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
  #151  
Old 14-08-2016, 08:13
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Thermal imaging of F35B:-

http://defense-update.com/20160812_f35_thermal.html
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 14-08-2016, 08:19
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
EMALS:
90%+ chance. Lets assume you are right. Lets call it 95% chance. This late in the programme a 1 in 20 chance that EMALS doesn't work is massive. Had we gone for EMALS that would be a 1 in 20 chance that our carriers would be useless as designed (because we could not concert to steam catapults as the USN could do) and that our aircraft purchase would be the wrong type even if we managed to convert to STOVL (and don't underestimate the cost of doing that at this late stage). It would be a 1 in 20 chance of at least a £1bn bill. There is no way that is acceptable for us. The US can sned its F35Bs to the USMC and convert to steam catapults and have loads of other carriers in the meantime. For us it would be game over - the carriers would probably be scrapped.

Furthermore the risk was higher at the time, and the whispers I have heard in the last 2 months are that it might be higher now. Like I said, this is way beyond teething problems.


Spy-3: It's been taken off the Zumwalt, and they have already made the decision that it won't be on any future carriers. So GRF is the only one with it. That tells us all we need to know. But essentially volume search is not working, so the X band will have to do both surveillance and fire control. And it won't be as effective for long range surveillance as the S-band (there are other issues with this as well, but this is not the place for an explanation of time-energy of phased arrays)

Fortunately, whispers bear no relation to facts. EMALS is fixable and is being proved so. Perhaps if you have any articles stating that EMALS is not fixable, and that the USN will give up on it, you might be kind enough to share them with us.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 14-08-2016, 09:01
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

The most recent publicly available information is Gilmore's memo which has been reported in a variety of places, including:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...fare-memo-says

So a reliability 10 times worse than the requirement - at this late stage. I would count that as more than teething problems knowing the reliability of systems we have (some of which do have teething problems). Note that it is new technology, so it isn't the case that there is a solution known, this is new territory

ETA
This link
http://wtkr.com/2016/07/25/u-s-navys...er-cant-fight/
states that
Quote:
Fixing these problems would likely require redesigning the carrier’s aircraft launch and recovery systems, according to Gilmore, a process that could result in another delay for a ship
Now in the normal run of things I would put the need for re-design down to media hype, but it does match what I have heard more privately.

Time will tell

Last edited by Rupert : 14-08-2016 at 09:19.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 14-08-2016, 13:00
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
The most recent publicly available information is Gilmore's memo which has been reported in a variety of places, including:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...fare-memo-says

So a reliability 10 times worse than the requirement - at this late stage. I would count that as more than teething problems knowing the reliability of systems we have (some of which do have teething problems). Note that it is new technology, so it isn't the case that there is a solution known, this is new territory

ETA
This link
http://wtkr.com/2016/07/25/u-s-navys...er-cant-fight/
states that

Now in the normal run of things I would put the need for re-design down to media hype, but it does match what I have heard more privately.

Time will tell

Thanks for your reply. In regards to your comment in regards to new technology, that was my whole point. Something like this, a completely revolutionary system is bound to have problems. that's a no brainer. The way the news hounds are reporting it though, as a complete disaster is journalism at it's worst.

The ship isn't yet fully completed or systems fully tested,and they are writing it off. Apart from which I am always wary of these sort of leaks to the press, and lets face it CNN is not the most reliable of outlets.

Don't you also find it interesting that :Gilmore wrote. Recent Navy data indicates the carrier can conduct only 400 launches between critical failures, “well below the requirement” of 4,166 takeoffs.

A Navy statement refering to the land based testing of the system stated:- June 2014: The Navy completed EMALS prototype testing of 450 manned aircraft launches involving every fixed-wing carrier-borne aircraft type in the USN inventory at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst during two Aircraft Compatibility Testing (ACT) campaigns.

Now I'm obviously no expert, but ground testing is obviously a critical area before onboard testing, and that was two years ago. So I would doubt very much that it has regressed during that time.Surely if these tests hadn't been satisfactory then they would not have been deemed completed.

I may be a sceptic, but I would say someone has been carrying out some non judicious editing, in regards to dates and numbers being stated.

