RAF to get F35A ?

[Agent K]

You could also use places like Boscombe Down and St Mawgan which have shelters. Having the jets scattered over multiple sites spread across the whole country must be safer in a wartime scenario than having them all stuck in two bases.

Which the RAF have exercised, with Typhoons at least. Several spent some time at Boscombe on that very activity in the last year or so.

[PA200]

As someone who spent many years working in both 1st generation (RAFG) and 3rd Generation (Marham/Honington) HAS shelters they are best looked at, as a large concrete garage. With regard to F35 operations from them, I was told that the F35 can't, due to the amount of vibration it generates inside the shelter which isn't good for the aircraft or the poor humans stood next to it, hence the nice new sun shelters at Marham. Also the RAF has tended to move away from HAS Ops probably due in part to manning levels as line Ops require less people for see-offs etc and its easier to supervise.

[iainpeden]

I always thought the move to sun shelters had something to do with global warming.

[Agent K]

As someone who spent many years working in both 1st generation (RAFG) and 3rd Generation (Marham/Honington) HAS shelters they are best looked at, as a large concrete garage. With regard to F35 operations from them, I was told that the F35 can't, due to the amount of vibration it generates inside the shelter which isn't good for the aircraft or the poor humans stood next to it, hence the nice new sun shelters at Marham. Also the RAF has tended to move away from HAS Ops probably due in part to manning levels as line Ops require less people for see-offs etc and its easier to supervise.

I was of the belief that the aircraft had been tested and released to use a HAS? I'm happy to be corrected.

As you suggest yes for the shelters I think that is down to the ability to pool aircraft and resource for the daily schedule rather than having to spread more resource around the HAS areas. Similarly Coningsby now have similar shelters for their flight line.

[Col Nago]

This company is currently building next generation, fully enclosed HAS for the IDF’s F-35s. https://www.contifederal.com/projects/f ... -site-414/

[Col Nago]

And here’s an article on the F-35 getting cleared to be used inside HAS https://www.nlr.org/news/hardened-aircr ... -aircraft/

[Uncle Sam]

Going off on a slight tangent here, but are there any current or former RAF bases that use mountains as a natural shelter for aircraft, like tunnelling into the rock and creating a hardened bunker where aircraft would be stored out of sight and in relative safety.

[Agent K]

Going off on a slight tangent here, but are there any current or former RAF bases that use mountains as a natural shelter for aircraft, like tunnelling into the rock and creating a hardened bunker where aircraft would be stored out of sight and in relative safety.

Northolt?..........

The UK is not like Switzerland for example and doesn't really have nice flat airfield sized spaces right next to mountains, or indeed mountains in the right places for when the airfields were built (East Anglia/Yorkshire etc.), so no not used in the UK.

[Enobob]

Going off on a slight tangent here, but are there any current or former RAF bases that use mountains as a natural shelter for aircraft, like tunnelling into the rock and creating a hardened bunker where aircraft would be stored out of sight and in relative safety.

No, not a single one.

[cat1]

I seem to recall reading that there were one or two ex RAF WW2 bases in the med that were something like that.

Seafires(?) with the wings folded stored in unused railway tunnels?


Sorry not sure how we got here from the F35A

[Philly1971]

I think I contributed to the drift away from F35s to HAS. Again talking of which, I spent some time in Bodo, Norway, in the summer. Sadly the airbase is now gone, but they still have plenty of HAS left, including a proper underground bunker capable of holding their original Starfighters safe from a nuclear attack. The museum there is pretty decent as well. The town is planning on moving the runway and airport further away, which means in the old airbase part, so are having to demolish all those HAS, which I guess is not an easy job. Anyway, I stick with my original thought, in that if we did have the money for more assets, then it should be more F35Bs. Easy to disperse, and no runway required.

