World Naval Ships Forums  
VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT SPECIAL OFFERS HERE!

Go Back   World Naval Ships Forums > Naval History > Other Naval Topics
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Other Naval Topics Other general naval or navy-related topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-07-2016, 16:28
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is online now
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,719
Default Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

LOCKHEED MARTIN F35B LIGHTNING II

The following is from: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equi...strike-fighter will be obvious to most but is merely to get this thread started and separate information and discusion from the QEC thread. The intention is to only cover the F35B and not the other two variants.
"Before the end of this decade, the F35 Lightning II will provide the ultimate punch of the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The F35 – also known as the Joint Strike Fighter or Lightning II – is an Anglo-American joint effort, designed by the best and brightest in the two aircraft industries."
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'

Last edited by Pelican : 05-07-2016 at 17:24. Reason: Correction
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-07-2016, 17:54
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is online now
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,719
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

FROM THE QEC THREAD:

"Thanks for the link Grunt but on the other side of the coin it is not so impressive when it took 9 hrs and 5 refuellings each a/c to get over here. Makes one wonder what the actual as opposed to claimed max endurance and range will be with a full payload."

"F35B has approx the same range/combat radius as does the Tornado on internal fuel carried, so I think perhaps your fears are unfounded. Also remember Tornado operates solely from land (sorry for stating the obvious) to engage an enemy target. Whereas F35B will be carried far nearer to its intended target, thus theoretically increasing its range.
Tornado increases its range by carrying drop tanks, there again F35B can do the same, the argument against that is the loss of stealth. I have read somewhere that Israel is developing a system whereby the aircraft can carry tanks which can be jettisoned along with the pylons they are fixed to. Which then gives the aircraft back its full stealth capability.
Not wishing to sound facetious but flying a distance such as the Atlantic on ops won't be called for will it.
It was also mentioned that the reason for so many refuels, was to keep the aircraft topped up, so as never to be out of range of a safe recovery if needed."

"Except of course if the QE(R08) sails with 14 a/c and gets diverted to a 'situation'. Wouldn't the top-up a/c numbers will need to be ferried to her?"

The distance from Florida to the UK is approximately 4207 miles - what is that in nautical miles?
The combat radius of the F35B according to the opening link is 450 nautical miles - does that mean 225 out and 225 back?
To be fair those concerned would not want anything to go wrong on what is a show case visit so caution must be the watch word especially with no diversion airfield available mid ocean.
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-07-2016, 18:13
Rob Hoole's Avatar
Rob Hoole Rob Hoole is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Waterlooville, UK
Posts: 1,034
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

I'm guessing that close proximity to diversion airfields was precisely the reason for flying a greater distance. That and retaining sufficient reserves of fuel to divert if required. Who's to say they never went below 75% of fuel capacity? There was certainly no operational reason to take any unnecessary risks. The trip would also have allowed them to exploit the presence of the tankers to provide good training value.
US Air Force F-35s Land in UK After First Transatlantic Flight
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defense News 1 Jul 2016
Three F-35As from Luke Air Force Bases 51st Fighter Wing took off from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia at about 8:00 a.m., meeting with KC-10 and KC-135 tankers over the Atlantic Ocean to be refueled. The planes flew over Greenland, south of Iceland and the west coast of Scotland into England. A fourth spare F-35 returned to the US midway...
__________________
Best wishes,

Rob
www.mcdoa.org.uk

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-07-2016, 18:51
harry.gibbon's Avatar
harry.gibbon harry.gibbon is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 7,809
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

For info; see also thread on the US Navy Ships and Crews forum titled Video of F-35B short active discussion 2012-2013 with 16 posts.


Little h
__________________

GFXU - HMS Falmouth in Falmouth Bay
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-07-2016, 19:07
limeybiker's Avatar
limeybiker limeybiker is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ocala Florida USA
Posts: 1,187
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Re the need for inflight refueling.

I attended a lecture by Brian Shul an SR71 Blackbird pilot/photographer, here in Ocala two months ago, his photographs were quite astounding and some were probably against military rules at the time, what an amazing history he had.