Cheers
GF


Cheers
GF

Last edited by gruntfuttock : 14-08-2016 at 13:23.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 15-08-2016, 03:56
BlackBat242's Avatar
BlackBat242 BlackBat242 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,175
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Spy-3: It's been taken off the Zumwalt, and they have already made the decision that it won't be on any future carriers. So GRF is the only one with it. That tells us all we need to know. But essentially volume search is not working, so the X band will have to do both surveillance and fire control. And it won't be as effective for long range surveillance as the S-band (there are other issues with this as well, but this is not the place for an explanation of time-energy of phased arrays)
The information I have seen is that SPY-3 (X-band horizon search radar)* remains aboard the Zumwalts (for now). It was the SPY-4 (S-band Volume Search Radar)**, which was to work with SPY-3 (the combination being named Dual-Band Radar [DBR]), that was deleted from the Zumwalts - but to reduce costs, not because of any performance problems. SPY-4 has been installed in Ford, along with SPY-3.

This has resulted in work to modify the SPY-3 to perform volume-search as well, but it can only do one at a time - either horizon or volume search, meaning the system is much less effective than originally intended, which significantly reduced the ability of the Zumwalts to perform area air defense - it is currently only listed as capable of local air defense.


The USN has long experience with "orphan" complex radar systems - the SCANFAR was installed on only two vessels, the carrier USS Enterprise and the cruiser USS Long Beach. SCANFAR consisted of two radars, the AN/SPS-32 and the AN/SPS-33. The AN/SPS-32 was a horizontally wide rectangular antenna for air surveillance (long-range air search and target acquisition). The AN/SPS-32 operated together with the AN/SPS-33, which was a vertical narrow rectangular antenna for 3D target tracking, frequency-scanned in elevation and phase-scanned in azimuth. It had significant reliability and maintainability issues - exaggerated greatly by the lack of parts & maintenance support due to not being in-service fleet-wide.

The USN rightly wants to standardize its systems as much as possible - if the DBR had been fully-funded and the Zumwalt class had been produced in the numbers intended, then more carriers than Ford would also be fitted with it - but it is now a "dead-end" system.



There are current discussions (but not hard plans) to replace the SPY-3 in the Zumwalts (and possibly in Ford) with SPY-6 (which has both X-band and S-band radars incorporated) at some undetermined later date. SPY-6 was formerly known as AMDR (Air and Missile Defense Radar).

Ford might instead be retrofitted with the under-development Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) scheduled for installation in CVN-79 JFK and later carriers. This system is still subject of a competition between Northrop-Grumman & Raytheon.



* SPY-3 X-band radar: horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets

** SPY-4 S-band radar: volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications
__________________
Only a fool fights in a burning house. __ Jon A., Sgt USMC '81-'89; CV-61 USS Ranger '85-'87

Last edited by BlackBat242 : 15-08-2016 at 04:23.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 15-08-2016, 11:07
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
A Navy statement refering to the land based testing of the system stated:- June 2014: The Navy completed EMALS prototype testing of 450 manned aircraft launches involving every fixed-wing carrier-borne aircraft type in the USN inventory at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst during two Aircraft Compatibility Testing (ACT) campaigns.

Now I'm obviously no expert, but ground testing is obviously a critical area before onboard testing, and that was two years ago. So I would doubt very much that it has regressed during that time.Surely if these tests hadn't been satisfactory then they would not have been deemed completed.

I may be a sceptic, but I would say someone has been carrying out some non judicious editing, in regards to dates and numbers being stated.

Cheers
GF


Cheers
GF
I think you are misinterpreting the figures. 450 launches during ground test were done. But not without critical failures.

So saying that it cannot now do 400 without critical failures does not indicate regression. A couple of years ago it was down at 10 launches per critical failure IIRC.

Now one could say that it is a big improvement, but the failures that I have heard are now the issue do seem to be at the difficult end of the spectrum
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 15-08-2016, 14:44
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I think you are misinterpreting the figures. 450 launches during ground test were done. But not without critical failures.

So saying that it cannot now do 400 without critical failures does not indicate regression. A couple of years ago it was down at 10 launches per critical failure IIRC.

