F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

However John, you can draw two lines on the graph, increasing cost and declining numbers purchased.

With the expected F-35 purchase and GR4 retirement we are nearly at the point of the old joke of having one operational aircraft, and the RN and RAF each flying it on alternate days......

[LowObservable]

There is another exception to the trend - just not in the UK, US or France. Rated by one European customer at 0.5 x operating costs of the Rafale or Typhoon. Nose-to-nose life-cycle cost comparison by different governments of similar size fleets over the same time period: 0.33 x F-35.

[Hempy]

Ummm, well that is capitalism, I was under the understanding thats how it was supposed to work.

Did you actually read and comprehend the post that I was replying to? For reference;
...if that supplier were doing their honest best for the Nation (plus allies) as well as making a reasonable profit

No kidding that it's capitalism, Walt. That was my entire point. :rolleyes:

[Engines]

ORAC,

Surely a slip on your part - you forgot to mention all those many Typhoons the RAF has been supplied with. At some significant expense to the UK taxpayer. I seem to remember CAS and other 'independent' experts saying that they have a 'demonstrated' and 'fully cleared' air to ground strike capability. I definitely remember the claims that they were the 'key' aircraft in the UK's Libya operations.

Right? I mean, they do have a cleared capability, don't they?

I apologise in advance for an outbreak of sarcasm, but I do think that latching on to F-35 as an example of rising combat aircraft costs (quite justifiably, in my view) but not mentioning the huge costs of the single role Typhoon is a little inconsistent.

Best regards as ever to those having to juggle the budgets

Engines

[LowObservable]

I hold no brief for Typhoon costs. Both Typhoon and Rafale are pretty expensive aircraft to acquire and to operate.

However, neither was sold as a breakthrough in affordability, in acquisition and operations.

[MSOCS]

but not mentioning the huge costs of the single role Typhoon is a little inconsistent.

Engines me-old, I presume you mean Typhoon being single role on Service entry last decade? I say this as the current P1EB upgrade to the jet now gives it a very nice A-G capability, quite a way beyond the "austere" sticking plaster it had during the Libyan intervention of 2011.

This of course is a bit of an aside to the thread but frankly after 300 pages the OP topic has grown more roots than the Amazon Rainforest.

However, neither was sold as a breakthrough in affordability, in acquisition and operations.

Ah the 4 pillars of the F-35 Program - report those who came up with such nonsense to Trading Standards immediately!! :rolleyes:

[Courtney Mil]

MSOCS,

I think Engines was referring to Typoon entering service with a single role. I suspect he knows its capabilities since. On the face of it, it's a valid comparison with F-35, although the risks with F-35 are probably far greater and the budget-juggling more intense.

[malcrf]

About 120, with Eurojet engines.

This stealth stuff is bollox anyway. We need some numbers, we can both afford to but and to operate!

[Engines]

Gents,

Thanks for coming back, and once again I apologise for being a little frivolous. But:

Yes, the P1Eb upgrade seems to give the Typhoon a decent Paveway capability. The point I was making was the severe 'overclaiming' that has gone on for some three or four years over Typhoon's strike capability, and the relative silence on PPrune about it. (Certainly compared to the criticism of F-35). And no, I don't think I would call the P1Eb upgrade a 'paradigm shift'. (BAES press release Nov 14).

I'm not having a pop at BAE: I know how hard they have had to work to get to this stage. But I also have a decent grasp of how much the UK has had to pay to get here, and how long it's had to wait. I also have a reasonable handle on how much the UK would have to do (and pay) to take the Typhoon much further.

Doing this combat aircraft stuff is hard. F-35 certainly made a rod for their own backs with the claims and publicity early on. But they're by no means the only program to suffer delays and challenges.

Anyways, free forum and all that. For my part, I'm waiting to see how the next set of F-35B sea trials go.

Best regards as ever to all those managing the mods

Engines

[Hempy]

The point I was making was the severe 'overclaiming' that has gone on for some three or four years over Typhoon's strike capability, and the relative silence on PPRuNe about it

At a guess I'd suggest that most are experienced (aka cynical) enough to understand that posturing and 'overclaiming' are de rigueur when agendas are at play. The Typhoon, however, is a proven aircraft. The F-35, by anyones standards, has proven nothing. Therein lies the difference.

[ORAC]

ORAC,

Surely a slip on your part - you forgot to mention all those many Typhoons the RAF has been supplied with.

"Many" Haaa!! :suspect:

Not a slip. The Typhoon was bought primarily as a replacement for the AD force. (Remember when had 7 AD squadrons? I'm not even going back to the F4/Lightning/RAFG days).

Primarily designed as a Mig 29 killer, second daylight bombing role to replace the Jag before all its upgrades. So A-G was never a real design factor, not wanted by the other buyers and a late and therefore expensive add-on.

What's the F-35 excuse?

And even if it eventually meets the design capability - it doesn't answer my point about numbers. Quantity has a quality all of its own.

[typerated]

Typhoon entered service as an excellent basic airframe with superlative performance but hindered by mediocre systems.


At best will the F-35 be the opposite?


If all the smarts (apart from stealthy shape) from the F-35 was put into the F-15SE would that have been more for less?

[FODPlod]

...The Typhoon, however, is a proven aircraft. The F-35, by anyones standards, has proven nothing. Therein lies the difference...

I think people are just pointing out how long and how much more money it has taken since the first Typhoon flight in Mar 1994. Typhoon didn't assume responsibility for UK QRA until Jun 2007 (13 years later) and wasn't formally declared an advanced AD platform until Jan 2008 (14 years later).

Although the first F-35A flight was in Dec 2006, the first F-35B flight wasn't until Jun 2008.

[kbrockman]

Ex-British defence minister says US fighter jet F-35 'history's biggest white elephant' | Siasat (http://www.siasat.com/english/news/ex-british-defence-minister-says-us-fighter-jet-f-35-historys-biggest-white-elephant)

London, May 10:

A former defence minister has warned that a plane that is touted to be the world's most advanced stealth fighter jet and could lend Britain and the U.S. air superiority in any future conflict is turning out to be one of the "the biggest white elephants in history."

...

While the Ministry of Defence (MoD) maintains that the U.K. fleet will have the "warfighting capability required" by 2018 - six years late. But former defence minister Sir Nick Harvey said there was "not a cat in hell's chance" the F-35 would be combat-ready by 2018.

[Not_a_boffin]

Ex MinDef, over two years out of post and a "communications executive" by trade. Presumably briefed only by CS and mil while in post.

Pinch of salt required wrt the hyperbole used methinks......

[glad rag]

Don't shoot the messenger, prove him wrong.

I doubt that you can do that though.

[Not_a_boffin]

Nor can you prove him right - which is the point I'm making.

For some it's the greatest thing since sliced bread - an uber-jet. For others we're all doomed, the sky is falling, it's the biggest white elephant in history.

The truth will undoubtedly be somewhere in the middle.

[LowObservable]

N-a-B...

I'm not that optimistic. Follow the trajectory of the JSF news since they started. It's already gone through "it's late and it will cost more" and "it's later than that and will cost even more": the Cloggies have come down from 85 jets to 37, and who knows when or how far the UK will get beyond 48 aircraft to the 138 now planned.

The USAF is trying to throw the A-10 force into the crusher to alleviate huge pressures on maintenance people (because of "don't ask ALIS"), which are already crimping F-16 readiness. Aesa upgrade of the F-16s has already been binned, which will leave them very susceptible to EW in the 2020s. (Amraam engagements? GLWT.)

Fortunately our adversaries have sat on their hands instead of perceiving a vulnerability and developing sensors aimed dead-center at F-35 stealth levels. Wait, what?

[Not_a_boffin]

No-one is ever going to hold it up as a model programme, that's for sure.

On the other hand, it's the programme most of "the west" bet on. Like it or not, it's what we're stuck with, so making it work becomes the priority. Endless calls of "we're doomed" sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence are not necessarily an indicator of the truth either.

There are a couple of things that don't get reported as much - the reduction in unit price (yes, I know it's not what was originally promised) below many of the predictions and the curious absence of anyone who's actually flown the jet decrying it in public - at least as far as I can see. They can't all be still in or on LMs payroll can they?

None of which makes it an uber-jet, but none of which makes it a white elephant either.

Hindsight is a curious thing. The big cost savings were seen as being commonality of kit for which apparently, the airframe had to be pretty much the same. You get the same in ships where people suggest that a common hullform might be a great way of saving money. Problem is that when you get into the detail of the hullform (much as with an airframe), the different arrangement drivers and loads, tend to move you away from there.

In hindsight, it might have been better to concentrate on common system / equipment items (eg engines, radar, displays, helmets, actuators etc) to get your logistics savings, but let the designers optimise the airframe and its structure for the mission. Would have made STOVL extremely difficult to fund, but that was always going to be the case. Might also have maintained a wider fighter design expertise base, which would have been beneficial for F/A XX and so forth.

But then people are convinced that the future is autonomy and anyone who ventures otherwise is clearly a heretic who needs to be burned at the stake. As with whether the F35 is an eventual success or not, time will tell......

[Hempy]

developing sensors aimed dead-center at F-35 stealth levels. Wait, what?

You mean all that non-stealthy crap hanging off the wings? :eek:

[LowObservable]

N-a-B - I don't think I remember anyone who had flown a new aircraft complaining about it at this stage. The earliest I can recall this happening was VX-5 blowing up about Classic Hornet Opeval.

The counter to "like it or not, it's what we're stuck with" is "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Most of the ultimate bill is not yet committed, because most of the money is in O&S and most of the jets that will run up those bills have yet to be ordered. Against that, a projected, small reduction in unit costs (versus SAR predictions) is money down the back of the sofa.

In hindsight, it might have been better to concentrate on common system / equipment items (eg engines, radar, displays, helmets, actuators etc) to get your logistics savings, but let the designers optimise the airframe and its structure for the mission.

Exactly. LO systems and materials could also have been shared across platforms. I made the point at the time (late 1990s), with the analogy of the Airbus family, which (pre-A380) covered a very wide range with one cockpit, one barrel section, one flight control system and two wing designs.

Would have made STOVL extremely difficult to fund.

Which was why no other approach was considered, because of the oversize influence of the Marines and the need to keep the UK on board - because the latter was the foundation for the JSF global strategy.

[Not_a_boffin]

If it's the dog the anti's would have us believe, then surely some of those (must be low hundreds by now) who have flown it and have no service or company obligation would be dripping - particularly given the profile of the programme. The absence of that deluge suggests it may not be a dog.

Canning it now - as your "in a hole" analogy suggests - isn't really possible, given the absence of a viable plan B. Yes, the 15/16/18 are (just) still in production, but mostly not in US variants and do not meet the JORD (or at least some aspects of it). Yes, we know, neither do some variants of the F35, but in most cases they have a hope of doing so, whereas the legacy jets never will. For a look at what happens when you change course late in programme, check out the shenanigans the USN is having getting the Arleigh Burke Flight III into production, having curtailed DDG1000 at 3 units on cost grounds.