He told the audience the planes could only fly 90 minutes before needing refueling, they took off with leaking tanks, because they shrank and became leak proof at the supersonic speeds.

http://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode-15/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Shul
__________________
Ride safe
Barry
<>
Sunny Ocala FLA USA
http://www.barrylockyer.com/






Last edited by limeybiker : 05-07-2016 at 21:03.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-07-2016, 20:05
davep davep is offline
Lieutenant-Commander
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dunfermline
Posts: 363
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

I think the time taken and the longer route taken are due to the fact that the aircraft is still under testing and so had to fly under stricter rules than an in service aircraft and having had to cancel last years visit they would be keen to make sure that the aircraft made its appearance at this years displays.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-07-2016, 21:38
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is online now
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,719
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Thank you all, that puts a different 'slant' on it, especially the actual route.
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-07-2016, 00:59
FlankDestroyer FlankDestroyer is offline
Sub-Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 108
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Fuel will be a problem for the QE F35B air wing in any case. Developing a shipboard tanker will essential downstream. My bet is the Osprey but I see nothing on the horizon.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-07-2016, 03:43
ASSAIL ASSAIL is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,291
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlankDestroyer View Post
Fuel will be a problem for the QE F35B air wing in any case. Developing a shipboard tanker will essential downstream. My bet is the Osprey but I see nothing on the horizon.
Why any more so than previous FAA aircraft? It flys from a mobile platform or in a Sea Base situation, deploys to a forward base. In most remote areas it will spend more time on task and spend less time in the air than the A model. It has far superior range than a Sea Harrier. The Libya campaign comparison between tankered land base aircraft and those deployed from mobile platforms, their time on task compared with their time in the air, their fuel burn, their response to Calls for fire...need I say more.
The RN Bs have the added advantage over USMC aircraft insomuch they fly from a ramp and will be able to further increase fuel and weapon loads particularly in high temperatures.

There is no problem and if future tactical requirements change and different CONOPS are developed for the QEs then maybe tanking becomes a requirement but that seems a long way in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-07-2016, 04:38
eskimosailor's Avatar
eskimosailor eskimosailor is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gosport, Hants
Posts: 1,314
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

The Osprey appears to have a very large wing/rotor span. Would it actually fit onto a QE class lift?
Steve
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-07-2016, 06:25
BlackBat242's Avatar
BlackBat242 BlackBat242 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,147
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican View Post
[b]FROM THE QEC THREAD:

The combat radius of the F35B according to the opening link is 450 nautical miles - does that mean 225 out and 225 back?
Quote:
radius
ˈrādēəs/
noun
noun: radius; plural noun: radii; plural noun: radiuses

1. a straight line from the center to the circumference of a circle or sphere.
Quote:
Combat radius refers to the distance from an airbase that a warplane can reach, patrol there for a set amount of time and return to base with minimal fuel left, thus completing a combat mission.
450 Nmiles out (with specified ordnance load and flying a specified flight profile), and deliver that ordnance. Another 450 Nmiles back.
__________________
Only a fool fights in a burning house. __ Jon A., Sgt USMC '81-'89; CV-61 USS Ranger '85-'87

Last edited by BlackBat242 : 06-07-2016 at 07:13.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-07-2016, 06:45
davep davep is offline
Lieutenant-Commander
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dunfermline
Posts: 363
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

for stowage the ospreys wings rotate so that they sit along the fuselage rather than fold like a conventional aircraft and the blades of the engines also fold. so fitting it on the QE lift shouldn't be a problem as as we are only going to carry about a dozen F35's there should be enough room and it would make a good COD aircraft as well better than the plan of using a helicopter as we probably will to save money.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-07-2016, 06:58
BlackBat242's Avatar
BlackBat242 BlackBat242 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,147
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimosailor View Post
The Osprey appears to have a very large wing/rotor span. Would it actually fit onto a QE class lift?
Steve
Like most naval aircraft, the Osprey folds up into a smaller package.

Here is a brochure giving dimensions "spread" and "folded" as well as drawings, a couple of photos of USMC Ospreys folded aboard ship - and selected photos from a sequence I took of a USAF CV-22A Osprey at our local air show 2 years ago.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg V-22 MASC-2.jpg (42.3 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg c35-1681-143.jpg (57.7 KB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg MV-22 folded.jpg (113.4 KB, 7 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3211.JPG (1.85 MB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3214.JPG (1.47 MB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3215.JPG (1.49 MB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3219.JPG (1.78 MB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3220.JPG (1.79 MB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3221.JPG (1.88 MB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3223.JPG (1.88 MB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3224.JPG (1.88 MB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_3230s.jpg (1.51 MB, 6 views)
__________________
Only a fool fights in a burning house. __ Jon A., Sgt USMC '81-'89; CV-61 USS Ranger '85-'87
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-07-2016, 13:27
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,030
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimosailor View Post
The Osprey appears to have a very large wing/rotor span. Would it actually fit onto a QE class lift?
Steve
Yes it can, excerpt from 'gabriele's' blog :-

