Jump to content

F-35s at Lakenheath, vol 2


Recommended Posts

Gents,

 

Another run over today brought a little more luck in getting Suffolk's visitors. The wind was forecast to favour the base working runway 06 which was going to complicate things a little, so I decided to go over early (most morning waves have been launching at 8 this week) and try and get them coming off towards me, despite not knowing how high these things climb on departure.

 

So I got there well before 8, still found parking difficult, and was surprised to see a single F-35 already on the 24 EOR pan...didn't expect that. A quick word around and apparently he was waiting for his no2 to change jets (broke again) before starting the second visit into Eastern Europe of the deployment. On Tuesday a pair made a brief visit to Estonia, and todays was to Bulgaria. With the 'Nacho' TDY tanker at Mildenhall accompanying them, plus the RC-135s also going over - like on Tuesday - they departed in some nice light, but heat haze across that taxiway is a real pain.

 

'Conan 1/2' departing for Bulgaria.

 

IMG_3795.jpg

 

IMG_3818.jpg

 

IMG_3828.jpg

 

IMG_3839.jpg

 

Unfortunately 'Conan 1' did his best to heat haze out No 2 so this is all I could get.

 

IMG_3876.jpg

 

IMG_3887.jpg

 

About 30 minutes after they'd gone the morning wave came out, loads of F-15's the two Norwegian F-16s that arrived earlier in the week to take part and 'Ram 01 -04', flight of four F-35s. By then the sun was mostly gone and the heat haze was terrible so I lost most of them to a blur (including the F-16s...grr). A couple,

 

IMG_3967.jpg

 

IMG_4102.jpg

 

When they all came back it was pretty dark and grey so only a few caught some light. This Reaper was a bit wobbly.

 

IMG_4256.jpg

 

IMG_4282_1.jpg

 

IMG_4288.jpg

 

Then 'Ram 01' put on a bit of a show, pulling the gear up early and powering across fast and low in front of us, only time I've seen a F-35 go around. He also caught some light.

 

IMG_4321.jpg

 

By then there was just a couple of jets out and the comms was full of inter-flight positioning between 'Wardog' (F-15E), 'Wasp' (F-15C) and 'Ram' (F-35). Then I remembered that one of the missing jets was a 493rd F-15D...hmm...me thinks there's a photo shoot going on here with all three types (the HH-60's probably would have struggled) in formation. Sure enough they set up for a run over the base with one each of F-15C, F-15E and F-35 and the F-15D photo ship. Unfortunately it was bl**dy dark by then!
 

IMG_4339.jpg

 

IMG_4358.jpg

 

I expect them to appear on the base facebook page soon (they've already got some air-to-air shots from earlier in the week up), but they're going to need some work to make them presentable in that light, which is a real shame.

 

I don't know when they go but I probably won't be over again so that's my lot and also first look at the F-35.

 

Gary



 

 


 

Edited by gary1701
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Niels,

 

Sorry for the delay. I was actually just about to post them late last night when I got called away. Here you go, but pretty much ruined by heat haze, which is a real shame because of the four original European F-16 operators, the Norwegian Vipers are my favourite with that colour scheme.

 

IMG_4200_1.jpg

 

IMG_4016_1.jpg

 

They arrived on Wednesday lunchtime (I was actually over at Lakenheath but had popped away for lunch when they came in) and hadn't operated until Friday morning when they went out at the back end of the F-15/F-35 wave as 'Viking 1+2'. They came back at the start of the recoveries (just black silhouettes in those conditions) but I believe they were overheard on ATC in the afternoon heading out over the North Sea, so presumably went home. One thing I notice is that despite the RNoAF using the IRIS-T as they're usual short range AAM, whenever they carry practise rounds, like here, they still load practise AIM-9s. Any ideas?

 

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great pictures, thanks as always Gary.   BTW, you mentioned maintenance issues with the F-35's deployed to LN.  Any specifics?   Lastly, the jet has a reputation for being pretty loud.   Since you've seen it in person, how does it compare noise-wise to the current F-15/F-16's?

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi,

 

Funny you mention about the noise, as we've been discussing that on another forum that I post on in the last couple of days. It wasn't until Friday that I saw them do anything else besides land, so that was first chance I got to judge them. Taxiing they certainly have a different sound to a F-15 and other fast jets I'm familiar with, although I wouldn't say they're noticeably louder. When they departed they didn't use reheat/afterburner, although they certainly have at other times on the deployment. I thought they were slightly louder, but not excessively. Maybe in burner they're louder, I don't know. The only time I thought 'Christ, they're loud' is when 'Ram 01' put his foot down and overshot from his landing approach directly in front of us photographers in the field. I've seen F-15s do that up close countless times and the F-35 is noticeably louder. They certainly don't like a crosswind, and they seem very slow on the approach when compared to a F-15. They wobble a lot, with the control surfaces really working hard. You can clearly recognise them on the radio, as they have a harsh mechanical sounding voice when they talk.

 

Maintenance wise, on average they seem to have one failure to taxi out of every four ship, but by using spares they seem able to get the planned number of jets out each sortie. They brought 8, and most waves have involved 4-6, morning and afternoon. On Friday they sent 2 to Bulgaria, and flew a 4 ship less than a hour later.  So although they seem to have a high number of false starts (mind you, when you compare it to RAF Typhoons, it doesn't seem so bad!) as long as they've got plenty of spares they can maintain a reasonable sortie rate. The real question, which I won't know the answer to is how much support and spares has been brought over with them. I remember reading in a article years ago about the B-1 terrible mission ready rate, that when a exercise was held and the aircraft was supported by a abundance of spares and personnel, it could operate at high readiness levels, but on a normal day to day basis that level of support just isn't available and budgeted. I honesty wouldn't know if F-35 serviceability is a issue with the jet or just the level of support, or if the deployment at Lakenheath mirrors the sortie rates elsewhere.