More importantly, if you can it now, what is the replacement? F/A XX? Some X47 derivative? What? How many years does the US spend re-analysing a requirement, running design competitions and then procurement competitions? What happens to the average age of the fleet while this soul-searching - and it would be of epic proportions - is conducted? All watched over by the lawyers who would make the A12 fallout look like a minor gardening dispute.

Like it or lump it, we're stuck with it, IMO.

As for the UK being the foundation for the global strategy, I'd have thought that basing a strategy on replacing less than 100 cabs (GR7 + SHAR), plus the odds and sods that IT/SP add to the STOVL total, is a fairly poor option against the legion of F16/F18 operators..........

[LowObservable]

The absence of that deluge suggests it may not be a dog.

Did you learn your writing skills at the New Yorker? :cool: I am still trying to disentangle the negatives there.

"Can it now" is not possible. The RN is probably well and truly stuck. However, much of the world could benefit by planning for reality, which is that the F-35 will not be the all-conquering (8 x advantage in air-to-ground, 6 x advantage in air-to-air) wonderbeast it was sold as.

Also, I don't see how the USAF can afford 1763 of them, a new bomber, a new trainer, a new cruise missile, a new ICBM &c. and cover the payroll. (The USN can't afford Ohio Replacement.) Let alone all the long-range/unmanned capabilities required by Third Offset.

So the answer is either less fighter-heavy forces or (for many air forces) some less costly combat aircraft. Maybe FAXX is unmanned with more A than F; maybe it's a command center for an unmanned swarm; it's certainly not a seagoing F-22-substitute (by the way we'll need to replace F-22 sooner than most people think.)

This might provide some food for thought:

http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015/04/trends-in-air-to-air-combat-implications-for-future-air-superiority/

And I thoroughly agree that the current procurement system is incapable of delivering results.

[Lonewolf_50]

Aesa upgrade of the F-16s has already been binned,
One of the may things about the JSF/F-35 program has been its crack the whip effect on a variety of other programs that had merit, but one day funding lines went to zero. The above isn't the only case.

[kbrockman]

It's somewhat puzzling to hear and read proponents of the F35 stating that critique about all the cost/time overruns, failing to meet pre-set performances and doubt about the general concept of the platform (stealth, the onorthodox purchase -maintenance and upgrade contracts, all sensors and systems integrated from the get-go on all fighters for all customers,...) are all to be expected on a complicated program like the F35, a statement that is certainly valid in itself but they somehow at the same time seem to be blind for the latest trend and certainly new trend that is worrying to say the least.

More specific the need to prematurely retire entire programs that are still very needed and relevant today (the A10, and now maybe also the F16, let alone what will happen with the Harrier) just to assure funding for the F35.

All this resulting in no real lead in time, the F35 will have to perform all its missions at full strength basically from day 1 , not really a confidence builder I would think.

I'm certain that it will perform after a while, I have more than enough confidence in the abilities of (western) engineering, I don't think it's going to be a dog but I also think that for us (the smaller nations) there are simply better alternatives.

Last but not least , the idea that active military personnel is going to be publicly critical about new weapon systems ,like the F35, is simply laughable, it is not within the military culture, short of imminent treath (example the OBOGS issue with the F22) soldiers usually shut up and try to deal as best as possible with the program, loyalty is still a big thing within military circles.

As an example there is the debacle with the Canadian submarines, very little complaining by the boys and girls of the Canadian NAVY apart from the occasional incident or the critique of already retired personnel, and lord knows there was/is enough to complain about.

[Not_a_boffin]

LO - make your mind up mate. Your second para of 16:35 implies cancellation.

KB - was there a part of "have no service or company obligation" that you didn't understand? Of course serving aircrew and LM employees are going to toe the party line. As stated earlier though, there must be some who've flown it and left. If it's such a dud, what's keeping them quiet?

[kbrockman]

KB - was there a part of "have no service or company obligation" that you didn't understand? Of course serving aircrew and LM employees are going to toe the party line. As stated earlier though, there must be some who've flown it and left. If it's such a dud, what's keeping them quiet?


Most/all (air) forces are just now putting their first pilots and (service) engineers through the program , most , if not almost all of them are either still young or still very much involved in their respective air forces and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

[kbrockman]

Other people that at least should have some clue abou the F35 and its effects on the UK armed forces;
New US fighter jet on course to becoming ?one of history?s biggest white elephants? - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-us-fighter-jet-on-course-to-becoming-one-of-historys-biggest-white-elephants-10238761.html)


Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon CBE, who was Chief of the Air Staff when the F-35 was first discussed in the 1990s, branded the small number ordered by Britain as “a joke” and accused MoD officials of being “in denial” over the ability of Britain to run a “serious air force”.

A Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter jet prepares to take off on September 27, 2014, at the Akrotiri British RAF airbase near the Cypriot port city of Limassol A Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter jet prepares to take off on September 27, 2014, at the Akrotiri British RAF airbase near the Cypriot port city of Limassol Britain’s ageing Tornados will be out of service in three years, leaving the UK with a maximum “offensive capability” of 60 aircraft, he said. “The Saudis [were] using up to 100 aircraft in their campaign in Yemen. We couldn’t put 100 aircraft into the air to save our lives.”

On cost, he added, the jets were now close to “unaffordable” and “it will be token numbers we will be able to afford unless there is a radical change in thinking by the Government”.

John Marshall, of the Defence Synergia think-tank, said: “This aircraft is massively expensive, technically and operationally flawed and unlikely to enter full and proper operational service for several more years.”

Britain’s F-35s and its new aircraft carriers “are scheduled to declare an integrated Carrier Strike Initial Operating Capability by 2020”, according to the MoD. But current plans mean a carrier designed to have 36 F-35s on board will have just 12. This means “aircraft numbers will be unable to carry out operations effectively whilst ... protecting the carrier herself”, said Captain Marshall.

Dreaming about (pipedreams)capabilities, forgetting about affordability resulting in catastrophy.


Let's see what the US DoD will do with the planned F35 purchase numbers once the ,now officially launched, sixth generation fighter study program has started, 2400+ F35's for the Us will never happen, they'll be lucky to hit 1500.

[Turbine D]

John Farley said it best when he wrote:
Perhaps the only advantage of getting old is that one has more experience to draw on.
John has a few years more experience than I do, but I can tell you some things from experience long before some of your time in the aviation business:

1. Had the all proposed F-111 program gone forward on the basis it was too big to fail, there would have been no Phantom Friday thread. In fact, looking at the F-14, F-15 and F-16 programs, one wouldn't have made it due to lack of funding. The F-111 was a budget drain from the get go, and the aircraft was a loser for what it was originally design for, both Navy and Air Force application. Luckily, some bright DoD leaders recognized the shortcomings and financial pitfall and cut if off after 100 aircraft. Design of separate aircraft commenced for separate missions.
2. The thought of designing one aircraft to accomplish three but distinct missions involving three services to save money was and is a pipe dream, plain and simple. A, B and C will never, ever, be the best they could have been if three separate aircraft had been designed.
3. The thought that the cost of the aircraft will go down by increased production is one of the biggest mistakes in industry, unless you have a winning product design. The F-35 is not a winning product design, it is a compromise, time and again and it is not over yet. The budget wizards will make procurement costs look like they are going down, but will never let you know that operational, maintenance and general support costs will be rising faster and by far, longer in time going forward.
4. This is the first political designed fighter aircraft where placing components by States as demanded by Congressional nit-wits, as separate from participating Countries, outweighed both logic and in some cases, ability to make components reliably. US politics rule the day.
Original quote by: Not_a_boffin:
As stated earlier though, there must be some who've flown it and left. If it's such a dud, what's keeping them quiet?
Some US military General or Generals who are propelling the F-35 program forward at all cost, as was the USAF General who threatened his underlings with treason if they disagreed over elimination of the A-10 Warthogs. There are more like him.

[LowObservable]

TD - A pretty good analogy. A US air arm with 1,726 F-111s would have been good at burning fuel and (eventually) capable of low-level night attack, but that would have been about it.

N-a-B - I'm talking about the need to plan for "after the JSF" so that we are not (for example) stuck with JSF as a Typhoon/Super H &c replacement in the late 20s, and so that we retain some flexibility to deal with changing missions and threat technology.

[glad rag]

LO, I'm certain that with ongoing tech advances the capability to deal with or neutralise "emerging missions and threat technology" will easily fit in a pod.


Oh hang on......

:E

[WhiteOvies]

Glad Rag - Many of the assertions made in the Independent's article were incorrect or based on out of date information. It also skipped over a lot of the positive facts about the programme. It is not what I would call a balanced view of the current situation and smacks of pre-SDSR maneuvering. The answer to Graydon's issue is to buy more F-35; however given that our strategic and regional situation is somewhat different to the Saudi's (not to mention their political processes!) his comparison is barely relevant.

The problem with pods is that they have a significant impact on the RCS of the aircraft, as Boeing know. The sales pitch for F-15SE or the Advanced F-18 is basically we can give you something that almost has some of the capability of an F-35 at a fraction of the cost. For some nations this would be attractive but not for the UK.

The current design of stealth drones come with their own limitations too, but you will not neccessarily see them discussed publicly by the guys working on X-47B, NEURoN, Taranis or the Chinese one.

[Thelma Viaduct]

110 years ago aircraft were fairly basic, much like your average tory voter. 55 years ago ish the SR-71/A-12 was being tested.

I wonder what's hidden away in 2015???

Is the leap in advances likely to be linear or not. The F-35 suggests it flat lined a while back....

[Courtney Mil]

You challenged N-A-B to prove him wrong, he couldn't, I could. However I am not going to do it here or in any public forum. If I get a chance on a one-to-one basis to discuss it with the man in person I will, as I have done previously with other senior ranking politicians. Whether they listened is another matter....


If you're "not going to do it here" then why bring it up here? If it's so classified, don't even mention it. If it's so classified, how come you could do it one-to-one?

[LookingNorth]

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was an aeroplane called the TSR2 which was utterly brilliant, too far gone to cancel, irreplaceable, and so on.

We cancelled it. Because actually it was not up to the job, inflexible, and it was too expensive. It was a disaster of unheard-of proportions, with the RAF collapsing into disarray and the British aviation industry dying on its arse. Oh hang on, the aviation industry went on to sell lots and lots of jets to rich Saudis and the RAF muddled on through with a much more varied, more affordable and more flexible front line than they could ever have dreamed of in 1960 or even 1965.

F-35 needs to be killed just as much as TSR2 needed to be killed. Because relying on F-35 will turn the UK's air arms into the irrelevancy that so many think they already are.

Nothing is too big to die.

[Courtney Mil]

LN, I love your post. But I truly think this thing has become too big. The U.S. has sunk trillions into it already and no Senator is going to allow the cancellation of a project that loses jobs in his state. And then there's the question of WTF do we do now?

All the wrong military reasons for keeping any project alive, but there you have it.

[WhiteOvies]

Courtney,

We both know that some things should stay behind closed doors in a briefing room and a public forum is not the place for such discussions. The statement was born of frustration, I will remove it.

