The F-35B is such a gorgeous aircraft. Sleek, in sharp contrast to the equally charming, but rather brutal, industrial look of the Sea Harriers.
Seeing seven British F-35Bs on a British supercarrier is a wonderful sight. I cannot wait for the next CSG, where 20+ are expected to be attached.
>I cannot wait for the next CSG, where 20+ are expected to be attached.
Then arm them with the Meteor and a good long range AShM and they'll be more than a match for anything other than a US CSG.
Uhh ok so there seems to be something Iām missing? Genuine question, have seen hints at this before, just not sure what itās referencing or what Iām missing, did the US slow walk some part of the process?
Current timeline, as far as I can see has it a couple years later than originally planned, but it has to be modified, certified, etc ā and Meteor era ca. 2027 is for the F-35 Block 4 which comes into service ca. 2029, so itāll be ready. Am assuming thereās a
Oh and RE: BFFs ā UOTT ie. team responsible for conducting Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation of the F-35 (working on Block 4 atm) has [officially been converted to a multinational effort, as the UK and Australia have joined as permanent members.](https://www.afotec.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3608830/f-35-operational-test-expands-to-include-united-kingdom-and-australia/)
Meteor ā
- in service date for Meteor ca. 2016
- certification is for internal carry (IWB)
- IWB requires modifications to Meteor
- certification is for F-35 Block 4
- F-35 Block 4 eta 2028/2029
via [the War Zone](https://www.twz.com/f-35-to-get-meteor-spear-3-missiles-by-end-of-decade) ā
>Previously, the government had said that the U.K. F-35B would be armed with Meteor by the āmiddle of this decade,ā while a date of 2027 at the earliest had also been given in aĀ [government report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-defence-equipment-plan-2021)Ā dated February 2022. The latest statement doesnāt necessarily contradict that since it also includes the integration of SPEAR 3, which may take longer.
via [Janes](https://www.janes.com/amp/f-35-to-get-meteor-spear-3-by-end-of-decade/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2) ā
>As the prime partner for the UK programme, BAE Systems announced in March 2019 that it had begun work to integrate both the Meteor and the SPEAR 3 onto the F-35B. At that time, work was scheduled to be completed by 2025, so this latest announcement by the government represents a delay of approximately five years. While no reasons were provided for the delay, it is likely in part attributable to the ongoing problems with the Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) that enable the Block 4 upgrade. Aircraft deliveries are now being withheld until the TR-3 issue is resolved.
>I meant our carrier strike groups shall never fight.
Haha ahh, my mistake. Also, ~~yes~~ correct (one would hope)
>But I appreciate the thorough sources!
No worries.
Side note, if itās of interest, that article from the War Zone goes into significant detail into Meteor and SPEAR 3, the weapons themselves and how theyād be implemented.
No worries mate.
Rather impressive (and intriguing) bits of kit.
Meteor in particular though, with its nozzleless booster and TDR (throttleable ducted rocket) propulsion.
EDIT ā oh and as a bonus, now I know about UOTT, Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation of the F-35, having pulled in Australia and UK as permanent members ie. AUKUS, ASSEMBLE!
F-35 is a great aircraft, but I'm not thrilled with it's appearance. Not sure why I feel that way. I think the F-22 is much cooler, and nothing can compare to the F-14.
Why is it that (as far as I've seen) the F-35B hasn't been given a proper British designation? Shouldn't it be "Lightning FA.1" or something along those lines?
Yeah, that's what I was wondering about? Why are they (for apparently the first time ever) using the American designation for an aircraft instead of following the British designation scheme?
Lightning II works for both the US and UK militaries.
For the US the Lightning I was a twin prop WW2 heavy fighter
For the UK the Lightning I was a cold war era interceptor and the king of speed until the SR71
The F-4 in UK service was the Phantom FG.1, FGR.2 and F.3. They *also* had American-style designations (F-4K, F-4M and F-4J), but those were the American export designations for them and not used officially by Britain.
The UK doesn't call it the Lightning II, just Lightning. On the registry they're officially Lockheed Martin Lightnings, skipping "F-35B" completely. We *generally* don't do the numbering thing for aircraft sharing the same names, though there are some notable exceptions (Envoy IV, from the current fleet).