Now one could say that it is a big improvement, but the failures that I have heard are now the issue do seem to be at the difficult end of the spectrum
I don't think that I was misinterpreting the figures, but I find so many differing opinions published by people/authorities who have a different agenda, that the discussion could go on ad infinitum.

I hope that I don't appear churlish, but your remarks like 'Whispers I have heard' and 'Failures that I have heard' are quite frankly irrelevant if not accompanied by facts. I understand that you may not be able, due to confidentiality to reveal these sources, but it does make for some frustration.

The following article although dated I found interesting, particularly the last few paragraphs concerning data.

Amid Criticism, US Navy Confident in New Arresting Gear System for Next Carrier
Christopher P. Cavas 3:35 p.m. EST January 3, 2015


WASHINGTON — A host of new technologies and systems will begin to enter service when the new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is delivered in the first half of 2016, and for over a decade it's been a good question whether all the new whiz-bang technology will be ready in time.

While the US Navy and its suppliers remain under scrutiny to make it all happen, they're also increasingly confident the key new technologies — including the dual-band radar (DBR), electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) and advanced arresting gear (AAG) — will be delivered.

The latter two technologies represent a major shift for carrier operations, allowing aircraft to be launched and recovered without bulky and manpower-intensive steam catapults and hydraulic wires.

But, program officials have acknowledged, testing and development of the systems will continue past the ship's planned March 2016 delivery date. Initial operational test and evaluation work isn't to start until the second half of 2017, with integration testing continuing to the end of that year. The ship's initial deployment is scheduled to take place in 2019.
Under development by the US Navy and General Atomics,

Under development by the US Navy and General Atomics, the advanced arresting gear uses water twisters to absorb the energy of aircraft landing aboard ship. (Photo: Staff Illustration)

Worries over concurrent design, testing, development and construction have been a feature of the CVN 78 program since its inception in the 2000s, when the George W. Bush administration's emphasis on transformation forced the Navy to bring forward several technologies still in development. Years after the first contracts were issued for the ship, those worries persist, despite reassurances

"Concerns over system integration within platform space, weight and power reservations have been resolved," program officials told the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a report released in March. "Land-based testing for EMALS and DBR has progressed enough that program officials do not anticipate significant redesign. Further, the AAG test schedule remains on track to support ship delivery and sea trials."

But in a November report on the carrier program, GAO continued to sound a worried tone.

"The shipboard test program is further at risk because additional design changes and modifications to the shipboard AAG units remain likely," GAO wrote. "This is because the Navy will now be conducting land-based testing of AAG even as shipboard testing is under way."

GAO also cited delays in AAG development, which have added four and a half years to the arresting gear program, with testing continuing to the end of 2016.

Yet Navy officials are more confident than ever that the new radar and launch systems will be ready. Less has been said about the AAG, which uses a new electric motor-based system and energy-absorbing water twisters to bring supersonic jet aircraft to a halt within a distance of about 340 feet. As of now, the arresting gear seems to have more outstanding issues than the DBR or EMALS.

"AAG has had, over the past four years, several developmental tests … that have delayed our test program," Capt. Stephen Tedford, program manager for the Navy's Aircraft Launch, Recovery and Equipment Office, said in a December interview.

But, he said, the GAO's claim of four and a half years of AAG delays is not accurate.

"We have had delays on the advanced arresting gear, that is a true statement," Tedford said. "We are continuing to work through those delays, and I believe we are still in support of ship delivery in 2016."

A serious problem with the water twisters, discovered early in 2012, was a key factor in the delays, he explained. Internal plates that take the force of the water weren't strong enough, and finding a solution took time.

"In the arresting gear case, we have had certain specific issues with respect to the water twisters that put us out of test for quite a while," Tedford said. "I can't run the system until that specific issue is solved, until we had replacement water twisters, and we could actually get back into full envelope testing, and not just the low end. Until I actually start testing at the upper end where the energy is highest, when I am stressing the system the most, and when I am likely to find my next issue. But I can't get back in to test, I can't find the next issue."

Water twister technology isn't new, Tedford explained, and manufacturer General Atomics describes the system as simple and proven. But existing systems are fixed in their capacity to absorb energy.