Best Regards,

WO

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I understand what you are driving at, but no major power would be bothered by that, in its own way excellent, combination.

There is only one way to discover that you don't have a credible deterrent, and that way usually involves several million dead.

[Courtney Mil]

Courtney,
We both know that some things should stay behind closed doors in a briefing room and a public forum is not the place for such discussions. The statement was born of frustration, I will remove it.


No need to remove it, WO. And you are right, we do both know. You can probably understand my frustration with some of the discussions here, but we just have to zip lip sometimes.

Didn't mean any offence

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

With respect msbbarratt, those arguments aren't necessarily linked.
You can only be sure that deterrent forces have failed when they fail. You can't be sure whether we have had no major powers wars because deterrent forces were sufficient, or because the potential enemy wasn't going to attack anyway. It's the same with Flight Safety, and most of science.
I'm not an expert on US defense plans. The forces used recently by UK, France and Canada, about which I still know something, seem correct. Doubtless the manufacturers' marketing teams will be yelling 'combat-proven!', but I can't find grounds to accuse them of deliberately influencing defence deployments for that reason.
Each nation needs to make its own decision on F-35. I think F-35 is wrong for Canada. It's got one engine, is too expensive vs numbers acquirable, and isn't multi-role enough. I have it from the horse's mouth that most of the Canadian political parties agree with me, and for those reasons. At the moment, we have the other lot in power, but there's an election soon.

p.s. I think a manufacturing capability is v.important, so I would like to see Canada acquire Rafale, as they are offering a licencing deal which would allow Canada to rejuvenate its military aircraft manufacturing base for future drone aircraft (looking 15+ years down the track here).

[SARF]

Is there a nation ,outside of the u.s. that could conceivably invade the u.k. Without a years notice?...No
Are there nations that may fk around with our assets abroad.. Possibly.
That's where our current defence budget should be spent. So it's carriers, marines , rapid deployment, paras , etc.
So we need carrier defence aircraft and ground attack carrier based aircraft.
Fleet air arm.. Two specific aircraft.

[rh200]

I wonder what's hidden away in 2015???

And you will never know until they want you to.

Honest question: are there any airborne offensive operations of the past couple of decades that couldn't have been done with mildly updated B52s, A10s and Canberras?

The F35 as flawed as it appears is not primarly intended for that.

The fact is, we think things should be getting easier, in fact they will be getting harder. Whilst there are potential major adversaries, we have to hold the deterrent line against them, as well have the ability to take on the mozzie bites like ISIS.

The problem with the major adversaries is they require multiple deacadel thinking, something that has the potential to go very wrong.

Its becoming apparent with the combination of the idiot in the whitehouse, psychopath in the Kremlin and China starting to position itself, some major defence rethinking is going to be required.

[malcrf]

I'd love some new build Buccaneers with modern avionics and EJ200s.................I bet it would make a far more effective offensive platform than the F35

[Finnpog]

I believe that a 'Super' Bucc might be welcomed by quite a few Ppruners.

[KenV]

Is there a nation ,outside of the u.s. that could conceivably invade the u.k. Without a years notice?...No
Are there nations that may fk around with our assets abroad.. Possibly. For many decades now, it does not take an invasion to seriously mess up if not outright destroy another nation. Witness Japan way back in 1945.

What is needed is a serious assessment of the THREATS, which includes far far more than an "invasion." And for an island nation like the UK, that includes strangulation by blocking the sea lanes.

[Courtney Mil]

...but it's also called the Joint Strike Fighter, but it ain't really that, is it?

[Courtney Mil]

Malcrf, it could be brought back to life as an excellent platform. Sadly, I suspect the F-35 sales pitch exceeds what Buccaneer did. Now, I write this very carefully.

Bucc did great low level attack - possible the best ever without TFR (your upgrade would probably sort that - I know I'm ignoring previous work here).

Bucc did great anti-shipping. Bananas. Very brave stuff. And the guys were outstanding there.

Recce. Clearly possible.

AAR. Sure, if the Navy can support its shrinking relevance. Not a difficult role for an aircraft such as the Bucc, but maybe we shouldn't need it as much as we did because the alternative today is a Gen5 airframe that, surely, should get airborne with a full fuel load.

Nuclear strike. Well a mute point because the UK is not France and the role has been passed along to the RN. Let's hope they fight their corner hard enough to protect it.

EW. That's classified, right?

What does that leave? AD, Interdiction (as it used to be called), CAS, etc.

What is the alternative? Well, there is no alternative. This thing is coming.

BUT, Malcrf, you make a really good point (in my opinion). A great aircraft can do important roles really well. For a long time we all tried to build aircraft that could do them all. And we succeeded to an extent - F-15e as an example.

But then we try to design an aircraft where stealth is supposed to make it undetectable and indestructible. We all know where the stealth argument ends and the compromises it imposes on performance. And that will be the big tester when it goes up against a Century 21 adversary built for a specific role, like the Bucc.

So, maybe there is an argument for aircraft designed for a role. The Bucc certainly was. The re-engineered Bucc can't do all the F-35 roles. But then we don't know that F-35 can yet either.

Personally, I'd love to see the Bucc in the air. And a major upgrade could probobly make it a potent aircraft. But...

[malcrf]

Thanks for the considered and comprehensive reply, appreciated.

Personally, I'd rather have 2/3 types that are designed for purpose, rather than 1 Jack of All Trades. Typhoon for Air Superiority and Super Bucc for offensive work would suit me just fine (and would probably be both better and cheaper), and we'd have common power units.

[Lowe Flieger]

?Lockheed not ditching agile fighter designs - 5/13/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-not-ditching-agile-fighter-designs-412288/)

There appears to be some uncertainty over what course future fighter design(s) will follow. According to the linked Flightglobal piece above, LM may produce a fast, agile fighter. Yet the same article links to another report that puts much more emphasis on weapons and sensor capability before the more traditional fighter attributes. I also recall that USN Adml Greenert at one time advocated less sophisticated 'bomb-trucks' more heavily loaded with smart, long range weaponry. You pays your money (lots of it) and you takes your choice - perhaps. Maybe in future B52 type weapons platforms will be intercepted at very long range by similar sized 'fighters' loaded with long range missiles? Or maybe not.

I guess it will probably depend who your enemy is and what their capabilities are, which probably comes back to having an appropriate system for the threat presented, which in turn probably means several different role-optimised platforms. It seems to me that 'one size fits all' procurement is an economic solution before a military one. The irony is that multi-role seems to come at huge expense, maybe even greater than having multiple platform tails? If the cost is similar or near similar, surely an optimised platform is preferable as it will handle the presented threat more capably?

My overloaded brain can't see a clear way through this maze; hopefully there are smarter folk who can. Or perhaps, in F35, LM have already accurately predicted the future requirement of a smart fighter that's maybe a bit behind the speed and agility curve?

Rambling over, to the relief of all no doubt.

LF

[LowObservable]

LockMart's strategy for next-generation fighters is to issue pronouncements that confuse the :mad: out of everybody. It would be dumb for them to do anything else, because they never forget who they're working for, and fiduciary law makes it extremely clear who that "who" is.

[rh200]

I have it from the horse's mouth that most of the Canadian political parties agree with me, and for those reasons. At the moment, we have the other lot in power, but there's an election soon.

Its easy when your in opposition to point to something else to try and differentiate yourself to the other guy.

A bit different when you have to make those decisions and weigh up all the compromise that politically go with it. knowing the yanks as they are, there would't be any of consequence, so feel free.:p

Lets face it the main use of fast jet forces are to be against an another with fast jets. (in practice they are being used against savages).

In the case of a serious adversery, we aren't going to be involved in much without the yanks. As such, one wonders how much decision making relies on total foreseen force make up and interoperability.

[orca]

RH200,

I think we agree.

I'm sure that Air Power proponents have been saying we'll be fighting Air Forces for decades but it's never happened. I personally doubt we'll see high end air-to-air combat in our life times. We use fixed wing day in and out for strike and ISR, but we throw millions of pounds of fuel and millions of hours training for air-to-air which doesn't seem to have happened or be likely to happen.

That being said, I do think, as the most stressing case we need an insurance policy against it. I'm just personally convinced the likelihood is tiny.

[Hempy]

'Defence' forces are insurance policies (well, cavorting around the Missle East aside...). How many trillions were spent on ICBMs? How many times did they get used?

Joe Public probably wouldn't react well if Boris Badenov and Chairman Jin were flaunting flash new stealth weapons that could not be countered, regardless of the platform. The 'arms race', whilst it may have slowed a bit, is still running.

So you get with the program or you get left behind. For the 'Leader of the Free World', and us lesser hangers-on, there's no option.

[Chugalug2]

F-35B's coming and going on sea trials c/o Aviation Week videos. Apologies if this has already been "PPRuNed", here or elsewhere:-

Videos: F-35B Operational Test Trials | Ares (http://aviationweek.com/blog/videos-f-35b-operational-test-trials?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20150528_AW-05_148&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000450620&utm_campaign=2662&utm_medium=email)

[glad rag]

Operational Test Trials. hmm...

... just a bunch of cabs landing and taking off.

If it is felt that this is cause for celebration go check out your local airport...

As for "watch the nozzle in the hover".....

...SpaceX have only been going for what, 12 [?] months of offshore landing trials and are almost there...


http://www.space.com/images/i/000/046/963/original/falcon9-drone-ship-landing.jpg?1429046434

Then again they ARE a commercial organisation and have to pay their own bills...

[sandiego89]

glad rag...SpaceX have only been going for what, 12 [?] months of offshore landing trials and are almost there

Uhh rag, are you sure you want to cite space X landing trials on their barge a comparative success?

In my book I would not call THREE recent "crashes" as "almost there". I do allow it is not an easy task.

I especially like this gem on the social media PR spin after that last failure: http://gizmodo.com/spacex-crashed-a-rocket-on-a-drone-barge-again-1697530848

"Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing". In the old days that would be a crash......

[LowObservable]

The STOVL flight control is impressive. And after a lot of time and money - STOVL has added double-digit gigabucks to R&D, starting with the two engines - the system has become reliable enough to perform repeated operations with journos watching. Also, congrats are due if they actually did practice an afloat engine and lift-fan change.

However...

+ $50 million per airplane
+ >4,000 lb deadweight
- 5,000 lb internal gas

Not to mention that the CTOL airplane has its wingspan dictated by parking on the Wasps, and its overall length constrained by the elevators on the Invincibles.

Now all we need from the Marines is a CONOPS that makes an iota of sense and we're off to the races.

PS - Note the bloke making a very careful walk-around visual check of the landing spot at 4:15-4:45.

[sandiego89]

And this link says with a day or two to go on the trials, the 6 jets (maybe 7 as it looks like a spare went out) had logged 98 flights with 73 hours. First night landings at sea.

Lockheed's F-35B clears naval landing tests; 'right at home at sea': US Marine Corps - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/lockheeds-f-35b-clears-naval-landing-tests-right-at-home-at-sea-us-marine-corps/articleshow/47455358.cms)

[glad rag]

Uhh rag, are you sure you want to cite space X landing trials on their barge a comparative success?