"The deck footprint of a V22 is quite huge: 84,6 feet in width and 57,3 feet in length. When folded for storage, however, the width reduces to just 18,11 feet [5.8 meters], while the length increases to 63 feet. The V22 can be brought down into the CVF’s hangar without being folded, as the lift and hangars are big enough to take the airplane. The hangar is also high enough, at least for part of its length, to take the unfolded V22, which is 6,7 meters high, reducing to 5,5 meters when folded down
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-07-2016, 14:07
PhilipG PhilipG is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arundel, Sussex
Posts: 293
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Refuelling and Bring back

As I understand it there is a small problem with refuelling F35Bs from the QECs, in that the AirTanker contract states that they have exclusive rights to refuel UK Military aircraft. So having an Osprey based COD / Refuelling facility would besides being the expensive option of bringing a new to the UK aircraft into operation, require AirTanker to be compensated..

The F35B has always had weight problems, this is particularly true for vertical landing, even more so obviously in hot climes. To enable unused weapons to be brought back onboard, SRVL (Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing) is meant to be the answer, as far as I am aware the concept has yet to be proven, even on land testing. Obviously I hope it works as dropping cruise missiles or other smart weapons into the drink if you have not had to use them is a rather expensive pastime.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-07-2016, 15:37
Domino Domino is offline
Lieutenant-Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southern Spain
Posts: 382
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

why does the RAF have 14 x Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) (Voyager) if they have subbed the refuelling to a commercial company owned by all the other major players in the supply of Defence paraphernalia ?

Quote:
A review of the scheme by the National Audit Office (NAO) was published in March 2010, concluding that it did not represent value for money. The NAO decided that mistakes had been made at the beginning of the procurement process, leading to expensive additions to the plans and contract later on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future...anker_Aircraft

Quote:
"Shortcomings in the early stages of the project put the MOD in a position where the operational pressures of an aging fleet and the need to maintain the vital air bridge restricted its ability to deliver a solution which achieved value for money.

Despite taking five years longer than planned to sign a contract, the MOD's progress in delivering the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft project has improved since contract signature, and the project is meeting its delivery milestones. But there is more work for the MOD and its suppliers to do to get the best out of the deal." 

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 30 March 2010
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/minist...ft-capability/
__________________
Regards
Dom

take a large single malt and chill out
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-07-2016, 22:46
BlackBat242's Avatar
BlackBat242 BlackBat242 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,147
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post
why does the RAF have 14 x Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) (Voyager) if they have subbed the refuelling to a commercial company owned by all the other major players in the supply of Defence paraphernalia ?
MOD does not actually own those 14 aircraft - they are owned by AirTanker, and the aircraft and services are leased to the RAF under a private finance initiative contract (PFI).

From the wiki link in your post:
Quote:
The use of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) rather than purchase was chosen in 2000.

Under the PFI the RAF will pay for aerial refuelling and air transport missions as required. The RAF will continue to retain responsibility for all military missions, whilst the contractor will own, manage and maintain the aircraft and also provide training facilities and some personnel.

The private company will also be able to earn extra revenue by using aircraft for commercial operations when not required by the RAF the most suitable of which would be leased air-refuelling missions for other European air forces.

The RAF however will always have the "first call" on aircraft, being able to mobilise the entire fleet in times of crisis.
Specifically, 9 Voyager aircraft are assigned to RAF tasks "full-time", with the remaining 5 chartered out to other militaries and to civilian organizations unless required by the RAF for specific operations ("surge" capability).

For example:
Quote:
In June 2014 Thomas Cook Airlines entered into an agreement to lease one of the 5 "surge" aircraft from Airtanker. The aircraft will differ from the Voyager fleet by having 32 more seats, different seats with in flight video, and they will receive Thomas Cook livery.
__________________
Only a fool fights in a burning house. __ Jon A., Sgt USMC '81-'89; CV-61 USS Ranger '85-'87
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-07-2016, 23:50
harry.gibbon's Avatar
harry.gibbon harry.gibbon is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 7,809
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

The PFI - AirTanker - RAF K Mk 2 (Airbus A330 variant) 'Voyager'

also mentioned in the 'Non-Naval Jet Aircraft' thread see post #444 dated 29-10-2013.


Little h
__________________

GFXU - HMS Falmouth in Falmouth Bay
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-07-2016, 23:56
FlankDestroyer FlankDestroyer is offline
Sub-Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 108
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Why any more so than previous FAA aircraft? It flys from a mobile platform or in a Sea Base situation, deploys to a forward base. In most remote areas it will spend more time on task and spend less time in the air than the A model. It has far superior range than a Sea Harrier. The Libya campaign comparison between tankered land base aircraft and those deployed from mobile platforms, their time on task compared with their time in the air, their fuel burn, their response to Calls for fire...need I say more.
The RN Bs have the added advantage over USMC aircraft insomuch they fly from a ramp and will be able to further increase fuel and weapon loads particularly in high temperatures.

