/FAA have done on their ownsome in terms of training for operations from other than regular airfields and carrier decks. However, about a year ago the USMC and personnel from the RAF/FAA spent some time working out what was needed for landing and take-off using roadways and PSP with special mattress type runways. The 'exercise' was held here in the US using US supplied F-35Bs and lasted about 2 months IIRC.

I gave this post a "like" not only because I learnt something, but especially for the use of the word "ownsome".

 

[buffnut453]

I think Norway and the UK (maybe the US as well?) did something similar more recently - maybe last summer or fall?

The USAF did a NATO interoperability exercise in Norway but it wasn't austere and it was simply to demonstrate that RNoAF ground crews could service USAF F-35s.

The only "austere" training I've seen from UK F-35s was a deployment with the Italian AF to Pontelleria Island….but they operated from a traditional airfield. They did do some cool rapid refueling on the ground from an Italian KC-130J but that still requires an airfield.

 

[ThomasP]

Whoops, you are correct. I went back and checked and it was RAF Typhoons and Norwegian F-35As that operated from roadways in Finland last year. The RAF announced last fall that it plans to test some of its F-35Bs off of roadways but apparently it has not yet happened. It is supposed to happen before the end of this year.

 

[Glider]

An observation. One important reason why the RN bought two carriers was because the Labour Government of the time worded the contracts so that: -

a) They were going to be built in Labour voting areas
b) It would be more expensive to cancel the carriers, than to build them and then scrap them. Once built, there was no way any government could just scrap them as the uproar would be overwhelming.
c) Few people would deny that if your going to build a carrier for F35B, then three smaller carriers would make a lot more sense than two huge carriers. Think of the Colossus/ Majestic class and later the Invincible class, both highly successful classes. However can you see any admiral or politician turning down a big Fleet Carrier?

 

[SaparotRob]

Again, I go back to my point about doctrine and training. The UK stopped training to operate the Harrier GR7/9 under austere conditions (ie dispersed ops away from traditional airfields) in the mid-90s. AFAIK, they've never tried to operate the F-35 under austere conditions.

The USMC has done some trials operating the F-35 from a disused highway but I think they're still a long way from being able to do that operationally for an extended period.

I'll believe the propaganda about the F-35 fighting from austere environments when I actually see consistent, realistic training by either military. Talking about it is one thing. Doing it consistently and effectively is entirely different. If you're not training to do it today, then you either won't do it during conflict…or you'll apply the "learn as you go" principle which could lead to all sorts of logistical, personnel, and technical problems.

Also, it's worth noting that carrier-capable aircraft can be flown from traditional airfields. The EA-18G fleet includes dedicated "concrete squadrons" (officially they're "expeditionary") that are not carrier-qualified.

If the UK and USMC are serious about STOVL as a means of delivering survivable air power, then they need to train for it…and train hard. In the good old days of the Cd War, the Harriers worked up to completing full TACEVALs while operating from dispersed hides off-base. We need to be able to do that with F-35 to demonstrate it's a real capability rather than just a romantic pipe-dream.

I think this adds to your argument.


View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/56zDpCyK10g?t=5&feature=share

 

[ThomasP]

Another thing to keep in mind re the choice of 2x (originally intended to be 3x?) large CVs vs smaller CVs such as the Invincible class, is that the QE
and POW are also intended to be operated as Marine/Commando helicopter assault(? not sure if that is the right term) ships. If my info is correct, they can carry 250 troops for 'extended' deployment periods, and upto 1000 troops for short periods (say around 2-3 weeks), and transport them ashore using a large helo contingent.

I am not sure, but I think the QE and POW can handle the ~same amount of aircraft and troops as 6x Invincible class.

They can also operate in heavier seas and have much more extensive C3I facilities.

 

[GTX]

I understand that the UK (& USMC) have undertaken numerous surveys reference STOVL vs. CATOBAR and determined that STOVL aircraft generate higher sortie rates, which means more airframes in the air on CAS/CAP missions at any one time. They also enjoy greater flexibility in terms of basing etc with STOVL.

 

[GTX]

Also see the following which addresses the issue in depth:

Cats, traps and claptrap. Why the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers operate VSTOL aircraft - Navy Lookout

There is a consistently held view that the Royal Navy was mistaken when it chose to adopt Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (VSTOL) aircraft carriers. In this long read we look at the convoluted history of the issue and review the arguments both for and against. Background During the...

www.navylookout.com

 

[Greyman]

Interesting capability.

Networked Sniper Pod Will Let 4th-Generation Fighters Create 'Kill Webs' With F-35s

The new Sniper pod will let F-35s provide targeting data to ground-based missiles and create an active link with 4th-generation fighters.

www.twz.com

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A West Coast Marine F-35C Lightning II squadron has achieved initial operational capability.

The Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 311, Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, hit that key milestone Wednesday, 1st Lt. Madison Walls, wing spokeswoman told Marine Corps Times. The status means a unit can employ, maintain and train on the jet.

The Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California, unit conducted its first independent live ordnance operations July 25.

"Initial operational capability is a milestone and achievement in readiness," said Lt. Col. Michael Fisher, commanding officer of VMFA-311 in a statement. "It's all on the backs of the Marines out there. What they do in their day-to-day actions is what made this possible."

Marines hit operational status with second carrier-capable F35-C unit

A West Coast Marine F-35C Lightning II squadron has achieved initial operational capability.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

 

[GTX]

Latest stats

 

[GTX]

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The newest F-35 Joint Strike Fighters are now able to carry out more elaborate training missions, but the government is withholding millions of dollars in payment to Lockheed Martin until the jets can fight in combat.

Lockheed Martin has upgraded the software in its latest batch of F-35s to handle "more robust combat training capability," the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed said in a joint statement Thursday. Previously, these F-35s could only carry out "initial training capability" using a partial version of the upgrades known as Technology Refresh 3.

The government refused to accept delivery of the new TR-3 fighters from Lockheed starting in July 2023 due to software integration problems and some hardware shortfalls. Lockheed continued to build F-35s while hunting for a solution to the TR-3 problem and stored them at its Fort Worth, Texas, facility.

Lockheed developed a partial version of the TR-3 software it referred to as "truncated," which would allow the jets to fly basic training missions — but not in combat. The government concluded the truncated software worked well enough to start accepting the jets and deliveries resumed in July 2024.

TR-3 upgrades include better displays, computer memory and processing power, which are necessary for a more expansive upgrade known as Block 4. In addition to allowing the F-35 to carry more weapons, the Block 4 upgrades will allow the jets to better identify targets and conduct electronic warfare.

New F-35s can fly combat training as DOD holds millions from Lockheed

The F-35 delivery delays due to upgrade problems have slowed down the Air Force's deployment of jets to England, among other consequences.

www.airforcetimes.com