In my book I would not call THREE recent "crashes" as "almost there". I do allow it is not an easy task.

I especially like this gem on the social media PR spin after that last failure: SpaceX Crash-Landed a Rocket on a Drone Barge (Again) (http://gizmodo.com/spacex-crashed-a-rocket-on-a-drone-barge-again-1697530848)

"Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing". In the old days that would be a crash......

Oh dear, obviously my post was FAR to subtle for you sd, far too subtle...[12 months ns 13 yrs]...

IIRC The last one fell over because it overstressed one leg [first] then over it went, the control system was operating correctly right up to the point the rocket motor ramped up for touchdown then the correction rate of the nozzle slowed right down and could not react in time...[perhaps the fuel is used to drive the nozzle, sudden demand from engine leads to drop in flow/pressure across other parts of the system?? Or loss of hyd pump pressure due to fuel being the hyd pump's prime driver??? pure speculation on my part btw]

[Engines]

LO,

Much as I am reluctant to get into a 'figures slanging' match with you, I think i have to pick you up on a couple of points:

1. CTOL wingspan was not dictated by parking on the Wasp. Nor, for that matter, was the STOVL wingspan.

2. Invincible class lift (not elevator, LIFT) size had absolutely no effect on design of any of the F-35 variants. Certainly not overall length. There was never an endorsed requirement for the F-35B to go down the lift. It was considered, but never included as a formal requirement.

3. Yep, the landing spots are being carefully checked for any damage, as this set of trials allows much more demanding conditions to be applied to the 'Thermion' coating. It's precisely what I'd expect to happen. It's normal trials activity. Honest.

4. The F-35B isn't carrying 'deadweight'. It's carrying the kit required to conduct STOVL ops, which is kind of the point of the F-35B. For completeness, perhaps you need to look at the weight delta (or 'deadweight'?) required to get the F-35C to carry out CATOBAR ops.

5. I expect that Marine CONOPS make sense to them and also to the USN. And the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who will have signed off on them. I know you won't agree with them, but honestly, I'll go with their judgement for now.

So, in around 13 days, 98 flights and 73 flying hours, from 6 jets. From a small deck and a tiny hangar. Not bad going, in my book. But then, I'd expect you to disagree. Please do - open forums and all that.

Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the work for real,

Engines

[sandiego89]

glad rag: Oh dear, obviously my post was FAR to subtle for you sd....

Ahh, gotcha glad rag- sarcasm can be very tough to to pick up on e-forums, especially when you seemed to be downplaying the current trials in the previous sentances, sorry. Indeed landing a tail sitter booster rocket on a barge is no easy feat.

Engines: So, in around 13 days, 98 flights and 73 flying hours, from 6 jets. From a small deck and a tiny hangar. Not bad going, in my book

I agree, and I imagine they got some more sorties in as the article was written with a few days left to go on the eval. Those figures were were for about 9 days, and I imagine the first day was to reach the op area off North Carolina, and not sure if they flew everyday (weekeends and the Monday holiday of Memorial Day tend to be a normal/flight duty day at sea, especially for shorter duration trials). Yes, I realize that many of the sorties were short duration qualification hops (pilots were to do 4 night landings to get their night qual.) So this averages around 16 flights per aircraft.

Nice to see the UK folks imbedded into the trials and USMC squadrons.

[sandiego89]

Engines: 2. Invincible class lift (not elevator, LIFT) size had absolutely no effect on design of any of the F-35 variants. Certainly not overall length. There was never an endorsed requirement for the F-35B to go down the lift. It was considered, but never included as a formal requirement

To further the discussion on the sizing, I wonder if elevator/lift "requirements" were perhaps 'implied' requirements, or a constraint, but not a formal "requirment" in the early days of the program. Surely you would not build something that would not fit on the lift of a key parter that you wanted to order your product. (sorry I'm an American and use "elevator" when talking about US ships). So while it may not be a formal requirement, it may have been an influence? Maybe it was more a factor in the prior FCBA/JCA/CALF/JAST/JSF plans and influences. The UK had significant influence on JSF design, and surely would not design something too big for their ship? Early plans had the JSF flying from the INVICIBLES I seem to recal.

An older and unreferenced source, perhaps when we were still in the JSF stage (pre down select) here :F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35b.htm)

states "The USMC STOVL aircraft must be compatible with and operationally supportable from CVN-68 (NIMITZ), LHA (TARAWA), and LHD (WASP) Class Ships. The UK STOVL aircraft must be compatible with the flight, ramp, and hangar deck layouts of CVS (INVINCIBLE) Class Ships." Again perhaps not a formal requirment, but was in the literature at the time.

A related interesting paper on ship design influencing the JSF linked below. Paper titled "the Influence of ship configuration on the design of the Joint Strike Fighter" notes the vast differences of ships the JSF would operate from influenced JSF design. Good review of spotting size, elevator/lift size (see table 2) seems to indicate that the INVINCIBLE size likely had some influence. Good discussion on spotting size, that the US Marines did not specify a spotting size or wingspan, or even weight, but that 6 had to fit behind a LHA/LHD island without crossing the "foul" line, or having to move an adjacent plane. That resulted in a wingspan constraint of no more than 35 feet. Then the paper moves to elevator/lift size and hangars and lists the 55x32 foot size of the INVINCIBLE as a factor. So I offer maybe you can have contraints or influences without a requirement....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA399988&ei=6lZnVcS0B8mngwSNvICgCw&usg=AFQjCNHpjwpzzM4oZuP1eQCyk8S8rS3FcA

But it seems by the time the B was ordered, it has a 35 foot wingspan (wider than the INVINCIBLE lift). So perhaps the requirment to fit on the INVINCIBLE faded away when it was realized that a B would never fly from an INVINCIBLE. Or as stated was a consideration, but perhaps not acted upon, and helped drive the move to bigger UK carriers. The program has gone through many changes.

All the above just for banter and discussion....

Spot on on the flight deck material. I work just across the yard that has done the flight deck mods for the WASP and more recently the BATAAN. Much effort has gone into this deck coating, and I would expect it got much attention during this eval.

[MSOCS]

Much effort has gone into this deck coating, and I would expect it got much attention during this eval.

Perhaps attention such as a:

...bloke making a very careful walk-around visual check of the landing spot at 4:15-4:45.

:rolleyes:

[LowObservable]

Engines:

As for the wingspan: page 5 here.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf

In theory they could have gone with a bigger wing for the A, but - from my familiarity with the program at the time - having three wing sizes would have been a big negative in the source selection.

A LockMart guy recently told me about the Invincible LIFT standard. (He was correcting my view that it had to do with Wasp ELEVATORS.) I am not sure it was in effect at contract award, but it was a requirement late enough to drive the design.

We can talk terms all day, but tons of metal doing nothing for the mission or structural strength sound like deadweight to me. I don't disagree that the F-35C is a porker; a better comparison is the OEW delta (about 600 kg IIRC) between Rafale C and Rafale M.

The Marines have carried a forward-basing CONOPS for the Harrier for decades, with the approval of lots of people wearing the same kind of rank insignia as the chaps who approved the Schlieffen Plan, the K-class submarine and the Boulton-Paul Defiant, among other brilliant ideas from military professionals. They have exercised that CONOPS more or less once per war. I predict the same for the wonderfully named M-FARP.

[Engines]

Sandie,

I might be able to help here. The JSF SRD didn't have any 'implied' requirements, just plain requirements. (However, a (very large) number of 'derived' requirements were developed from the SRD - this process took place as a team effort between LM, the DoD and other customers, especially the UK).

The UK had already decided that it did not want the Invincible class deck, hangar and elevator layouts to affect the aircraft design. This was because they realised that the CVS would probably be leaving service just as the F-35B arrived.

The wording you give in your post is taken from the SRD, and you should note the difference between the US and the UK ship interface requirements:

" The USMC STOVL aircraft must be compatible with and operationally supportable from..CVN-68...LHA and LHD class ships"

"The UK STOVL aircraft must be compatible with the flight deck, ramp and hangar deck layouts of CVF..class ships"

All the UK asked for was that the STOVL aircraft was 'compatible' with the CVS layout, not 'operationally supportable'. That was taken to mean that as long as the F-35B could be parked on the flight deck or the hangar deck, it was OK. And the CVS elevator was deliberately omitted, as the UK didn't want it to impact the design. Yes, I know it sounds like a 'cop out', but the UK MoD had already realised that trying to operate F-35Bs effectively from CVS would not be a cost effective exercise.

The only UK ship specific requirement that did affect the design was a separate requirement for the aircraft to be able to execute a STO off a CVS class ramp. Later on, the UK CVF team had LM and BAES design a more optimised ramp profile for the QEC class.

The paper you provided a link to (for which many thanks) was familiar to me when I worked on the F-35 ship suitability team. The statement about the 35 foot wingspan limit from the LHD was made before more detailed option studies were done into different deck spotting arrangements, and other stuff. It wasn't set out in the SRD, nor, to my knowledge, was it set out as a formal derived requirement. The main driver for F-35B wingspan, in my recollection, was the need to reduce airframe weight as far as possible. However, it's certainly true that LHD deck spotting had an influence.

I hope this helps a bit. As ever, there are a number of factors that drive an aircraft's design at various times in the design and test process. You don't always see clear 'cause and effect' going on.

Best Regards

Engines

[sandiego89]

Great stuff, thank you Engines, especially on the SRD and pointing out the distinction on INVINCIBLE "compatabilty" vs "operationally supportable". Seems that the B on the INVINCIBLE would have been an interim step to do some trials, keep some limited capability and the skills warm until the new carrier came. Of course that did not quite work out....

I did enjoy that paper, really makes one appreciate the challenges and requirements, derived and otherwise, the team had to work with. Thank you.

[Engines]

Sandie,

Thank you.

LO,

I suggest that we should agree to disagree. Weight was a big issue on all three variants, and wing sizing was driven by a range of factors. The fact is that the A model (and the B model) have plenty of wing for what they were required to do. Weight drove a short wingspan as much as anything else. The JORD development process confirmed what many already knew - that success in combat depended as much (if not more) on the sensor and data fusion capability and weapons integration of the platform as it did on 'g' capability, or even sustained turn. Big wingspans weren't required.

I simply don't agree that the B's lift system is dead weight. The mission requirement is to operate from a ship. The lift system provides that. By your definition, landing gear is dead weight on an F-22. The F-35B is a STOVL aircraft. A lift system is essential to its mission. Clear to me.

The LockMart guy was wrong. As I said, compatibility with Invincible lifts was certainly looked at (diagrams of folding wingtips were drawn, but they were never anywhere being designed). The Invincible lift dimensions did not drive any aspects of F-35 design. If you want to disagree on this, feel free.

The F-35C isn't a 'porker' - it's what you get when you want an aircraft that can both fight and strike, with two large internal weapons bays, supersonic capability, and an ability to take off and land from a CVN at high weights. CATOBAR drove wing area and wing span, also the big structural penalties. From my experience on the T-45, I wasn't in the least surprised at the scale of the additional weight on the C.