"Ours are variable," Tedford said. "You have an actual moving plate inside the water twister that adjusts how much resistance to the water is generated. Generally, there was an underestimation of the forces involved inside the water twister. You are talking about a three-dimensional flow field, it is very difficult to predict, and it was underestimated."

The solution, he said, was to use thicker plates. "We beefed up the entire design of the water twister. The footprint, the outer diameter and the size and the shape are all still the same. It is the internal components that we have made stronger."

AAG tests have yet to involve real aircraft. Rather, dead loads simulating the weight of planes have been used to test the system at a jet car track installed at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. "To date, that site has executed 537 dead loads, so the system does work," Tedford said.

A full-scale AAG is being built into a runway at Lakehurst — the same runway where an EMALS has been installed and running tests since 2011. Aircraft recoveries will begin in late 2015, Tedford said.

GAO also repeated longstanding criticisms that the Navy is performing tests while delivering components to the ship, meaning expensive changes are made when problems are found. The situation was envisioned and accepted long ago, but there is little question changes are easier to make before parts are installed — and for both the EMALS and AAG, 94 percent of the hardware has been delivered to the Ford.

"Yes, we have been concurrent, with respect to design and production, for several years now, and that has continued," Tedford acknowledged. "Where we have been able to get designs changed into the production hardware prior to delivery to the ship, we have done so. For those that are outstanding, we have a field change work package program that brings those changes to the ship."

Where to make changes is decided on a case-by-case basis.

"As we have discovery of design changes in a development test program, we make a determination on each and every one if that redesign is required on the ship, and when it is required on the ship," Tedford said. "Every one is categorized as it relates to the ship construction and test schedule, as well as her post-delivery, post shakedown availability schedule. It really depends on the critical nature of the design change."

GAO also raised concerns about reliability of both the EMALS and AAG systems. But certifying system reliability, Tedford pointed out, can be difficult to prove before a system is installed.

"Reliability comes from a significant number of cycles on any system, it is statistics-based," Tedford said. "So you have to have hundreds of thousands of cycles in order to achieve system reliability. And the way that reliability growth is established is, it's not just from the system installed at Lakehurst, it's in combination with the ship and the second ship of class, and the third ship of class over time. So it was never in our program, as a requirement or anything else, in order to meet threshold reliability for either system when the ship delivered, simply because it is not possible to get there statistically."

The single EMALS catapult at Lakehurst, he pointed out, "is as close as we can get to the ship-based system on land, but it is not a four-catapult, identical system to what they have on CVN 78. Plus, realize that the testing that we do has been just that — it has been developmental testing. We are trying to find faults in the system. We are trying to find where it fails. That is the point. We are not intentionally doing reliability testing, which would be part of the envelope — repetitive, the same test point over and over and over again — to build reliability. That actually is in the next phase of the test program that kicks off later this year."

Tedford admits challenges remain, but he declared confidence.

"Both of these systems work," he said. "EMALS is on a great trajectory right now, and advanced arresting gear is on a similar vector.

"We are very excited," he added.


NB:- Are we in danger of being told off for going OT in regards to the F35B only rule.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 15-08-2016, 18:23
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,849
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
NB:- Are we in danger of being told off for going OT in regards to the F35B only rule.

Personally I don't think so GF as Emals no longer applies to the QEC thread unless a 'small' fortune is paid later but its up to our gallant Moderator. We have made our bed and must sleep in it. Emals - good in theory but in practice?
Mind you BAE might be glad of a small fortune given the state of their pension scheme.
__________________
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 : 15-08-2016 at 18:25. Reason: Addition
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 15-08-2016, 19:08
Domino Domino is offline
Lieutenant-Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southern Spain
Posts: 382
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican View Post
Quote:
NB:- Are we in danger of being told off for going OT in regards to the F35B only rule.