There is no problem and if future tactical requirements change and different CONOPS are developed for the QEs then maybe tanking becomes a requirement but that seems a long way in the future.
Of course the F35B has better performance than a Harrier. Nobody would argue otherwise. But gas is still a problem and an indigenous capability is essential for sustained operations, inter alia to keep Combat Air Patrol aloft/further out let alone to increase standoff ranges or enable deeper strikes.

Tanking is a problem for any would be Carrier Strike Group and always has been.

These carriers need to be able to leverage both in house tanking plus land based systems.

We have no idea what future tactical requirements will be...do we? The RN in the Falklands had to go with what they had for example. Every Naval War in history has shown the things just do not work out as planned years before back at HQ.

I am advocating for a more flexible platform albeit more expense to be sure. The Osprey looks to be the only viable alternative in the near term for F35 tanking.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-07-2016, 06:18
eskimosailor's Avatar
eskimosailor eskimosailor is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gosport, Hants
Posts: 1,314
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
Yes it can, excerpt from 'gabriele's' blog :-

"The deck footprint of a V22 is quite huge: 84,6 feet in width and 57,3 feet in length. When folded for storage, however, the width reduces to just 18,11 feet [5.8 meters], while the length increases to 63 feet. The V22 can be brought down into the CVFs hangar without being folded, as the lift and hangars are big enough to take the airplane. The hangar is also high enough, at least for part of its length, to take the unfolded V22, which is 6,7 meters high, reducing to 5,5 meters when folded down
Many thanks Gruntfuttock, Blackball and DaveP for your replies. They, of course lead to further queries, which I guess should be reserved to new threads as and when relevant.
Steve
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-07-2016, 12:41
Jack65 Jack65 is online now
Chief Petty Officer
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 91
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

I understand 22 SAS at Hereford is making use of at least one V22 Osprey, namely because it can fly a unit of Special Forces to London in 36 minutes. Don't know if leased / borrowed or purchased etc. But i'm sure when the USMC embark on QE with the F35B, they'll bring V22's with IFR capability with them........
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-07-2016, 13:48
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,030
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack65 View Post
I understand 22 SAS at Hereford is making use of at least one V22 Osprey, namely because it can fly a unit of Special Forces to London in 36 minutes. Don't know if leased / borrowed or purchased etc. But i'm sure when the USMC embark on QE with the F35B, they'll bring V22's with IFR capability with them........
There was a flurry of such reports of these aircraft flying round London, my take on it is that it was a media feeding frenzy.
At the time President Obama was visiting the UK, and knowing the security that goes with him, I would suggest that these were US aircraft carrying out recce exercises for his visit. Checking out routes, landing spots etc.
Of course every red top in the UK then jumped in with the idea that the SAS were being fitted out with these aircraft.
I have done some searching, and can find no reliable sources to back this up. I know that it is difficult to get any such info if it concerns SF but you can normally get some idea from the professionals if there is any basis for these stories. I can find none. Not saying that SF have not been trying the kit out, as they do with many things, but that's a far cry from acquiring it.
It would be nice to think there was some truth in it, but I have my doubts. Perhaps others would have more info, and might let us know.
Cheers
Grunt
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-07-2016, 15:12
PhilipG PhilipG is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arundel, Sussex
Posts: 293
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

There might be some value in looking at the USN's CMV-22B, the long range Osprey that is going to replace the Greyhound as the USN's COD aircraft, it has a range of 1,150 nautical miles.

Another thing about the Osprey is that it can carry the P&W F135 engine for the F35B.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-07-2016, 18:00
emason's Avatar
emason emason is online now
Vice-Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,897
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

I saw one of these Osprey aircraft last year operating over the Army military ranges near Richmond (Yorkshire) and wondered what it was - now I know.
__________________
Regards, Bill

"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?" - Cicero.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-07-2016, 18:16
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,030
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

F35B due for third phase of shipborne tests :-

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...d-test-427094/
Reply With Quote
Reply



Ship Search by Name : Advanced Search
Random Timeline Entry : 1st January 1940 : HMS Broke : 15th Destroyer Flotilla 29th Division

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HMS Lightning and HMS Lookout TallPaul91 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 18 05-01-2018 20:41
HMS Martin G44 geekgirl101 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 5 21-10-2010 06:46
Lightning/Staunch/Victoria mossie Royal Navy Ships and Crews 0 29-07-2010 19:58
HMS Lightning jbc1 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 4 25-01-2008 22:51


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.