CONOPS - see Para 5 of my previous reply. I'm done.

Best regards as ever to those working hard to bring new capabilities to the front line in good order. Not much else matters.

Engines

[glad rag]

Hang on a minute Engines.
;)
Whilst you are correct about operations from gelded flattop [oops]

Why should the RAF aircraft have to lug about so much

1. dead weight
2. loss of fuel capacity
3. loss of weapons storage. Mind you @£185,000 a pop for smd2 you can see the beancounters eyes light up when it's 4 vs 8 in the bays..

Hmm.

[Courtney Mil]

I simply don't agree that the B's lift system is dead weight. The mission requirement is to operate from a ship. The lift system provides that. By your definition, landing gear is dead weight on an F-22. The F-35B is a STOVL aircraft. A lift system is essential to its mission. Clear to me.


That's a great argument, Engines, but not good enough. The lift system is dead weight if you don't have to fly from a very short, possibly moving, runway. In that respect the B model, as the UK's version, imposes potentially severe restrictions on the UK's new do-it-all fast jet that should take on a lot of the RAF's roles.

To many that will operate it, it could well be just dead weight.

[Not_a_boffin]

Why should the RAF aircraft have to lug about so much

Because - having seen this point (aimed at FAA) made by others a number of times - they're not RAF aircraft. They're Joint aircraft, by virtue of the RAF having merged its requirement with FCBA and (via 3 Grp and JFH) taken over all FW aviation.

So they all have to be capable of flying off and recovering on the carrier. Otherwise people might think they weren't being serious.......

[Courtney Mil]

Joint is great, NaB. I have always been a massive supporter of "jointery", even if I hate the ugly term someone thought up to describe it.

But none of that is the point. The point is that land-based ops, that may require a decent payload and range, MAY be compromised by the constraints imposed on the single model the UK is buying.

If the B model really can do it all, why are other U.S. Forces buying two other models to suit their requirements?

[peter we]

Isn't the liftfan supposed to be easily removed and replaced with a fuel cell in that situation?

[Not_a_boffin]

The point is that land-based ops, that may require a decent payload and range, MAY be compromised by the constraints imposed on the single model the UK is buying.

CM - true. Equally true is that sea-based ops MAY be compromised by failure to buy and maintain a sufficiently large number of carrier capable cabs because part of the organisation thinks it needs a different version, which isn't carrier-capable. The decisions wrt JFH between 2003 and 2010 did not go un-noticed.

The RAF has a number of other capabilities (Typhoon, Storm Shadow and FSTA) if range/payload are significant concerns.

[MSOCS]

The point is that land-based ops, that may require a decent payload and range, MAY be compromised by the constraints imposed on the single model the UK is buying.

Courtney, I fear there is still this permeable myth that F-35B is a compromise for the RAF and that the RN have driven the light blue to carry around this "dead weight" where extra fuel and internal stores capacity could be traded instead. That assumption simply isn't the case and has never been the case from a procurement perspective. The brutal truth is that the RAF have chosen the F-35B and have stood behind that choice since around 1997 when the RAF's requirement bolstered the RNs.

On balance and quite a lot of analysis, the RAF clearly values the flexibility and choice presented by use of embarked, DOB (austere strips; either constructed or temp refurbished), or fully established runways, over the relatively small gains in combat radius. Back then nobody anticipated being cuffed with a shorter weapons bay; that and a few other design changes was a STOVL weight issue from c.2005 and, believe me, was hotly contested.

So, to re-iterate the point, the STOVL variant is the RAF and RN's choice. For any Service purchasing it, it is being purchased for its STOVL benefits and therefore the Lift Fan is most certainly not dead weight. It is essential to the concept of why it is being bought by those Services.

[John Farley]

There are answers to the oft repeated it melts decks and it has dead weight arguments.

The first answer is please note the rubber tyres immersed in the efflux.

The second answer has two parts. One has been mentioned by MSOCS, namely the operational flexibility that a hover capability provides. However this includes many things in addition to the size and type of site - such as it is easier in poor viz and with bad ship motion (both of which were much valued during the Harrier operational trials in the Falklands).

But in addition to these aspects there is a biggy that the hover before land offers that non Harrier pilots may not have considered. If you can hover then the whole need for an accurate end point to the approach to land goes away in both plan position and height. You just need to come to the hover with the touchdown point in view. A whole minute of sliding around in the hover to correct one’s height and position before landing really bores onlookers. A minute is a very long time in those circumstances.

Which brings me at last to the real biggy. This relaxed hover before landing mode means you need very little in the way of fuel remaining (imagine standing on the deck watching one in the hover for two minutes. Two minutes! What is he doing??) This ability to land safely with only a couple of minutes of hover fuel is in stark contrast to conventional ops with any aircraft type. When you join Neil Armstrong in the next life raise the issue with him.

So if you can hover much more of the fuel you start the trip with is available to do the trip. Thus even the (fuel) space taken by the fan is not as wasted as many folk think.

[Just This Once...]

JF,

I think some have the view that hovering must use a shed-load of fuel as the engine is operating close(ish) to its maximum output. Along the way they forget that the air that is being rammed in is very little when compared to high-speed or low-level cruise. The actual fuel flow is lower than most may imagine.

[Courtney Mil]

It really doesn't matter who chose the B-Model or for what reasons, the point still remains that the lift fan and other equipment does reduce range and payload. As a result, land-based ops MAY be compromised. It was a simple point. Apart from that, the aircraft that the RAF 'selected' all those years ago wasn't quite the same one we're seeing today.

As for landing fuel, the minima will be set according to circumstances. But it won't matter if they recover the B-Model to the deck on fumes, it still has a significantly reduced combat radius. The use of the relaxed hover mode is also dependent upon bring-back, wod, temp, etc. RVL is not the same as VL in terms of all the advantages.

[MSOCS]

JTO,

You're right, it's not huge. As always, JF perfectly explains some key differences between old and new hovering challenges. That said, there are good reasons to be concerned when such a powerful engine's exhaust is only a few inches above the landing surface in the last second or two of touchdown, followed by a rapid engine deceleration and the aircraft moving away to ease thermal feedback from the [now rather warm] surface to ac tyres. So far, the Wasp trials have shown safe, repeatable and reliable STO and VL operations at work and are equally testing ship-air interaction at the highest sortie rate yet done at sea by the USMC with this jet. The UK are involved and learning in order to plan for future sea trials with QEC in 2018.

The USMC will be the first Service in the world to go to sea with a squadron of 5th Gen combat aircraft - we know they won't be fully mission capable in respect of SDD but they will have a tested and confirmed A-A and A-G capability employable from their own ships.

[MSOCS]

Courtney,

The use of the relaxed hover mode is also dependent upon bring-back, wod, temp, etc. RVL is not the same as VL in terms of all the advantages.

Please educate me then. What are all the advantages you seem to think aren't realised in RVL (particularly SRVL)?

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, good Lord, MSOCS, I feel your angst. "Please educate me, then." Really? Did I dare question something about F-35 and its "vertical landings"? Remember, I am NOT a so-called "nay-sayer" so please don't respond to me as if I were.

But I shall explain my point, which was in response to JF. His post was extolling the virtues and all the advantages of coming to the hover, adjusting, moving sideways and plonking on the deck. My point was simply that all that is fine, but it was only a few months ago that extolling the virtues and the necessity to do RVLs instead. Not all the advantages apply equally to both landing modes.

Nothing more than that.

[Engines]

Courtney and Glad,

Thanks for coming back - I think I could provide some useful clarification for those viewing this thread from the outside. There's a constant theme that the F-35B carries a 'penalty' or 'deadweight' for land based ops. If the aircraft were being procured for a land based role, I'd agree 100%. But it's not. Perhaps a short recap of how the UK got into the JSF programme and what it wanted to buy would be useful.

The UK got into the programme firstly because of its STOVL expertise. Despite having gone ahead with a 'black' project (STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF)) after the UK/US ASTOVL programme wound up, the US was still ready to engage (if only unofficially) with interested UK parties.The reason - we knew more about making STOVL work than the US did.

The second reason the UK got into JSF was the RN's desire for a more capable 'follow on' for the Sea Harrier. A Naval Staff Target (I think it was NST 6466) was endorsed within MoD in the 90s, and became the FCBA (Future Carrier Borne Aircraft).

Note this was an RN project. The RAF were, at this stage, disinterested in JSF - they had their sights set on a long range stealthy replacement for the Tornado.

The existence of the NST allowed some very bright RN officers to maintain contacts through the 90s with the US DoD and USMC technical experts working on SSF. Those contacts led to the UK signing into the JSF programme (in around 2001, I think) via a special 'STOVL Memorandum of Understanding'. Let me stress this point - the UK got into JSF because the RN wanted a ship based supersonic STOVL aircraft, and because the UK (specifically BAES and RR) had an unmatchable set of STOVL expertise.

This was supported by the UK's decision to get back into the big carrier business. The CVF/QEC class are a direct result of a strategic decision by the UK that sea based fixed wing aviation was an essential part of future defence strategy. This hasn't changed.

Shortly afterwards, the JFH experiment was launched, and FCBA became the Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA - sorry about the acronym overload here). The RAF joined in at this stage, having found that a stealthy Tornado replacement was quite beyond any future UK defence budget's capacity. FJCA was still the F-35B, and the CVF was to be a STOVL ship.

But there was a problem. The RN wanted an aircraft that could deliver air defence and strike capability from ships. The RAF wanted a Tornado replacement to operate from land. The politicians thought that 'jointery' (i.e. JFH) was the way forward - it would (they thought) help square this circle, by aligning RN and RAF requirements and operational command arrangements. The sad fact is that it completely failed in this regard.

The RAF, for perfectly good reasons, saw the JSF through their traditional 'air power' lens: a deep strike aircraft hitting targets that couldn't be reached by land or sea, and which would deliver 'decisive effects', thus avoiding land or sea based operations. They have never, in my experience, intellectually committed to 'sea based air power' as envisaged in RN doctrine. This view was confirmed as late as SDR 2010, when CAS stated that he viewed the new aircraft carriers as 'a potentially useful alternative basing option'. Again, I'm not criticising this view - it's perfectly rational for a land based Air Force. But it's pure nonsense for a force that wants to operate at sea.

The fact remains that the UK is buying the STOVL F-35B because it has to go on the CVF. That's the requirement, that's what the aircraft has to do.

From my JFH experience, I'd honestly suggest that a separate buy of F-35As would be the best solution to the RAF's Tornado replacement problem. The RAF could operate their As from land bases, and the RN could operate their Bs from the carriers, with a common support base, training and logistics structure. This would also allow the land and sea based ops to have their own properly 'SQEP'd' (Gawd I hate that 'word') Duty Holders.

Longish post, for which I apologise. It's just that, at times, we seem to be questioning the basic rationale for the F-35B - to go to sea.

Best Regards to those working to get the jets salty,

Engines

[John Farley]

Courtney

The need for max bring-back and therefore an SRVL loses you most of the advantages of a hover capability that I have covered. However these more conventional approach issues have to be dealt with at a pretty slow speed which is always a big help. Another big help is the visual aid system that will be used, plus of course the very benign handling provided by modern FBW. I see nothing controversial in any of that.

