Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

21 Nov - Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

21 Nov - Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter

Old 22nd Nov 2011, 16:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 77
Posts: 1,370
Received 20 Likes on 12 Posts
21 Nov - Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter

Not sure if this has been covered in other threads...

Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter

Lockheed Martin has rolled out the UK's first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to be delivered in 2012.

As the first F-35 to have been manufactured for an international partner, aircraft BK-1 will now enter a period of functional fuel system checks at Lockheed's Fort Worth site in Texas. It will then undergo "ground and flight tests in the coming months", the US-based airframer said.

The UK ordered three STOVL F-35Bs to participate in the US-led programme's initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase, but subsequently switched its interest to acquiring the larger F-35C carrier variant to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. Its third IOT&E aircraft is likely to be in the preferred production configuration, with this change to be enabled under an agreement with the US Navy.

Once delivered, the UK's aircraft will participate in joint test activities to be performed in the USA.

"This is a major milestone in the JSF programme for the UK, and we look forward to starting to operate the first British F-35s next year," said Grp Capt Harv Smyth, the UK's Joint Strike Fighter national deputy.
Lyneham Lad is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 17:49
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did I understand that correctly, we've brought 3 aircraft from the USA that we're not going to buy any more of, and we're using those for testing in the USA for the benefit of the US company that built them. That's a bargain if ever I saw one!
Ali Barber is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 17:56
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
When you hastily step into a programme with a partner and agree to join in the T&E, it's hard to pull out. Act in haste... ...then get defence cuts.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 18:06
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought we'd done a swap with these so the Marines got our -B models, which were ahead of theirs giving them a leg up in their development plans, while we were getting reassigned USN -C model trials variants? I'm sure it was announced 6/8 weeks ago
jamesdevice is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 18:21
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,597
Received 35 Likes on 24 Posts
Exchange of UK F-35B for F-35C Test Aircraft

The proposed exchange of UK F-35B for F-35C is only for one of the three test aircraft ordered and has not been agreed yet - it requires the approval of Congress.

Vagaries Continue To Cloud U.K. F-35 Agenda | AVIATION WEEK
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 18:40
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SNAFU
cazatou is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 18:54
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
By gawd, it's an ugly airplane. From every angle, those F-35s look like they've been broken somewhere behind the cockpit. Speaking of which, what happened to the concept of all round visibility? Seems to have been sacrificed for stealth/aerodynamics/something.
TheWestCoast is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 19:01
  #8 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Saw a full scale model at RIAT a few years ago. I think this one actually looks a little better.

Buccaneer nose suits it
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 05:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,851
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
So when's Hammond going to announce an order for Super Bugs?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 08:55
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, not pretty, but better. IMHO it's just too complicated. Remember the marvelous engineering for moving the original Harrier's nozzles? Just a bicycle chain really. Now look at how many moving parts and potential failure points there are on this.


And imagine the scope for inflating project costs, delays, etc. Brilliant design, but at what cost, I wonder.
Mach Two is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 09:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 71
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps we should hang on to our grounded Harrier force a bit longer .
grandfer is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 12:22
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Too late, Grandfer. They're on their way to the car boot sale! UK's got to pay for all those benefits somehow!
Mach Two is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 13:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 82 Likes on 21 Posts
Where do they put the petrol??
ex-fast-jets is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 13:51
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
B-H, if that part of the design had any British input then Dave-B is up sh1t creek.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 14:26
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Engines,
It's good to see you are as succinct and direct as you ever were at Air 06 to 07.

Regards

Adminblunty=PV
adminblunty is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 17:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, how much has the T & E aircraft actually cost us?
glad rag is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 17:48
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: St Ives, Cambs
Age: 80
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

You are spot-on, Mach Two. The B model is definitely over designed, over engineered and over priced. Any battle damage to the doors, hinges, cranks and gears will prevent it landing back on deck.

Thinks! Perhaps I should invest in some more Martin Baker shares!
Rallyepilot is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 19:56
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some of the posts here deserve a reply, if only for balance.

Courtney mil: apparently we joined the programme 'hastily'. Not so. We worked with the US on advanced STOVL for 30 years plus, and negotiated our role in the JSF programme via an MoU that took years to agree. We are in the T&E in a lead role for STOVL. The only 'hasty' thing we did was to bail out of STOVL after a rushed SDSR.

Willard - You say that if any part of the design had any British input we are up the creek - what exactly is wrong with British engineering? The reflex 'we are cr@p' comments on these forums are just not right. British engineers have led key parts of the STOVL design, and have performed magnificently. Many cut their teeth on the Harrier, and their work on the F-35B has earned the respect of all their American colleagues.

Mach Two - according to you, the B is over designed, over engineered and can't take battle damage. How exactly do you think you get a stealthy, supersonic aircraft with large weapons bays and a massive avionics suite to hover? How do you get it to be able to do a STO? How do you build it so that it can be flown by the average pilot on a dark and stormy night? Here's the answer - world class engineering, and lots of it. Sheer hard work. Inspiration. Brilliance. Have they got everything right first time? Crikey, no. But take a dispassionate look at the programme, look at what the USMC want to do with it, think how navies that can't afford cat and trap are going to operate this aircraft at sea, and then think again about STOVL.

And on battle damage - yes, it's more vulnerable in the STOVL areas. But so is any powered lift design. Want to try getting an F-35C back on deck with damaged flaps or tails? Good luck with that.

I know there are many that fundamentally think STOVL is a no-go and not needed. That's absolutely their right, and I respect that. But trashing the performance of people who have put their professional lives into the programme is, in my view, lazy and unwarranted.

Best Regards as ever

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 23:52
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
By gawd, it's an ugly airplane. From every angle, those F-35s look like they've been broken somewhere behind the cockpit.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Speaking of which, what happened to the concept of all round visibility? Seems to have been sacrificed for stealth/aerodynamics/something.

True, it's not like an F-16, which allows airplane driver a good view of the vertical stabilizer without leaving his seat.

F-35's have rear and side looking video cameras. The pilot can view the rear on one of his multifunction displays. Many cars nowadays, such as the top of the line Honda minivan, have rear facing video cams.

You're right, canopies protrude rather high above the fuselage and allow radar reflections from object inside the cockpit. Such objects include the pilot.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 01:02
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Willard - You say that if any part of the design had any British input we are up the creek - what exactly is wrong with British engineering? The reflex 'we are cr@p' comments on these forums are just not right. British engineers have led key parts of the STOVL design, and have performed magnificently. Many cut their teeth on the Harrier, and their work on the F-35B has earned the respect of all their American colleagues.
No, I said:

B-H, if that part of the design had any British input then Dave-B is up sh1t creek.
in reference to..

Where do they put the petrol??
...given our [tongue in cheek] historical inability to build anything with sufficient fuel capacity.[/tongue in cheek]

So quit being so precious and chill out, FFS.

Last edited by Willard Whyte; 24th Nov 2011 at 03:50.
Willard Whyte is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.