[Enobob]

I think I contributed to the drift away from F35s to HAS. Again talking of which, I spent some time in Bodo, Norway, in the summer. Sadly the airbase is now gone, but they still have plenty of HAS left, including a proper underground bunker capable of holding their original Starfighters safe from a nuclear attack. The museum there is pretty decent as well. The town is planning on moving the runway and airport further away, which means in the old airbase part, so are having to demolish all those HAS, which I guess is not an easy job. Anyway, I stick with my original thought, in that if we did have the money for more assets, then it should be more F35Bs. Easy to disperse, and no runway required.

If you are going to operate F-35B's as operational aircraft with a warload then a runway certainly IS required!

[Vulture 01]

Seconded, Enobob.
Surely the F35B is classed as a STOVL (Short Take Off /Vertical landing)Aircraft? As far as I recall, even the Harrier needed a take off run to get airborne with any significant payload.
Vertical take offs were simply for air show, and other, demonstrations.

[Finty]

. Anyway, I stick with my original thought, in that if we did have the money for more assets, then it should be more F35Bs. Easy to disperse, and no runway required.

Huh?

Don’t forget that aircraft are always heavier on takeoff due to having more fuel and, in some circumstances, ordnance, than on landing so it makes sense to use short takeoffs rather than vertical. When have 35Bs and Harriers before them routinely operated with vertical take offs?

[Col Nago]

I reckon after the past few days of utterly ridiculous posturing by the current US government, the Typhoon option is looking much more likely.

[Philly1971]

. Anyway, I stick with my original thought, in that if we did have the money for more assets, then it should be more F35Bs. Easy to disperse, and no runway required.

Huh?

Don’t forget that aircraft are always heavier on takeoff due to having more fuel and, in some circumstances, ordnance, than on landing so it makes sense to use short takeoffs rather than vertical. When have 35Bs and Harriers before them routinely operated with vertical take offs?

Operationally I agree they would need to use their short take off capability and not vertical. Not sure how long that is without the ramp, but I suspect still much shorter than a traditional launch requirement? However we were also discussing the use of HAS, and for me their benefit of being able to survive an initial attack, whether it comes from external, or from within. It was suggested earlier on that an enemy just needs to hit the runways, and then can pick off the stranded aircraft whether in a HAS or not. Maybe yes for the Typhoon fleet, but I think F35Bs would have a better chance to disperse. Whether they could ever operate away from a home base, seeing as they are so complicated, is another discussion I suppose!

[lmgaylard]

. Anyway, I stick with my original thought, in that if we did have the money for more assets, then it should be more F35Bs. Easy to disperse, and no runway required.

Huh?

Don’t forget that aircraft are always heavier on takeoff due to having more fuel and, in some circumstances, ordnance, than on landing so it makes sense to use short takeoffs rather than vertical. When have 35Bs and Harriers before them routinely operated with vertical take offs?

809 Naval Air Squadron did operate a Sea Harrier for CAP while transiting South down to the Falklands, on Atlantic Conveyor. It would have to take-off vertically, so it had no external drop tanks fitted, just a pair of Sidewinder and the two belly-mounted Aden cannons.

[cat1]

Specifically, the F-35B is a STVOL, not a VTOL.

So yes, the F-35B technically requires a runway to operate.

The harrier was a VTOL, so could vert with weapons attached as above

I'm aware I'm probably teaching much much more intelligent people than myself how to suck eggs. I am but a simple soul, if this is the case, ignore me

Edited

[NorvilleRogers]

Specifically, the F-35B is a STVOL, not a VTOL.

So yes, the F-35B technically requires a runway to operate.

The harrier was a VTOL, so could vert with weapons attached as above

I'm aware I'm teaching the textbooks, sorry!

I think the text books call it STOVL.

[Doughnut]

Even for a vertical landing the F-35B uses the special reinforced concrete pads as seen at Marham, or the metal deck of a ship.
Standard concrete surface would be ripped up and I expect any take off using deflected thrust from the main engine would cause similar damage.
Asphalt or tarmac would stand no chance, so dispersed locations are going to be hard to find.