My personal view on the bring-back spec point (which may be controversial to some) is that it will only be a problem to meet (using an SRVL) when there is a combination of a lot of ship motion, very bad weather and very high OAT. This combination need never be a peacetime training issue (don’t take the stores) but clearly could happen with ops. So I just say that if all these bad things combine together (big if) throw the store(s) away, hover and eliminate the risk to the jet.

Back in the SHAR days when a guy was worried about his hover margin as he came back to mother (due to weight/OAT/motion/weather or whatever) I always advised that he turned off the JPTL and got on with a normal arrival. OK that would add a few extra counts to the ELR or even call for an engine change afterwards but so what ….. the job was easy and the jet was safe on board.

Engines

Well done. Nothing like a few facts!

[Heathrow Harry]

Good post Engines - as you say not much point inthe F-35B if it is land-bound....... and if the F-35 ever does succeed its going to around a lot longer than the Typhoon

but wouldn't it be nice if our Lords & Masters made sure the RN and the RAF were working to a similar end rather than the constant service-centric view??

[glad rag]

Engines thank you again for an informative post.

HH you are absolutely correct divide et impera !

However as has been pointed out, F35Bis the worse possible variant for RAF use. In fact it probably isn't particularly optimal for the RN either but that boat has well and truly sailed [or stitched up like a kipper perhaps]

Considering the sheer cost involved, and as Engines has mooted, a buy of A would be far the better option for the RAF.

Which is the worrying thing; are those who make these decisions so unable to grasp simple LOGIC??

gr

[Engines]

HH, JF,

Thanks for coming back. On the RN/RAF issues:

Over the years, I have come to accept and understand where Air Forces come from. They exist to apply 'Air Power', which in their view possesses unique and separate qualities that supersede and avoid the need for land and sea warfare. This capability must be commended by 'air-minded' officers, i.e. Air Force officers.

Navies that use aircraft possess doctrines of applying of 'power on and from the sea' - 'air power' exists as part of an overall fleet's capabilities. These doctrines reflect the importance of being able to move around the oceans without let or hindrance, protecting national maritime assets and using manoeuvre around coastlines to wage war. In this scenario, aircraft at sea must come under the tactical command of the Fleet Commander.

These two approaches can't readily be reconciled. JFH showed that. They could, however, be made to co-exist to the UK's advantage. Give the RN the F-35s it needs to to its job from the carriers, and the RAF the aircraft it needs - the F-35A (or more probably the F-35C - even more range, and probe compatible with the UK's tanker fleet). Let each service command and employ their aircraft as they see fit. Leverage the F-35's commonality to build a common support system.

Basically, adopt the model used by every other nation in the world operating fixed wing aircraft at sea. It's not rocket science.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

[MSOCS]

Courtney, no angst but I sensed from your post that there was a disadvantage to RVL when there actually isn't. FWIW I don't view you as a nay-sayer either.

Engines, thanks for the recap however I would add that F-35B was never viewed formally as a Tornado replacement until we lost our Harriers in SDSR 10. There was a view to purchase F-35A for the RAF in addition to F-35B in order to cover the deep offensive strike we'd lose in GR4. Once Harrier went it was convenient but a tad disingenuous to then make the connection between GR4 OSD and F-35B IOC. I say disingenuous because of the F-35B met our distinctly different requirements for a deep penetrator then it, not F-35A, would have been a candidate.

On your point about RAF not really being intellectually committed to embarked, it may warm your heart to know that things have most definitely changed. There is a very collegiate, open and productive - dare I say truly Joint - commitment to F-35B aboard QEC these days.

[glad rag]

Hobson's choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice)

[downsizer]

There is a very collegiate, open and productive - dare I say truly Joint - commitment to F-35B aboard QEC these days.

Indeed, but lets not let that get in the way of those blinded by the past and no longer in either service.

[Engines]

MSOCS,

Thanks very much for coming back.

I'm glad there's a collegiate approach in action, and as ever I expect that the main progress is being made at SO1/SO2 level. I wish those given the task of getting F-35B to sea all the very best of luck, whatever the colour of their uniform. I really do think that in true Brit fashion, it will be made to work.

I would plead guilty as charged to being influenced by the past, but I would gently deny that I'm 'blinded'. Just because you've left the service doesn't mean you stop caring, or thinking. However, if anyone on PPrune objects to retired personnel posting, I'll of course stop doing so.

I just don't yet see the level of commitment required to generate a truly seaborne force being displayed by RAF VSOs - but I can happily accept that the decisions have been made and will be worked through.

The most important thing is that the UK is getting a world class aircraft that it will be able to use more flexibly than most other nations.

Best Regards as ever to those who will make it work,

Engines

[downsizer]

I've yet to encounter any resistance from the RAF reference spending time aboard. As it's the only game in town, and the future, people are chomping to work on/with it. Every single applicant for each post at present is fully aware of what they'll have to do and the various organisations in the states are truly joint.

It isn't about being out or in really, what some people need to realise is that times have changed and moved on from the past.

[Courtney Mil]

Engines, thank you for making the very point I made concerning the B-model not being the ideal solution for the RAF. I agree, if the UK wanted to go down the JSF route (and there weren't so many other options at the time that would be gen 5 and with a lifespan projecting far enough forward) they should have selected B for Navy and A or C for the RAF. When it came down to just one model for both, B it was. And, yes, that was pretty much how the RAF 'selected' the B.

As an aside, I still think the C would have been a better choice for both, with the appropriate carrier, but the RN and USN clearly have different views about projecting air power.

[KenV]

As an aside, I still think the C would have been a better choice for both, with the appropriate carrier, but the RN and USN clearly have different views about projecting air power.

I've always sensed that there was a fundamental difference between RN and USN regarding projecting power, but could never put a finger on what the difference was. Would you mind explaining how you see it?

[Courtney Mil]

Projection of AIR power, Ken. In two words, I would say Reach and Payload.

[MSOCS]

The genesis of the variant debate is money. If it were no object then the RN would most likely now be pursuing a hefty purchase of F-35C to fill both CATOBAR Carriers to the Gunwales. On the other hand, the RAF would be happily filling at least 5 sqns of probe-equipped F-35A. Cost that lot out and you rapidly realise why one variant or none at all was the order of the day from HM Treasury.

Back to reality, please.

The argument that JFH proved that an Air Force and a Navy's "Air Power" cannot be reconciled has become dogma to those bitten by the past. It is legacy thinking and, while you can argue all you want about it on the forums, there are a highly capable and forward-leaning bunch of light and dark blue committed to reconciling the mistakes of the past. That is NOT an argument against the B variant. I can confidently state that the JFH saga was born of two (not one) sides forced to play each other's game.

It's not forced this time. Both sides are in it together. Both sides understand the end-state and the concept in equal measure and, as has already been stated earlier, are chomping at the bit to get stuck in and demonstrate a very powerful capability for the UK.

Oh, and by the way Engines, the view isn't just held at SO1/SO2 level like it used to be. It now goes to at least 2* on both shades of blue which proves that times have changed and for the better.

[Engines]

MSOCS,

Good call. Forward, not backward, and all that.

Good luck to all those who will make it work this time, and as always

My Very Best Regards

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

The genesis of the variant debate is money. If it were no object then the RN would most likely now be pursuing a hefty purchase of F-35C to fill both CATOBAR Carriers to the Gunwales. On the other hand, the RAF would be happily filling at least 5 sqns of probe-equipped F-35A. Cost that lot out and you rapidly realise why one variant or none at all was the order of the day from HM Treasury.


Of course I understand all of that, but thank you for the reminder.

My remarks were simply in response to the comments earlier about "dead weight" and the suitability of the B Model to all arms. I still believe the C would have been a better choice for both services, fulfilling the single model ideal but offering greater range and punch in ops.

The B is here to stay and I accept that. As you say it is the reality.


It's not forced this time. Both sides are in it together. Both sides understand the end-state and the concept in equal measure and, as has already been stated earlier, are chomping at the bit to get stuck in and demonstrate a very powerful capability for the UK.

Maybe not "forced", but it was imposed in the early days, as you stated in your observations about cost leading to a single model requirement. But both "sides" have been in it together from the beginning and working together to make it happen. So well in fact that those involved directly and those of us more loosely involved (research, COEAs and the like as opposed to MoD and project teams) didn't even see each other as being on different "sides".

[LowObservable]

A few points:

Someone implied that the UK was brought into the program in the late 1990s; it was much earlier. DARPA's CALF study looked at USMC and RN needs, and it was announced in 11/93 that Britain would formally join JAST.

The main design features (including the major dimensions) at contract award in 2001 were very similar to those of the design proposed for the CDA phase in 1996, when the QE class was not so much as a gleam in the milkman's eye. So what UK carriers was it designed to fit?

Note also that the Boeing STOVL designs (CDA and PWSC) had a 30-foot span (same as the AV-8B) while the CTOL & CV versions had the same 36-foot wing. Boeing's wing was too thick to fold easily. Engines is correct to say that LM was briefly carrying folding tips, strictly for the Invincible-fit RN version.

The shape could have been changed before the SDD competition, but was not - Boeing did so and it was a negative in the evaluation.

As for whether a landing gear is deadweight - in a real sense it is, up and away, which is why we make it as light as possible. (TSR2 is a good example of the gear being made overweight by silly requirements, by the way.) Minimizing the weight and volume of STOVL-dedicated gear is a key part of STOVL design, because that's how you minimize the impact on range and other performance attributes.

And a point that seems to have to be made over and over again: A very big reason why the F-35C has more range than the F-35A is that it has more internal fuel. Some of this may be in the bigger wing, but most of it is the consequence of not having an internal gun. The RAF's best bet would be an F-35A variant with no gun and a probe. This should cost almost nothing to develop, but the bill would doubtless be colossal.

[PhilipG]

What I fail to understand is why if the RAF is to get an F35 variant that the C is not preferred, possibly with A type undercarriage, subject to cost, the C can be refuelled by UK assets, the F35 is to used as a stealth bomb truck on a first day of war event, then as I understand it as a platform for non stealthy weapon carriage.
Why do members feel that the A would be the preferred variant for the RAF? The more Cs ordered reduces the unit cost, the same argument about refuelling obviously applies to Canada.

[Courtney Mil]

PhillipG,

The C would be my preferred option regardless of undercarriage. Just leave it as it is. But when the grown ups turn up this evening we shall both be castigated for saying so.

LO,

Thank you for bringing some very pertinent facts back into focus. Again it's the C for the RAF. But it's all too late now.

[orca]

Phil,

In my experience the depth of the average argument is 'The A is the Air Force aircraft - surely it's the only choice for an Air Force?'

You are right, the C would be the choice of anyone looking for range and probe and drogue refuelling.

Yes it's heavier (so?) and yes the range KPP isn't dissimilar to the A (what it achieves in practice might be far higher). And yes it can't hack 9 g (not exactly a show stopper).

