UK F-35s land on HMS Queen Elizabeth

The first RAF F-35s landed on the HMS Queen Elizabeth today, as part of WESTLANT 19. The deployment will see the ship working on combat techniques for the F-35, following WESTLANT 18, where the aircraft was certified for the ship, and tested in various conditions. The deployment is known as OT-1, and will last 5 weeks. Pilots were drawn from No 17(R) Test and Evaluation Squadron, and No 207 and 617 Squadrons. The Queen Elizabeth is escorted by HMS Dragon (Type 45), HMS Northumberland (Type 23), and RFA Tideforce (Tide Class tanker).

Flown by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots, the Lightning jets are embarking in the 65,000 tonne carrier to conduct operational trials off the East Coast of the USA.

This follows successful developmental trials last year with US Lightning jets, where forces conducted 500 take offs and landings over their 11-week period at sea.

These trials are aimed at ‘end-to-end’ testing of the aircraft and personnel to ensure the aircraft are compatible with the carrier. The tests involve mission planning, arming the aircraft using the ship’s Highly Automated Weapon Handling System, flying missions and debriefing on completion.

www.janes.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the post Zaph, its good to hear she's finally getting aircraft.

a reply to: Kurokage

It is good to hear they are finally getting craft Those Lightnings are so beautiful our Navy is so lucky to get the tech. We may only have a few ships in the fleet but the " carriers with F35's plus Trident always on call surely packs a punch

Dang. Was hoping for video.

The ski jump bow is pretty. I take it the F-35 doesn't need a cat?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the post Zaph, its good to hear she's finally getting aircraft.

Knowing the tory party that's probably all the aircraft she'll ever get.

a reply to: Phage

They're using B models. Most carrier aircraft don't technically need a cat, but it allows for a heavier takeoff, meaning more fuel and weapons.

I e only seen this image before through CGI impressions, it looks no different in my eyes, I feel when I look at this the same thing? Maybe I have a
Good imagination

Good to see it all falling into place finally

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod i remember laughing at this advert not that many years ago when it turned out that the car in the ad was the only thing not sold for scrap



The carrier sold for 88k and the harrier fleet for 7 Mil after going through a Billion refit airframes were good for 30 years



www.youtube.com...

a reply to: stonerwilliam

The F-35 is light years ahead of the Harrier in terms of capabilities. Everything from their landing CEP to their sensor capability is so far ahead it's not funny. One of the UK pilots, after landing on the Wasp, said with the Harrier, you aimed at the deck and were lucky to get within six feet of your aim point. With the F-35, you picked out an aim point, and the wheel landed directly on it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A raptor can do that too, can't it?

Airshow at Kaneohe Bay a number of years back. Didn't see a takeoff or landing but damn, that thing performed some unnatural acts in the air.

a reply to: Phage

No, he was talking about a vertical landing, coming back to the ship. We watched most of the Raptor test flights through the High Speed Corridor out of Marietta. Interesting flights to watch.

Where the landings get really fun is on the CVN, with the C model, and JPALS. It's so accurate when landing on the deck, that there are concerns about deck damage caused by repeated landings on the exact same spot every time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah, Raptors do it too.

Both way beyond a Harrier.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The carrier in that advert landed up on some foreign beach getting ripped up by locals on a rope and we sold America all the harriers and spares for 7 mill so they cannot be all that bad

a reply to: Phage

The nose pointing on the Raptor is very impressive to watch. The only thing that would make it better is 3D TVC, instead of 2D. But that would have required a different exhaust on it. That might also help with the energy bleed in WVR.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm all about dogfights.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

The Harrier isn't a bad airframe, but it isn't a great one either. The AV-8A had an accident rate of 31.77/100,000, while the AV-8B reduced that to 11.44/100,000. It's biggest advantage is being able to fly off the LHA/LHD, and other small deck carriers that don't have a cable system.

a reply to: Phage

The biggest disadvantage the Raptor has is energy bleed, similar to the F-18. It loses energy pretty quickly in a turning fight, and takes a minute to build it back up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well the American marines loved them old Harriers and still do , they are our warthogs lol

7 fxxxing million heads up displays etc etc it sure should keep the american fleet going 30 years +

a reply to: Zaphod58

Cobra, or it's equivalent, never made any sense to me as an effective ACM.

Sort of like Tom Cruise "hitting the brakes."

But the point is, don't get that close in the first place.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

The time was right to remove them from British service. They were approaching the point where they'd need upgrades and fixes, and with the F-35s due into service it didn't make sense to spend all the money they'd need to for that. And without a carrier for them to fly off of, it didn't make sense to keep them around any longer.

This is the current schedule for the AV-8B:



By the end of the 2020s, the last AV-8B squadron will transition to the F-35B or C.