Personally I don't think so GF as Emals no longer applies to the QEC thread unless a 'small' fortune is paid later but its up to our gallant Moderator. We have made our bed and must sleep in it. Emals - good in theory but in practice?
Mind you BAE might be glad of a small fortune given the state of their pension scheme.
Agree with that, the two items are closely linked as are the expensive fittings that people want to hang on them

Just wish people would only give an initial explanatory paragraph or two (if they are short) and then a URL to read the article - rather than posting the article in it's entirety without the URL.
__________________
Regards
Dom

take a large single malt and chill out
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 15-08-2016, 21:20
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
I hope that I don't appear churlish, but your remarks like 'Whispers I have heard' and 'Failures that I have heard' are quite frankly irrelevant if not accompanied by facts. I understand that you may not be able, due to confidentiality to reveal these sources, but it does make for some frustration.
I fully understand that. It is weak I know, and I don't have strong, reliable information that I could absolutely trust (ironically if I did I probably couldn't post it). But even the official news isn't good, and what I heard did match what the official news was when it come. So I do wonder how serious the problems are.

Like I said. Time will tell
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 16-08-2016, 13:13
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

MOD signs £184 million contract to secure air-to-air missiles for the F-35

From:
Ministry of Defence, Defence Equipment and Support and Harriett Baldwin MP
First published:
16 August 2016

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has awarded a contract worth around £184 million to ensure the UK’s new supersonic stealth combat aircraft will continue to be equipped with the latest air-to-air missile.
F-35B Lightning II

Designed and manufactured in the UK, ASRAAM is an advanced heat-seeking weapon which will give Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy F-35B Lightning II pilots, operating from land and the UK’s two new aircraft carriers, the ability to defeat current and future air adversaries.

The new contract will see MBDA manufacture an additional stockpile of an updated version of the weapon, allowing F-35 combat jets to use the missile beyond 2022. Work to integrate the new missile onto the UK’s F-35 fleet will be carried out under a separate contract.

Minister for Defence Procurement, Harriett Baldwin said:

Wholly designed and built in the UK, this air-to-air missile on our F-35 aircraft will secure cutting-edge air power for the UK for years to come.

This contract will sustain around 400 jobs across the country and is part of the MOD’s £178 billion Equipment Plan which is backed by a defence budget that will increase every year from now until the end of the decade.

The award is part of an overarching agreement with MBDA which is sustaining around 200 jobs at the company’s sites in Bristol, Stevenage and Bolton, with a further 200 sustained across the supply chain. Work on ASRAAM will be carried out at MBDA’s new, £40 million state of the art manufacturing facility that is nearing completion in the Logistic North commercial development in Bolton.

MBDA’s investment in this new facility is a demonstration of the company’s commitment to maintaining highly skilled engineering jobs in the region as well as to providing the very best equipment required by the UK’s armed forces.

ASRAAM, which uses a sophisticated infra-red seeker, is designed to enable UK pilots to engage and defend themselves against other aircraft.

It is capable of engaging hostile air targets ranging in size from large multi-engined aircraft to small drones.

Chief Executive Officer at the MOD’s Defence Equipment and Support organisation, Tony Douglas said:

ASRAAM will provide vital offensive and defensive options for UK F-35 pilots against a wide range of air-to-air threats.

The project to update the weapon and integrate it with the F-35, the world’s most advanced combat aircraft, provides a clear example of the MOD and UK industry working effectively together to provide our UK Armed Forces with the best equipment possible.

ASRAAM is currently in service with RAF Typhoon and Tornado aircraft and is being carried daily on missions over Iraq and Syria as part of the coalition fight against Daesh.

The updated missile variant being secured under this new contract is expected to enter service on RAF Typhoon aircraft from 2018 and on RAF and Royal Navy F-35 aircraft from 2022, when the current variant will be taken out of service.

The contract for ASRAAM is just the latest demonstration of the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Armed Forces have the best possible equipment. With the biggest defence budget in Europe and the second biggest in NATO the Government is investing in new aircraft carriers, submarines, warships and patrol vessels.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 16-08-2016, 13:19
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I fully understand that. It is weak I know, and I don't have strong, reliable information that I could absolutely trust (ironically if I did I probably couldn't post it). But even the official news isn't good, and what I heard did match what the official news was when it come. So I do wonder how serious the problems are.

Like I said. Time will tell
I am sure it will. Have you any knowlege of what is causing these failures specifically in regards to EMALS. Is it software,hardware, or the power requirements etc. I can't remember seeing any references to specific causes, whatever it is the US are keeping it very close to their chests.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 16-08-2016, 16:55
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,849
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

REF:
"MOD signs £184 million contract to secure air-to-air missiles for the F-35"
Out of interest what will the USMC be using?
It would also be interesting to know what the pros and cons are of sharing are, not least cost wise?
__________________
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
  #164  
Old 16-08-2016, 17:46
Surfgun Surfgun is offline
Vice-Admiral
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

The US Air to Air missiles, all services use the AMRAAM and the latest generation of Sidewinders.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 17-08-2016, 20:19
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
I am sure it will. Have you any knowlege of what is causing these failures specifically in regards to EMALS. Is it software,hardware, or the power requirements etc. I can't remember seeing any references to specific causes, whatever it is the US are keeping it very close to their chests.
Hardware I believe
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 18-08-2016, 08:03
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Hardware I believe

TKS for that.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 23-08-2016, 21:47
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,849
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

The F-35 ‘Integrated Test Force’ recently completed 25 missions comprising of 12 accuracy and 13 separation tests as part of a month long weapons test surge.

Full article here: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35...paig n=social
__________________
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
  #168  
Old 29-08-2016, 16:18
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,849
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Royal Navy engineer Ian Tidball takes you on a tour of F-35B Lightning II.

It is expected that the UK will build a front-line fleet of four F-35 squadrons with each squadron having 12 jets. A fifth unit, an operational conversion unit, will also operate 12 aircraft.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/watc...paig n=social
__________________
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
  #169  
Old 29-08-2016, 21:44
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

I hope the UK will be sending personel on this deployment, to see and learn from some of these upgrades:-
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/29/ame...ting-this-fall
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-09-2016, 14:42
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Even the detractors of F35 seem to be unusually quiet just lately. Here is another milestone met. :-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...eployment.html
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 02-09-2016, 15:12
limeybiker's Avatar
limeybiker limeybiker is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ocala Florida USA
Posts: 1,189
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Navy F-35C Landed So Precisely, It Tore Up a Runway

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/08/18/na...e-up-a-runway/

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/20...hit-drone.html
__________________
Ride safe
Barry
<©¿©>
Sunny Ocala FLA USA
http://www.barrylockyer.com/





Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-09-2016, 15:48
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,849
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by limeybiker View Post
C and A, interesting Barry but what about the B?
__________________
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
  #173  
Old 02-09-2016, 15:59
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,059
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican View Post
C and A, interesting Barry but what about the B?
Exactly, why would that be relevent to the UK
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-09-2016, 06:48
BlackBat242's Avatar
BlackBat242 BlackBat242 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,175
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Because the same base-line flight-control software that is doing so well with the F-35C landings also controls the F-35B in "normal" landings - so that when an F-35B is doing a SRVL aboard QE or POW it will also touch down on the deck exactly where the pilot wants it to.

And while the UK wants SRAAM and Meteor instead of AIM-9X & AIM-120, the experience of creating the software to successfully launch and target flying drones is directly applicable to the likelihood of success when the ARAAM/Meteor software is developed.

90% or so (if not more) of what any version of the F-35 does in development and testing is applicable to all the other variants.
__________________
Only a fool fights in a burning house. __ Jon A., Sgt USMC '81-'89; CV-61 USS Ranger '85-'87
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 04-09-2016, 21:53
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,849
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

The F-35B is “ready to go right now” if needed to fly combat missions, the head of US Marine Aviation has said.

Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said:

“There were a lot of people out here that said, ‘Hey, the Marines are just going to declare IOC [initial operational capability] because it would be politically untenable not to do that. IOC in the Marine Corps means we will deploy that airplane in combat.


Full article here: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35...paig n=social

P.S. Please also see: http://uk.businessinsider.com/lockhe...2016?r=US&IR=T Altho I believe we are going our own way in some respects.

[Well done the Lt. Gen. for explaining the acronyms ]
__________________
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 : 04-09-2016 at 21:58. Reason: P.S.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Ship Search by Name : Advanced Search
Random Timeline Entry : 21st January 1935 : HMS Boreas : Sailed Port Itea

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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 08:05.


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