I desperately hope CM that I'm not among those you consider a grown up!

[Courtney Mil]

Heaven forbid, Orca!

[Mach Two]

I'm a bit out of touch due to location at the moment and for a while, so I haven't been on top of the news lately. Has there been any news about the engine issue? I think we were expecting something a while ago, but it's all gone a bit quiet out here.

[Bevo]

CM & Orca ----

Son to Father: “When I grow up I want to be a fighter pilot”.

Father to son: “Sorry son you can’t do both”.

[Courtney Mil]

I was that son, Bevo. :ok:

MT, no news here. Actually no apparent news of any news so don't hold your breath.

[Willard Whyte]

By the time Dave reaches IOC over here there'll probably be -D, -E and -Fs on the production line.

[Rhino power]

By the time Dave reaches IOC over here there'll probably be -D, -E and -Fs on the production line.

God, I hope not, the, -A, -B and -C's are bad enough! :}

-RP

[Lordflasheart]

Mach 2 asked - Has there been any news about the engine issue? This from 8 April – does not seem to have been mentioned here yet ...

P&W to re-evaluate interim fix for F135 engine problem - 4/8/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pampw-to-re-evaluate-interim-fix-for-f135-engine-problem-410932/)


And a reminder from JFZ90's post 5951 - 30 April -

P&W fights US government criticisms of F-35 engine reliability - 4/30/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pampw-fights-us-government-criticisms-of-f-35-engine-411748/)

[Mach Two]

My Lord, thanks for the quick answer there, just before I disappear from civilisation again for a while.

So it looks like both P&W and LM are fighting a PR campaign, or at least in (public) denial that anything much is wrong. If the pre-trenching "temporary" fix makes the engine less efficient it's hard to see how that would not affect aircraft performance (again). It would be good to see the flight envelope return to normal, whatever that may be these days.

Again, I know I may be a bit behind the times on these matters (I don't have time to get back up to speed today), but I do find the mean time between failure figures shocking. The article at your link doesn't specify what those failures are, but those do not look like good numbers for sustained operations, especially as my interest is really in the Dave B.

I wonder how many more downgrades we will see before we start taking delivery of the "operational" jets. A bloke could start to lose a bit of faith in this. I hope I'm wrong.

[LowObservable]

The reliability numbers are a bit alarming.

However, it's surely an anomaly, since the F135 was mature six years ago...

The F135 is established and mature, with production engines set for delivery later this year after more than 12,000 hours of testing. It is also based on the proven and highly successful F119 engine powering the F-22 aircraft, meaning testing and operational performance on that fielded engine has pushed the F135 engine even further along its path to maturity.

http://tinyurl.com/135mature

Or at least, that's what the people in the know, doing the real work, said. And of course they must have been right.

[Courtney Mil]

MTBF = 25/45/25. I see your point MT. But don't lose faith because

Moreover, P&W’s ground-based testing of the production configuration shows that version should meet current reliability targets once it enters flight operations later this year, Croswell says.

So it will be OK. A bit like a car dealer telling you, "It's a bit shabby now, but once you buy it, it will suddenly be fine."

I do have a question for anyone in the know. What is the difference in the final result between letting the blades do the trenching and pre-trenching? Why should that alter the performance of the engine once the process is complete?

Let me be clear, in case I get the all-too-common response from the back of a tall equine, I am not asking about the reasons for pre-trenching, nor am I questioning the need for it. I am wondering if allowing the engine to do it itself results in a better, more accurate fit or to understand if there are other issues.

[Turbine D]

CM,

The idea of letting the engine blades accomplish the trenching provides the best possible seal preventing efficiency loss. The only down side I can think of resulting from this method maybe associated with smaller engines in flame out situations where core lock can occur, i.e., the engine casing cools too rapidly around the core. This was a problem on the CF-34 engines until the clearances were reset.

[LowObservable]

The intention is that letting the knife-edges make their own trench in the seal material gives you the closest possible fit. Eventually seals and other things start to wear and more air will leak forward through the engine, reducing efficiency.

Making a larger trench theoretically means lower efficiency, but that's only in one stage. The overall effect might be very small. It might be zero insofar as the performance after x hours or cycles is the same as it would have been without the mod.

The longer-term concern is whether the root cause (the fact that flexing of the engine wasn't accurately modeled or found in flight-sciences testing) will bite us later.

[Turbine D]

LO,

The F135 is established and mature, with production engines set for delivery later this year after more than 12,000 hours of testing.
It's what happens when bragging about the new product (drinking one's own bathwater) before the product is completely wrung out, i.e., flight tested throughout the flight envelope. There are differences between the F119 engine and the F135 engine and therein lies the problem. The F119 has only a one stage LPT while the F135 has a two stage LPT, weight balance change, an added 17 inches in length plus higher temperatures to achieve higher thrust to weight capability. As the old saying goes, "Don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch".

The longer-term concern is whether the root cause (the fact that flexing of the engine wasn't accurately modeled or found in flight-sciences testing) will bite us later.
IMHO, this is the real problem. Also, as I recall, the seal in question isn't a seal between the tip of the blades and the outer engine casing, but one to the inner compartment surrounding the LP shaft.

[LowObservable]

Right, TD - it was an inner-end seal.

The ultimate "fix" may emerge several years down the road, probably labeled as an "enhanced enduring engine" or similar marketing flannel, and with a healthy price tag attached.

[Engines]

LO, Others,

Perhaps I can help a little here.

The CALF study involved not only DARPA but at the USN. While it looked at Harrier replacements, and by inference RN requirements, the UK wasn't formally involved.

The UK MoD was certainly sighted on JAST, but again in no more than an unofficial 'sighting' role. The first UK person to formally join the project in Washington was an RN Cdr AEO in around 1993/4. Further personnel joined later in the 90s. UK input to JSF requirements started around 1997 or so, with a UK RN pilot joining the JPO. As far as I know, the UK MoD didn't formally 'join' the JSF programme (i.e. commit money) until 2001, when it signed the STOVL MoD for the development phase. BAES had been part of the early stages of JSF, teamed with NG as one of the three designs competing for the 'X-plane' phase. When they lost out, they joined up with LM. The UK MoD signed up to the post-SDD MoU in 2007.

As I posted earlier on, the US were extremely keen to get BAES in the programme for their unique knowledge and experience of STOVL propulsion integration and flight control.

The main thing I'd like to see recognised one day is the great work done by knowledgable and committed service engineers and aircrew (and BAES engineers) who kept the US/UK lines open through the late 80s and early to mid 90s. their unsung work is the reason the UK was able to get its special 'Tier 1' partner status on JSF. Some of them should have got gongs. Most of them didn't.

On variant choices, I was fairly familiar with the fuel tank layouts, and I can state with some confidence that the main reason the F-35C has more fuel than the A is the bigger wing, with a bigger wing fuel tank. The only reason the C has this sized wing is purely to get on board the CVN at a fully controllable 138 knots or so. Yes, not having an internal gun also helps.

The internal gun did impact tank capacity on the A model, but hot half as much as the boom refuelling receptacle, which occupies a large portion of the main centre fuel tank on top of the wing. That receptacle also adds a lot of weight, as a lot of it is plated in steel to withstand boom strikes. I seem to remember that there was a study done into getting the USAF to adopt a probe refuelling solution (might have been by RAND as well as the GAO), but the USAF weren't willing to change from the boom system. Good reasons were offered, but it aded a good whack of costs to the design.

Interestingly, the original 27mm Mauser cannon installation would have had less impact on the internal volume and external drag. Sadly, US politics won out (as well as an understandable desire to reduce the technical risk associated with a 27mm linkless feed) and the 25mm Gatling was substituted. Heavier, and larger internal volume. Shame.

I am quite certain that somewhere in LM and the DoD, there are schemes for a 'big wing' A model, that would have a C model wing. I'd expect such an aircraft to have a very useful range indeed.

Hope this stuff is of some passing interest. Best Regards as ever to all those who play their parts along the way,

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, guys for that. As I imagined, but with some excellent detail as well. I'm sure there will be more to come if the modelling is flawed; let's hope we don't have more set-backs or worse.

Good answers.

[PhilipG]

As I understand it there has been not a lot of if any trials of SRVL, rolling landing on the QEC class carriers, this is necessary to enable a loaded F35B to return to the ship with weapons aboard.

Let us hope that the stresses of ski jump take off and rolling landing do not necessitate the F35D, an F35B with the heavier undercarriage of the F35C....

[Courtney Mil]

Engines,

Thank you for your insight - informative as ever.

There was bit more involvement than you list there. We did quite a bit of evaluation work in the early days on behalf of the US, but that was more operational effectiveness than engineering. The first time round was very generic, concept stuff and we didn't get into differences between models until later.

As for the gun, even with the weight penalty, I wouldn't argue with the choice of the Gatling. For air-to-air the rate of fire makes it very effective and gives the pilot plenty of chances to hit the target in a vital organ. The chosen calibre offers greater punch for other uses too, if one wants to put an expensive aircraft in an environment where its stealth won't protect it from small arms fire.

The main thing I'd like to see recognised one day is the great work done by knowledgable and committed service engineers and aircrew (and BAES engineers) who kept the US/UK lines open through the late 80s and early to mid 90s. their unsung work is the reason the UK was able to get its special 'Tier 1' partner status on JSF. Some of them should have got gongs. Most of them didn't.

Although I don't know about their entitlement to "gongs", I second your proposal. Recognition is well deserved and long overdue.

Best,

Courtney

[LowObservable]

The UK didn't formally join the program until 2001? I don't know how much money was involved, but there was certainly deep involvement.

Ambassador Kerr: Three words from the United Kingdom Government -- priority, confidence, partnership.
Collaboration on JSF is a very high priority for the United Kingdom Government because it is the prime way in which we see our meeting the Royal Navy's requirements for a STOVL [Short takeoff and vertical landing] follow-on to our present Sea Harriers...So JSF is a very high priority for the United Kingdom.
Confidence. The United Kingdom Government has a rather high confidence in this program, principally because of the attention Dr. Perry and Dr. Kaminski have explained, the attention that this program devotes to affordability. How to achieve the technological advance that is required at an affordable cost is a problem for defense procurement machines on both sides of the Atlantic. We think it is being extremely well addressed in the JSF program, so our confidence in JSF is high.
Thirdly, partnership. The United Kingdom Government is very satisfied with the full consideration that has been given in this source selection process to the Royal Navy's requirements. The United Kingdom Government has been fully and satisfactorily involved at all stages of this selection. We are confident that an equitable and significant share of JSF work will go to U.K. industry, and we believe there's a very real determination -- I speak for the British team -- but there's a real determination in both parts of the JSF Team -- American and British we think -- to make this U.S./U.K. collaboration a significant success.

Defense.gov Transcript: DOD News Briefing (http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3814)

Clearly there was enough involvement by 1994 for BAE to join McAir's "dream team", which meant significant contact with Wiechmann's very sensitive stealth tech in the Phantom Works.

[Engines]

LO,

I won't get into a 'who knows what' argument here - I can only set out what I know. If others know more/different, then just fine.

