Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

F119Doctor said:
There is no Intermediate level maintenance for the F135 engine. O-level replaces LRUs with the engine installed, or removes the engine and replaces high level modules (Fan, Gearbox, Augmentor, and/or Gas Generator (core, LPT and Fan ducts)), which are sent to depot for repair or overhaul. Believe the rest of the aircraft is similar, but only know the F135 maintenance concept.
Click to expand...
Okay, thank you, much appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Jackonicko said:
It's not remotely sad. Having a few F-35Bs for the carrier and to explore 4th/5th Gen teaming has been useful, but the F-35B has proved to be costly to support and sustain, lacking availability and with very limited weapons options. None of that is likely to change significantly in the near term, and by the time it does, the innate and inherent limitations of the F-35 will make it increasingly unable to 'cope' in the coming air power epoch. Had we acquired a larger number of F-35Bs we would not be looking at getting GCAP towards the end of the next decade.
Click to expand...
Should have gone with catapults and F-35Cs.
 
sferrin said:
Should have gone with catapults and F-35Cs.
Click to expand...
Much more expensive(EMALS alone come 1.3 bn apiece), already small fleet split in half (RAF doesn't need C).

Lesser international interoperability.

UK didn't and doesn't have weapon options using deeper f-35a/c bay anyway.

All problems of early block F-35 still in place. USN waited them out, RAF/FAA could not.
 
Ainen said:
Much more expensive(EMALS alone come 1.3 bn apiece), already small fleet split in half (RAF doesn't need C).

Lesser international interoperability.

UK didn't and doesn't have weapon options using deeper f-35a/c bay anyway.

All problems of early block F-35 still in place. USN waited them out, RAF/FAA could not.
Click to expand...

STOVL also dramatically lowers carrier qualification effort. I believe it actually allows for recovery in higher sea states as well.

The main loss is the lack of AEW, but I think UK would have been hard pressed afford E-2 anyway.
 
Josh_TN said:
The main loss is the lack of AEW, but I think UK would have been hard pressed afford E-2 anyway.
Click to expand...
While I understand there have been delays, isn't this supposed to be addressed by Crowsnest?

Merlin HM2 Crowsnest ASaC Helicopter Royal Navy AW101

merlin hm2 crowsnest airborne surveillance control helicopter asac royal navy fleet air arm 820 nas
www.seaforces.org

Merlin-HM2-ASAC-005.jpg
 
Hi folks, the followung article discusses the "Franken-Lightning," a unique F-35 aircraft created by combining parts from two damaged F-35s. The project was a collaborative effort by the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), the 388th Fighter Wing, the Ogden Air Logistics Complex, and Lockheed Martin. The aircraft, known as AF-5269, was made by merging the cockpit and forward fuselage of one F-35 with the aft fuselage of another. This innovative project aimed to restore the aircraft to full operational status, saving millions in taxpayer dollars and enhancing fleet readiness.
Source:
theaviationist.com

First Public Glimpse Of The 'Franken-Lightning' Built From Two Damaged F-35s

They combined the cockpit from an F-35, which experienced an engine failure on the runway, with the aft fuselage from another F-35, which suffered a nose
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com
 
GTX said:
While I understand there have been delays, isn't this supposed to be addressed by Crowsnest?

Merlin HM2 Crowsnest ASaC Helicopter Royal Navy AW101

merlin hm2 crowsnest airborne surveillance control helicopter asac royal navy fleet air arm 820 nas
www.seaforces.org

Merlin-HM2-ASAC-005.jpg
Click to expand...

Sure, but there are rather huge limitations with using a helo as your AEW. IMO the main advantage of EMALS on UK carriers would not be F-35C: the performance difference is marginal and the C actually quite heavier, but the lack of support aircraft that require cats. But again, the costs of E-2D ownership were probably very daunting on top of EMALS. If the choice was just F-35B vs C, the B has some huge cost savings, better acceleration, and mild range and payload disadvantages.
 
Josh_TN said:
Sure, but there are rather huge limitations with using a helo as your AEW. IMO the main advantage of EMALS on UK carriers would not be F-35C: the performance difference is marginal and the C actually quite heavier, but the lack of support aircraft that require cats. But again, the costs of E-2D ownership were probably very daunting on top of EMALS. If the choice was just F-35B vs C, the B has some huge cost savings, better acceleration, and mild range and payload disadvantages.
Click to expand...
I see the future of UK AEW in the form of a drone. Would make far more sense to deploy it that way and dispense with the need for manned operators in the aircraft. Can either link back the data feed to the ship or, given it is operating directly with F-35B anyway, then use MADL or Link 16 to feed the F-35B picture and let the F-35 sensor fusion work out the rest and propagate to other assets.

No crew probably translates to higher payload, power generation or radar capability. This type of design that was ski jump capable would suit quite a few operators including Italy, Japan, South Korea, maybe Australia and even the USMC?

Only problem I see is who pays for the dev, not the UK at the moment...
 
Josh_TN said:
Sure, but there are rather huge limitations with using a helo as your AEW. IMO the main advantage of EMALS on UK carriers would not be F-35C: the performance difference is marginal and the C actually quite heavier, but the lack of support aircraft that require cats. But again, the costs of E-2D ownership were probably very daunting on top of EMALS. If the choice was just F-35B vs C, the B has some huge cost savings, better acceleration, and mild range and payload disadvantages.
Click to expand...
Not saying there aren't limitations. just that to claim "ack of AEW" is not entirely accurate.
 