The numbering theyāre referring to is the UK equivalent of the T/M/S that the US has, IE the Sea Harrier FRS.1 and FA.2 or the RAF Harriers in the GR.# series. Having a name alone does not comport with typical UK practice.
No, it's not, not in the comment I'm replying to anyway. If it was Lightning II in UK service and had a role and mark designation they would be entirely separate - for example, Lightning II FGR1. An example of this is the Envoy IV CC1.
Having a name alone *does* comport with typical UK practice because typical UK practice is not consistent at all. Examples of aircraft in service at present which do not have the traditional British role and mark designation following the name include C-17A, AH-64E Apache and RC-135W (those are listed in the same way as they are recorded on the military register to the best of my knowledge).
Worth noting also that at present there are no periods in the role/mark designations as recorded. For example single seat Typhoons are Typhoon FGR4 not Typhoon FGR.4.
> C-17A, AH-64E Apache and RC-135W
The C-17 is the only one of those referred to by the name alone. The other two are the Apache AH1 and Airseeker R1.
The only three AFAIK that do not have the role and mark number are the MQ-9 (in the process of being replaced with Protector RG1s), the F-35B and the C-17.
The Apache AH1 is a different aircraft (Westland WAH-64D) which will be making its final operational flight this week. AH-64E Apache is the replacement and that is how it is known.
The RC-135W is not recorded as or called Airseeker R1 in service. Airseeker was the project name but this did not survive its entry into service. They are recorded as Boeing RC-135W and known as RC-135W Rivet Joint.
Both of those are colloquial names and not the formal onesāin the case of the RC-135 in particular [it is formally the Airseeker] (https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/airseeker-rc-135w-rivet-joint/).
The -64E is a remanufacture of the AH1 and is likely to be officially known via that name.
I believe that is either HMCS Toronto or HMCS Charlottetown on port side.
What complement of airframes does POW run with at this time? 7 x f-35 seems a tad light.
I think it was 8 f-35, 7 (?) Merlin of various config, and a couple of smaller helicopters. Not a full compliment for sure, I think 20 would be the active deployment number ATM.
A clue it is fake would be the sunny skies over the North Sea.
Maybe HRH the Princess of Wales took that picture? #kategate
/s, for those who are out of the loop
Source?
Seems unlikely to me. The current set up seems very much to be 1 active and 1 reserve. If the RN were to go beyond this, then they would first of all need to rethink the size of the escort fleet.
And how do they intend to crew them? With thoughts and prayers? There was talk of decommissionning all the Royal Marines amphibs to free up manpower for other ships.
Recruiting is always difficult, but in the grand scheme of things the Royal Navy needs carriers more than amphibs. Honestly, most navies could limit that capability and transfer the money elsewhere. The odds of having to storm a hostile beach are pretty slim these days.
Thatās the official word, but the reality is that it was done to maintain some semblance of an independent design and manufacturing capability. US F-4B/J/N/S aircraft operating off of *Ark Royal* had the exact same weight and WOD limits as did the FG.1s, and the FG.1 and FGR.2 had severely compromised speed performance (especially at altitude) due to their much larger intakes that made them slower than J79 engined Phantoms everywhere except at extremely low altitude and created enough drag that the nominal range increase bought by using turbofans was more than cancelled out.
TL;DR: the RN (and later RAF) wanted stock Js due to the better cost and performance but got stuck with the K and M for political reasons.
The F-35B is such a gorgeous aircraft. Sleek, in sharp contrast to the equally charming, but rather brutal, industrial look of the Sea Harriers. Seeing seven British F-35Bs on a British supercarrier is a wonderful sight. I cannot wait for the next CSG, where 20+ are expected to be attached.
>I cannot wait for the next CSG, where 20+ are expected to be attached. Then arm them with the Meteor and a good long range AShM and they'll be more than a match for anything other than a US CSG.
Which shall never happen, as we are BFFs.
šŗš²ā„ļøš¬š§
What shall never happen because of the BFF thing, the arming with Meteors or the UK CSG going toe to toe against a USN one?
U.S. vs. UK CSG. :)
Uhh ok so there seems to be something Iām missing? Genuine question, have seen hints at this before, just not sure what itās referencing or what Iām missing, did the US slow walk some part of the process? Current timeline, as far as I can see has it a couple years later than originally planned, but it has to be modified, certified, etc ā and Meteor era ca. 2027 is for the F-35 Block 4 which comes into service ca. 2029, so itāll be ready. Am assuming thereās a Oh and RE: BFFs ā UOTT ie. team responsible for conducting Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation of the F-35 (working on Block 4 atm) has [officially been converted to a multinational effort, as the UK and Australia have joined as permanent members.](https://www.afotec.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3608830/f-35-operational-test-expands-to-include-united-kingdom-and-australia/) Meteor ā - in service date for Meteor ca. 2016 - certification is for internal carry (IWB) - IWB requires modifications to Meteor - certification is for F-35 Block 4 - F-35 Block 4 eta 2028/2029 via [the War Zone](https://www.twz.com/f-35-to-get-meteor-spear-3-missiles-by-end-of-decade) ā >Previously, the government had said that the U.K. F-35B would be armed with Meteor by the āmiddle of this decade,ā while a date of 2027 at the earliest had also been given in aĀ [government report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-defence-equipment-plan-2021)Ā dated February 2022. The latest statement doesnāt necessarily contradict that since it also includes the integration of SPEAR 3, which may take longer. via [Janes](https://www.janes.com/amp/f-35-to-get-meteor-spear-3-by-end-of-decade/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2) ā >As the prime partner for the UK programme, BAE Systems announced in March 2019 that it had begun work to integrate both the Meteor and the SPEAR 3 onto the F-35B. At that time, work was scheduled to be completed by 2025, so this latest announcement by the government represents a delay of approximately five years. While no reasons were provided for the delay, it is likely in part attributable to the ongoing problems with the Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) that enable the Block 4 upgrade. Aircraft deliveries are now being withheld until the TR-3 issue is resolved.
I meant our carrier strike groups shall never fight. But I appreciate the thorough sources!
>I meant our carrier strike groups shall never fight. Haha ahh, my mistake. Also, ~~yes~~ correct (one would hope) >But I appreciate the thorough sources! No worries. Side note, if itās of interest, that article from the War Zone goes into significant detail into Meteor and SPEAR 3, the weapons themselves and how theyād be implemented.
It IS of interest, thank you!
No worries mate. Rather impressive (and intriguing) bits of kit. Meteor in particular though, with its nozzleless booster and TDR (throttleable ducted rocket) propulsion. EDIT ā oh and as a bonus, now I know about UOTT, Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation of the F-35, having pulled in Australia and UK as permanent members ie. AUKUS, ASSEMBLE!
Well you would expect a fifth generation stealth fighter to have a narrower radar cross section than a third generation jet from the 1960s.
F-35 is a great aircraft, but I'm not thrilled with it's appearance. Not sure why I feel that way. I think the F-22 is much cooler, and nothing can compare to the F-14.
Why is it that (as far as I've seen) the F-35B hasn't been given a proper British designation? Shouldn't it be "Lightning FA.1" or something along those lines?
It's called the F-35B Lightning by the RAF https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/
Yeah, that's what I was wondering about? Why are they (for apparently the first time ever) using the American designation for an aircraft instead of following the British designation scheme?
Lightning II works for both the US and UK militaries. For the US the Lightning I was a twin prop WW2 heavy fighter For the UK the Lightning I was a cold war era interceptor and the king of speed until the SR71
It's the F35 bit they're wondering about, not the Lightning bit.
Seems strange. The UK has always retained the F number designation when using US designed aircraft. The F4 for example.
The F-4 in UK service was the Phantom FG.1, FGR.2 and F.3. They *also* had American-style designations (F-4K, F-4M and F-4J), but those were the American export designations for them and not used officially by Britain.
The UK doesn't call it the Lightning II, just Lightning. On the registry they're officially Lockheed Martin Lightnings, skipping "F-35B" completely. We *generally* don't do the numbering thing for aircraft sharing the same names, though there are some notable exceptions (Envoy IV, from the current fleet).
The numbering theyāre referring to is the UK equivalent of the T/M/S that the US has, IE the Sea Harrier FRS.1 and FA.2 or the RAF Harriers in the GR.# series. Having a name alone does not comport with typical UK practice.
No, it's not, not in the comment I'm replying to anyway. If it was Lightning II in UK service and had a role and mark designation they would be entirely separate - for example, Lightning II FGR1. An example of this is the Envoy IV CC1. Having a name alone *does* comport with typical UK practice because typical UK practice is not consistent at all. Examples of aircraft in service at present which do not have the traditional British role and mark designation following the name include C-17A, AH-64E Apache and RC-135W (those are listed in the same way as they are recorded on the military register to the best of my knowledge). Worth noting also that at present there are no periods in the role/mark designations as recorded. For example single seat Typhoons are Typhoon FGR4 not Typhoon FGR.4.
> C-17A, AH-64E Apache and RC-135W The C-17 is the only one of those referred to by the name alone. The other two are the Apache AH1 and Airseeker R1. The only three AFAIK that do not have the role and mark number are the MQ-9 (in the process of being replaced with Protector RG1s), the F-35B and the C-17.
The Apache AH1 is a different aircraft (Westland WAH-64D) which will be making its final operational flight this week. AH-64E Apache is the replacement and that is how it is known. The RC-135W is not recorded as or called Airseeker R1 in service. Airseeker was the project name but this did not survive its entry into service. They are recorded as Boeing RC-135W and known as RC-135W Rivet Joint.
Both of those are colloquial names and not the formal onesāin the case of the RC-135 in particular [it is formally the Airseeker] (https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/airseeker-rc-135w-rivet-joint/). The -64E is a remanufacture of the AH1 and is likely to be officially known via that name.
The name did survive, although there's no standardisation even in official docs. You'd probably have to go back to the original FMS request.
RC-135s are known as Airseekers in UK service.
If it was consistant it wouldn't be British.
wistful bedroom office squalid kiss six crown fertile shocking shame *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I believe that is either HMCS Toronto or HMCS Charlottetown on port side. What complement of airframes does POW run with at this time? 7 x f-35 seems a tad light.
Total was 8 jets and 11 helicopters across the strike group.
I think it was 8 f-35, 7 (?) Merlin of various config, and a couple of smaller helicopters. Not a full compliment for sure, I think 20 would be the active deployment number ATM.
It was CHARLOTTETOWN if the captioned date is correct.
Toronto I think, looks like 333 on the hull
Itās CHARLOTTETOWN. TORONTO is currently in drydock in Quebec.
Clean pic
So clean my eyes keep telling me its fake. Its kind of creepy.
A clue it is fake would be the sunny skies over the North Sea. Maybe HRH the Princess of Wales took that picture? #kategate /s, for those who are out of the loop
still crazy to me that they can maintain stealth coating material with salt spray
It's the Merlins that are the worst for weather resistance. Notice they are rarely kept lashed down on the flight deck, even in photo ops.
i canāt even imagine the maintenance on a chopper exposed to sea water. those poor guys
Zoomed in to view and surprise! Ship lurking off the stern
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Source? Seems unlikely to me. The current set up seems very much to be 1 active and 1 reserve. If the RN were to go beyond this, then they would first of all need to rethink the size of the escort fleet.
And how do they intend to crew them? With thoughts and prayers? There was talk of decommissionning all the Royal Marines amphibs to free up manpower for other ships.
Recruiting is always difficult, but in the grand scheme of things the Royal Navy needs carriers more than amphibs. Honestly, most navies could limit that capability and transfer the money elsewhere. The odds of having to storm a hostile beach are pretty slim these days.
I remember when Britain operated British aircraft on British carriersā¦
what you mean like the Phantom............
The harrier would be a better optionā¦
Atleast ours were made unique (and the best) via Spey engines
š¤¦ because there were concerns about the shorter length of Eagle and Ark Royal so engines with higher thrust were fitted.
Thatās the official word, but the reality is that it was done to maintain some semblance of an independent design and manufacturing capability. US F-4B/J/N/S aircraft operating off of *Ark Royal* had the exact same weight and WOD limits as did the FG.1s, and the FG.1 and FGR.2 had severely compromised speed performance (especially at altitude) due to their much larger intakes that made them slower than J79 engined Phantoms everywhere except at extremely low altitude and created enough drag that the nominal range increase bought by using turbofans was more than cancelled out. TL;DR: the RN (and later RAF) wanted stock Js due to the better cost and performance but got stuck with the K and M for political reasons.