 

Personally, and not being a expert I am quite open to being corrected on specifics, but I believe the F-35 sacrifices too much capability elsewhere for its 'stealth' label, and the brass are being over optimistic about the aircraft not being put in a position that exposes it's lack of close in ACM capability. It seems that reading history is not a requirement for high military office nowadays which means you are going to repeat the mistakes of the past. I'm sure most on here are familiar with the USAF and USN's thinking on air combat just prior to Vietnam, and the blind belief in BVR missiles. Sure, they're far more advanced nowadays, but so's the counter measures. A couple of years ago my local aviation society here in the UK had a guest speaker, former Bentwaters/Woodbridge A-10 driver who still had local connections, which was how we got him. He was part of the F-35 programme, although I can't remember if he was still USAF or now a contractor, but he was very candid about the aircraft. As he said, given enough time and money, and the issues can be worked out, but you can forget the label of 'affordable' stealth that was a big factor in favour of the aircraft as a concept.

 

Gary

 

 

 

 

Edited by gary1701
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2017 at 7:40 AM, gary1701 said:

 

Personally, and not being a expert I am quite open to being corrected on specifics, but I believe the F-35 sacrifices too much capability elsewhere for its 'stealth' label, and the brass are being over optimistic about the aircraft not being put in a position that exposes it's lack of close in ACM capability.

 

 

I would not at all say that "Stealth" means an airplane is inhibited in the air or close in, and exhibit A is the F-22, Exhibit B and to a lesser extent of course is the Super Hornet. 

 

 

Quote

 It seems that reading history is not a requirement for high military office nowadays which means you are going to repeat the mistakes of the past.

 

I think that's a rather crass remark. and In my experience its usually the opposite. "dead battles hold dead generals in their dead grip" They read a lot, sometimes to the point where they are impenetrable unless you liken it to history or worse; they will take something that is very different and cosign a label to it that doesn't fit. "So the F-35 is like the AK-47 of airplanes!" Errr No,sir not exactly...   Another example is where leaders become "imprisoned" in their experiences for example a lot of critics of the Bradley, which was made for armored warfare in central Europe was unfairly criticized by the freshly back Vietnam troops as they tried in vain to explain that it wouldn't do great in the jungles of vietnam. Which was of course true, but missing the point. 

 

In my experience a lot of critics of the military are constantly telling us we are hopelessly wed to the past (stupid tradition), while at the same time telling us we don't learn lessons from the past. OTOH our generals are brain washed by the latest gold plated whiz bang (futuristic naive) and want to fight the wars of the future while forgetting the present and the past.

 

There is no winning with people. No matter what we do we are awful. For 10 years I had to hear about how we were constantly "re-fighting the cold war." after Russia starting acting up again in the Ukraine and Georgia I was told the very next day we had "forgetten how to fight a large conventional war like the cold war," as we had spent the last 10 years fighting COIN  Thanks Media. Your vast military experience shines through again. If you want the perfect example, look at the F-22. the same people telling you we didn't need it 10 years ago, are now telling you we didn't buy enough. 

 

The Vietnam thing is an example. The Military learned from Vietnam. (BTW one of those lessons was we need Stealth) the public hasn't learned that the military has learned yet. So they are referencing a war from 50 years ago while forgetting the air dominance the US has enjoyed more recently for the last 30+ years. I mean at what point can we say "You know what? I think its fixed- lets work on some other stuff now too" ??

 

 

Quote

I'm sure most on here are familiar with the USAF and USN's thinking on air combat just prior to Vietnam, and the blind belief in BVR missiles. Sure, they're far more advanced nowadays, but so's the counter measures.

 

Thats far from the whole story. its about 50 other things too. You can read Revolt of the Majors on PDF for Free online.  

 

 

 

Again in the "you just can't win category" we have schools that are dedicated to combat training year round, along with a major exercises like Red Flag and dozens of minor exercises all over the globe. Youre replacing legacy aircraft like the Hornets and Harriers and Prowlers with an airplane that now has far more capability in the air (especially the last two examples) 

 

Quote

 A couple of years ago my local aviation society here in the UK had a guest speaker, former Bentwaters/Woodbridge A-10 driver who still had local connections, which was how we got him. He was part of the F-35 programme, although I can't remember if he was still USAF or now a contractor, but he was very candid about the aircraft. As he said, given enough time and money, and the issues can be worked out, but you can forget the label of 'affordable' stealth that was a big factor in favour of the aircraft as a concept.

 

I think you have a lot of misconceptions about Stealth and its costs. for as much as the F-35 has been in trouble with delays and budget very, very, little of that has to do with the airplanes skin or shape. In fact one could say of the F-35s 99 problems, stealth ain't 1. Skin is A LOT better than it was in the 1990s. and the latest projections are saying an F-35 will cost 10 percent more CPFH than an F-16 (and again the F-35 does more than just be an F-16 that is invisible) I would say its plenty affordable. 

 

I would refute this in the F-35 thread but you said you are open so I thought I would share.

 

Excellent pictures truly thank you 

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=24558&sid=f70648071baf9f4bfe2e88dd6128bf89&mode=view

 

You can also read what this hack says about it:

 

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1775189-flying-against-the-f-22-and-f-35

 

Thank god he still got his "mediocre" word in there... 

 

 

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...