Ronny said:
Can its radar even see further than APG-81?
Click to expand...
Actually in the article I linked it says the following:

In addition to its ASW role, the HM2 will be able to carry an airborne early warning (AEW) pod known as the Crowsnest, replacing the Sea King ASaC7. In September 2011, Thales UK proposed re-using Sea King ASaC7 equipment, such as the Searchwater 2000, on the Merlin; Lockheed Martin has proposed developing a new multi-functional sensor for both the AW101 and other aircraft. Lockheed originally planned to use a derivative of the F-35's APG-81 radar; however, a rival Elta system and the Thales system both commenced flight trials in 2014. However, revised plans will see Crowsnest achieve initial operating capability in September 2021 and full operating capability in May 2023. On 22 May 2015, the MOD and prime contractor Lockheed Martin UK selected Thales to provide the radar and mission system for the Crowsnest.
Click to expand...

Some info on the radar involved here:

Searchwater ASaC

www.thalesgroup.com www.thalesgroup.com

An APG-81 derivative would have been interesting though and good for commonality with their F-35s.

Re the Searchwater radar, while exact details are obviously classified, I understand it provides a detection range ~2.5 times greater.
 
GTX said:
While I understand there have been delays, isn't this supposed to be addressed by Crowsnest?
Click to expand...
Can't climb anywhere near as high as a fixed wing AEW and you need more airframes to keep the 24/7 coverage.

I'm not sure what the relative spot factor is between an EH101 Merlin and an E-2D Hawkeye, but for argument's sake let's say it's a wash, 2x Merlin = 1x Hawkeye (It's probably pretty close, anyways). A Nimitz usually has 4-5x Hawkeyes, while the QE air wing seems to be 7x Merlins. I'm not sure what's up between the current discussions and the earlier proposed air wings, current air wings have ~4x Crowsnest Merlins and ~9x ASW Merlins.

Higher patrol altitude is better for AEW, gives you a longer radar horizon.

And the additional airframes means additional crews, with all the extra costs there.

I'm also willing to bet that the Merlins burn more fuel than the Hawkeyes.
 
The bigger problem is endurance/range/speed. Helo AEW has to stay very local to the carrier. But it is probably enough for RN purposes; they likely are not slugging it out with the PLAN.
 
www.airforcetimes.com

F-35 crashes and explodes in Alaska; pilot ejects safely

An Air Force pilot ejected safely after experiencing an “inflight malfunction” during a training exercise at Eielson Air Force Base, officials said.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com
The pilot experienced an “inflight malfunction” but was able to eject from the aircraft, Col. Paul Townsend, commander of the 354th Fighter Wing, told a news conference. The plane crashed during the landing phase of the flight at Eielson Air Force Base, he said.
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
Sure, but there are rather huge limitations with using a helo as your AEW. IMO the main advantage of EMALS on UK carriers would not be F-35C: the performance difference is marginal and the C actually quite heavier, but the lack of support aircraft that require cats. But again, the costs of E-2D ownership were probably very daunting on top of EMALS. If the choice was just F-35B vs C, the B has some huge cost savings, better acceleration, and mild range and payload disadvantages.
Click to expand...

I know its getting away slightly from F-35 (but does relate to F-35 variant choice). E-2D was the only real reason for UK to consider Cats and Traps. But the costs for Cats and Traps, E-2D, ship design/build and all the support, infrastructure, personnel etc would have been north of $10bn. Thats more than the total cost of the entire QE carrier programme...that included the 2 carriers, build yard improvements, improvements to Portsmouth and Glen Mallan etc. In fact you could even include the 4 Tide Class tankers built to support CVF without approaching the $10bn figure...

GTX said:
An APG-81 derivative would have been interesting though and good for commonality with their F-35s.
Click to expand...

The LM Vigilance pods that were proposed as a rival to Searchwater, before being replaced by an ELTA AESA radar combination, utilised AN/APG-81. Sounded like sensible stuff, but concerns around integration and risk meant that the 'less risky' Searchwater installation was chosen....that Thales and Leonardo then proceeded to completely bugger up....(including seriously damaging a loaned RN Merlin through incredible negligence)....But.....allegedly the An/APG-81 set up when initially trialled reportedly injured the trials crew as well.....

FighterJock said:
What is the max range of the Crowsnest radar on the Merlin AEW?
Click to expand...

No one who knows will tell you. But at normal crusing altitude you're going to get to around 140-150 miles to the horizon. Reportedly the latest Seaking ASaC.7 outperformed E-2C, particularly in the Gulf and in litoral waters (which to be fair is a complex radar environment that E-2C was not designed for). ASaC's also had a successful time over Afghanistan tracking ground targets over the 'Red Desert' in southern Helmand. So I suspect it was it's overland and cluttered environment performance that was superior rather than outright range.
 
Last edited:
And ejected pilot is seen apparently lower than the crashing plane with the chute canopy already deployed...
I wonder if the plane did not escape its pilot after a hard touchdown.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom