Lightning II squadrons

[Flankerman]

I think the decision not to operate cat and trap was the wrong one personally. The ships were designed to be adapted to take it and, ok I'm not an engineer, but surely the system could have been bought off the shelf from the USN?

From what I read, the QE class could never have had a steam catapult - as their RR Marine Trent gas turbine engines can't produce the necessary steam.

That's why the incoming Conservative/Coalition govt tried to cancel the STOVL / F-35B version and replace it with a CATOBAR version with F-35C - only to be told it couldn't be done without a massive (& expensive) re-design.

So until EMALS can be made to work, we're stuck with F-35B and STOVL.

Ken

[Meatbox8]

From what I read, the QE class could never have had a steam catapult - as their RR Marine Trent gas turbine engines can't produce the necessary steam.

That's why the incoming Conservative/Coalition govt tried to cancel the STOVL / F-35B version and replace it with a CATOBAR version with F-35C - only to be told it couldn't be done without a massive (& expensive) re-design.

So until EMALS can be made to work, we're stuck with F-35B and STOVL.

Ken

I've often wondered whether it was considered to use the F-35C with arrested landing but unassisted ski ramp take off like the Russians do with the Sukhoi. I wonder if the F-35's power to weight ratio is good enough. Wouldn't have solved the AEW issue of course, or cross decking, but an interesting idea.

[Flankerman]

The Su-25UTG operates from Kuznetsov - and that doesn't exactly have a sparkling power-to-weight ratio !!

It isn't really 'unassisted' either - the trick with the Russian system is to hold back the Su-25UTG or Su-33 or now the MiG-29KUB by the wheels until the engines run up to full power for a few seconds - then they are released to accelerate up the ramp.

They don't start their run from rest - they are straining at the leash with all that kinetic energy - before being released.

They have also trialled MiG-21's with a ski ramp (on the ground at MAKS) - so I don't see why it wouldn't work with an E-2C - there isn't any strain on the landing gear.

I'm sure it would have gained enough speed if released from the amidships spot - be interesting to see though.

Ken

Edited August 26, 2016 by Flankerman

[Meatbox8]

The Su-25UTG operates from Kuznetsov - and that doesn't exactly have a sparkling power-to-weight ratio !!

It isn't really 'unassisted' either - the trick with the Russian system is to hold back the Su-25UTG or Su-33 or now the MiG-29KUB by the wheels until the engines run up to full power for a few seconds - then they are released to accelerate up the ramp.

They don't start their run from rest - they are straining at the leash with all that kinetic energy - before being released.

They have also trialled MiG-21's with a ski ramp (on the ground at MAKS) - so I don't see why it wouldn't work with an E-2C - there isn't any strain on the landing gear.

I'm sure it would have gained enough speed if released from the amidships spot - be interesting to see though.

Ken

It sure would. Pretty spectacular I would imagine.

[Dave Fleming]

Could it also be that the RAF weren't very interested in twin engine, single seat fighters, as per the Whirlwind? By the way, why was the French order for non-supercharged versions? Was it embargoed?

That's a reasonable point. The story is muddied and depends on who you beleive! The French ordered the non-supercharged version to standardise engines and spares with the Curtiss 81s (P-40) they had also ordered. There was also a lack of available superchargers as most of production had been reserved for the USAAC - the second batch of Lightnings (or Atlantas as they were briefly to be called!) would have had superchargers so there was no embargo on the etchnology (The RAF B-17s had them as well).

In his book on the Lightning, Lockheed historian Warren Bodie is scathing on the RAF's refusal to accept the Lightning and (as he sees it) the time and money that they spent on the Whirlwing, Welkin and other twin engined fighters. He certainly gives the impression that relations were soured between the UK and Lockheed for some time after. I know that is also the impression I got when I briefly corresponded with him some years ago on the subject - as he points out the RAF didn't buy another Lockheed aircraft until the C-130, others being lend lease or MDAP!

Edited August 26, 2016 by Dave Fleming

[Meatbox8]

That's a reasonable point. The story is muddied and depends on who you beleive! The French ordered the non-supercharged version to standardise engines and spares with the Curtiss 81s (P-40) they had also ordered. There was also a lack of available superchargers as most of production had been reserved for the USAAC - the second batch of Lightnings (or Atlantas as they were briefly to be called!) would have had superchargers so there was no embargo on the etchnology (The RAF B-17s had them as well).

In his book on the Lightning, Lockheed historian Warren Bodie is scathing on the RAF's refusal to accept the Lightning and (as he sees it) the time and money that they spent on the Whirlwing, Welkin and other twin engined fighters. He certainly gives the impression that relations were soured between the UK and Lockheed for some time after. I know that is also the impression I got when I briefly corresponded with him some years ago on the subject - as he points out the RAF didn't buy another Lockheed aircraft until the C-130, others being lend lease or MDAP!

Really? Interesting. When considering the F-104 I wouldn't have thought anyone from Lockheed would have the gall to criticise anyone for anything, frankly.

Besides, if the un-supercharged P-38 was a dog and there weren't enough suoerchargers to go round its no wonder the RAF cancelled the order.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Meatbox8

[Dave Fleming]

I think this explains the convolutions behind the procurement and changes of mind...http://www.aerofiles.com/JBlock-p38expo.html

Tony

It's wrong on at least one point, the RAF order was cancelled before any Lightnings had arrived in the UK, allegedly on the basis of a report by an RAF test pilot in California. Mr Bodie's opinion was that the UK simply didn't have the dollars to pay for the contract.

[alpine_modeller]

With the RAF coming up to 100 years' of existence I understood that the MoD were going to renumber all Squadrons extant on that date starting at 1 again. So 617 Sqn (now) will become nn Sqn (617), nn being the new number and the (617) signifying its numberplate before centenary. This will continue work started within the EU towards a single EU defence force, where each of the member states Air Forces are to be issued with a block of Squadron numbers; precedence has been based on the dates of formation of their independent Air Arms (hence why the RAF has numbers starting at 1, being recognised as the oldest independent Air Force).

Part of this renumbering will involve laying up existing non-reused Squadron Standards, and retrieving currently non-used Sqn numbered Standards from various RAF institutions prior to that date. The re-organisation of RAFM Hendon and now Cosford are part of this "refresh" of the RAF's history during the first hundred years of its existence.

Peter

WTF ??

Anyway, we're leaving the EU now. This will be quietly kicked into the long grass...

[junglierating]

Boo to 800 ......801 is the only way to goB-)

[Dave Fleming]

Heard a rumour 809 was chosen due to it's logo, the Phoenix to represent the rebirth of Naval Aviation. Another rumour suggested the OCU might be given a Naval number as the OEU is RAF.

[Truro Model Builder]

It's wrong on at least one point, the RAF order was cancelled before any Lightnings had arrived in the UK, allegedly on the basis of a report by an RAF test pilot in California. Mr Bodie's opinion was that the UK simply didn't have the dollars to pay for the contract.

We wouldn't have been paying cash for them anyway, not under lend-lease. As a historian he ought to know that.

[Dave Fleming]

We wouldn't have been paying cash for them anyway, not under lend-lease. As a historian he ought to know that.

They weren't Lend Lease though - the contract preceded that. It was a direct purchase between the UK/French Govt and Lockheed. Lockheed were going to sue HMG for payment.

[Shar2]

Boo to 800 ......801 is the only way to goB-)

To be honest, I would say the same if it was the other way round.

[Graham Boak]

The suggestion I've seen is that the French ordered the P-38 with the same engines as in their P-40 order, in the interests of standardisation. Logically, this would result in cheaper engines and cheaper logistics by requiring a lower spares stock. Although it is true that the USAAF was very protective about its turbocharger technology, this seems to have been based more on a production shortage rather than a specific embargo. Hence the US order for a non-turbocharged P-39, The suggestion of an embargo crops up now and again but I gather no evidence for it can be found.

Similarly, the mix of A and B variants of the F-35, however apparently sensible operationally, would result in higher unit prices and higher logistic costs.

[tonyot]

Don`t forget that this P-38 Lightning was used operationally by the RAF;

Cheers,

Tony

[Seahawk]

Didn't Leonard Cheshire borrow one (or two) while experimenting with target marking for 617 Sq?

[Geoff_B]

The HMS Queen Elizabeth will do sea trials and aircraft trials with the F-35B in 2018, but the certainly won't be classed as the airgroup, in fact chances are that some of the aircraft involved will most likely be USMC aircraft. The carrier strike is not scheduled to commence till 2023 with 809 sqdn and the first operational deployment as the carrier airgroup. On paper we could probably deploy Queen Liz with 617 aboard along with Merlins etc it the need arose, but only in an emergency.

As for squadrons I think we can only speculate on the first 48 aircraft ear marked for Carrier Strike and their delivery up to 2025, Policy will be set in the 2020 SDSR and 2025 SDSR with regard to F-35 orders, the types and disposition as the focus at present is getting the carriers completed and into service and will be reviewed as to what's needed where once the Carriers are operational.

[Dave Fleming]

Didn't Leonard Cheshire borrow one (or two) while experimenting with target marking for 617 Sq?

That's one of those in Tony's pic. Not seen a pic of the original one, nor that one before converted to glass nose. I suspect they may have retained USAAF markings

[Dave Fleming]

As for squadrons I think we can only speculate on the first 48 aircraft ear marked for Carrier Strike and their delivery up to 2025, Policy will be set in the 2020 SDSR and 2025 SDSR with regard to F-35 orders, the types and disposition as the focus at present is getting the carriers completed and into service and will be reviewed as to what's needed where once the Carriers are operational.

It also depends whether the same problem that affected 800/801 in JFH crops up again, and led to the formation of the Naval Strike Wing (Differing rules on number of QFIs per unit meant the RN didn't have enough operational QFIs for two squadrons)

[Meatbox8]

Still no news on which squadrons yet but an interesting article on UK Defence Journal shows a great film of a simulated landing using the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing technique being developed for the UK's F-35Bs. The technique will allow the aircraft to land with more weight than STOVL and place less wear on the engines and the deck. I'd heard about this technique before but it is fascinating to see it, even if simulated, as the landing looks almost conventional but without the need for arresting wires.

I have thought it rather sad that the country that developed the steam catapult, angled deck and mirror landing system had abandoned it all for STOVL but seeing this technique rather places the RN back in the cutting edge of carrier development, which is pleasing.

The article also re-affirms the plan to buy 138 aircraft with 48 operational in four frontline squadrons, plus an OCU and 17® doing the evaluation.