There was no UK money committed until 2001, apart from limited personnel costs.

The quote you set out was from 1996, and confirms that the US was being sighted on UK requirements (NST 6466) - but the UK's influence on the US decision was limited - very limited. We informed the process from our own UK STOVL knowledge, and from UK MoD advanced engine studies, but it was a US programme we were given (privileged) access to - not a joint programme in any way shape or form.

The contribution of the key personnel who kept those comms channels open during those intermediate years was immense - I think we can agree on that.

Courtney,

You'd be interested to know that for a typical air to air burst length, the Mauser puts more shells on target than the 25mm Gatling. All Gatlings take a while to get spun up). And the 25mm round, while very good, isn't as good as the 27mm. However, water under the bridge and all that.

Best Regards as ever to those who did the hard yards

Engines

[glad rag]

F-35 is

"badASS"

there's even a video..

8HvOFTIyQzc#t=54

So it must be true.....:D

Question. What is the similarity between F-35 and Climate gate??

Ans. True believers will literally say and do anything for the "cause".....

[Courtney Mil]

You'd be interested to know that for a typical air to air burst length, the Mauser puts more shells on target than the 25mm Gatling. All Gatlings take a while to get spun up). And the 25mm round, while very good, isn't as good as the 27mm. However, water under the bridge and all that.


On paper, you are right, Engines. I rarely take issue with you, but here we must disagree.

Firing the Mauser air-to-air or air-to-ground is a death ray. I have had consistently good results with it in the F-3. The high muzzle velocity, the stable barrel and the virtually instant start are all excellent features that make it that way.

I used the 20mm Gatling on the F-4 as a podded gun (a-a and a-g) and in the F-15 (a-a). Apart from the harmonisation issues on the F-4, they were, essentially the same weapon, but with an amazing aiming system in the Eagle. Against benign targets, allowing for a relatively short spin-up time, the Gatling is sufficiently accurate. Maybe not the death ray, but I could hit targets with it.

Now the differences.

1500 rounds per minute in a single stream, 260g projectile. 6000 rounds per minute, probably half that weight. I would need to put, maybe, 3 rounds through a target to hurt it with the Mauser, I would probably need 5 with the 20mm Gatling. Against a benign target, a dart or a flag, I would probably achieve the required number of hits very easily with the Mauser.

Against a manoeuvring target, when my aircraft isn't necessarily at the ideal speed or attacking position (as I would have from an academic, training set-up) things are very different. I may not be able to track the target. If I can, it may not be the ideal QWI firing solution. It may be a raking pass. It may be a very high angle-off or even close to head-on. Under those circumstances the death ray would be great only if I can point it at the target accurately enough and long enough to hit it - a few times. Distance between rounds becomes a much more significant factor. And that is where the 6000 rpm becomes such a dominant issue. And in that situation one doesn't need to wait until the sighting solution is perfect, rather one opens fire early so the spin-up time is no longer a factor.

Who would use a rifle to hit a flying bird? I would choose a shotgun.

On paper, yes, the Mauser looks good. And it is an excellent weapon. Given the choice in the less benign environment of combat ops, I would be very happy with the Gatling.

Differences in calibre. Yes, hence more hits required for the Gatling and remember I have been talking 20mm, not 25. I once stood in the Royal Ordinance Factory's test range and watched the difference between 30mm HE Aden Cannon rounds at 1200 rpm and the Vulcan cannon. The destructive power of the Aden was incredible. The move to 25mm closes that gap hugely, especially at the higher rate of fire.

[NoHoverstop]

As I understand it there has been not a lot of if any trials of SRVL, rolling landing on the QEC class carriers

I am not aware that any aircraft has landed on any QE class ship, so that does rather mean that no SRVL trials on QE class ships (can I call them boats yet?) have taken place. However SRVL has been done for real by a digital STOVL jet pretending to be an F-35B, on a ship that was, for demonstration purposes, a passable stand-in for a QE class ship (but it wasn't as fast, the flight deck wasn't welded on straight with regards to the rest of the ship and other aircraft kept turning up and knocking lumps out of the deck paint). It's been done, lots and lots, by simulated F-35Bs on simulated QE class ships (and other ships). Hard sums have been done to look at amongst other things, the sort of tedious metal bendy stuff that excites people if for some reason something goes "twang" unexpectedly. Or possibly "crack". People are still interested in having a go for real, which might suggest to you that there are least some people that think it's not a lost cause. We'll see.

, this is necessary to enable a loaded F35B to return to the ship with weapons aboard.

No it isn't. I suspect you might mean something like "very heavily loaded in weather conditions that are unfavourable", in which case you have a point. But that's not going to happen all the time is it? I leave it an an exercise for you to work out how often it will happen. However, my point is that F-35Bs loaded with (inert) weapons have already landed on ships, so clearly SRVL is not an essential pre-requisite.

Let us hope that the stresses of ski jump take off and rolling landing do not necessitate the F35D, an F35B with the heavier undercarriage of the F35C....

like I said, "hard sums". But hey, the Harrier's undercarriage was designed well before ski-jumps were invented and you had to work pretty hard to break them by doing a ski-jump. Like by steering off the side or taking way too long a run-up and having the nose-leg go "twang" on ramp-exit, (on the occasion I know of, because the bloke given the job of marking the take-off roll start line during land-based ski-jump trials didn't appreciate that the distance was referenced to ramp-exit, not the base of the ramp. Fortunately, the aircraft landed safely with a bust nose-leg, 'cos STOVL jets can do that, and subsequently had a long and interesting flight test career including doing the SRVL thingy which failed to break any more legs).

If "Engines" had written this post he would have been a bit more polite. But he's a bit more professional than I am, whereas I've just seen this stuff done and felt I ought to say something.

[PhilipG]

No Hover
Yes I am aware that SRVL has been simulated, I am also aware that the landing of an F35C on a UK Carrier was simulated as a fait accompli, this was before it became apparent that there were problems with the hook catching a wire, since resolved. Something can be simulated with all the best inputs but it does not necessarily mean that the real aircraft will behave as the simulator suggests.

There was a discussion I think on here about the bring back weight for a Vertical Landing for an F35B and as I recall it did not allow much unused ordnance to return to the ship, implicitly this might mean having to drop say an unused Storm Shadow into the drink, yes when the interface has been done, also as far as I am aware the F35B is not cleared to use any external points at the moment so has at most been taking off and landing on USS Wasp with a full tank of fuel, 2 1,000 lb bombs and two AMRAAMs, not a particularly heavy load out.

As regards trials of SRVL, I think that you are confirming that as far as anyone is aware there have been no trials of this sort of landing on an area similar to that available on a QEC Carrier. My point was that as much of the flight control of the F35 is down to software, it would seem that, if I am correct, that the software for SRVL has yet to be tested on an actual development aircraft and implicitly therefore has not been released to the fleet.

[Engines]

PhilipG,

Perhaps I can help here. Two items - VL performance and SRVL control.

F-35B had a hard requirement to be able to land on a ship using a VL with a specified internal ordnance load (two 1000b bombs an two AMRAAMS - about 3,600 lbs) plus enough fuel for a 'wave off' and a go around, at night. That requirement was set against a US specified 'tropical day'. This was a Key Performance Parameter (KPP), so had to be met. And it was, once the programme had sorted out the aircraft's weight in around 2004-6.

The UK, who had originally signed up to the above requirement, then added a more demanding requirement, to be able to recover to a ship at higher temperatures and lower pressures, which equated to summer at the northern end of the Gulf. (ordnance load and fuel requirements unchanged) These conditions became known as the 'UK Hot Day'. SRVLs are the way to meet this requirement.

You might be surprised to learn that very few combat aircraft, land or sea based, are designed to be able to land with anything like a full ordnance load. The designers will assume a maximum landing weight which is always MUCH lower than the aircraft maximum all up weight (MAUW). Many current combat aircraft have to jettison stores or fuel to land on a ship (including cat and trap) and most land base combat aircraft have landing weight restrictions. As an example, the Tornado couldn't land at all with its JP233 weapons fitted.

F-35B has certainly been cleared for a variety of external hard points, but you are correct in that I've not seen any aircraft with pylons or stores doing VLs yet. I would guess that the Pax River team are working through the VL regime on these as we speak. Very extensive computer simulation, wind tunnel and scale model testing has been carried out on F-35B vertical landing aspects, and this will reduce the risks associated with such recoveries.

SRVL software - the aim of the programme was to use the existing flight control modes (and cockpit displays) as far as possible. Remember that SRVLs are a required manoeuvre for the USMC to short strips, and have been cleared for use in service. Work started on SRVL ship landing capability as far back as 2004, but the UK's indecision on F-35B/C procurement between 2010 and 2012 led to delays in the later stages of this work.

You're quite correct that it's not been tested on the ship yet, but as NoHover reasonably points out, the ship's not at sea yet. But it's certainly being developed and tested using both simulators and development (and production) aircraft. Same as the VLs - yes, risks exist until the final trials are carried out and release to service is granted. That's 'ops normal' for any aircraft's flight test/clearance programme.

Hope this helps a little,

Best Regards to those doing the testing,

Engines.

[Courtney Mil]

PhilipG,

I totally agree with you about simulation vs live trials and I was very interested in NoHoverstop's use of the phrase,

However SRVL has been done for real by a digital STOVL jet pretending to be an F-35B

which seems a strange way to describe a simulation. They did a lot of hard sums on other stuff (helmet, 469 bulkhead, the engine, the hook, etc), but some of those didn't measure up when they tried them for real, in the real, non-digital world.

As things stand, it has long been widely acknowledged that SRVL will be the preferred recovery for improved bring back, but it doesn't come without limitations. I was challenged on this last week so I'll address a couple of them now. Deck space for landing at or above 60 kts. Stop other operations from the deck while SRVLs are undertaken. Sea state limits for SRVL, don't know what the limits are, but then who does yet?

That said, if you don't want to throw away your perfectly serviceable Storm Shadows, they will need to sort it out. As far as anyone can tell, they almost certainly will make it work.

As for trials on a QE sized carrier deck, like you, I have seen nothing on this yet. Indeed, the Marines are declaring that they will only do VLs on the smaller ships (yes, I know how big a GE is). But then they are having to accept IOC very soon with a lot of "acceptable" or, at least, "accepted" shortfalls. I gather they are referring to the missing bits finally arriving late as "upgrades" now, perhaps implying that they are making the jet even better.

End of ramble.

Edited to add: Just seen Engines' post. Yes, at this point the situation is very much "ops normal" with regard to this landing mode.

[PhilipG]

Thanks for the clarifications Engines and Courtney.

[LowObservable]

Interesting backstory on the gun. At the time the switch to the Gatling was made, in 2003, LM was convinced they had weight margin to play with. They were also thinking of a mod that would have allowed the B to carry 2K JDAMs (which could probably have been recovered VL in temperate conditions and/or with daytime reserves). And the Gat was assessed as having lower life costs relative to adding a new caliber to the Navy/AF logistics system.

They took the decision and then found out about the weight. The F-35A now has that giant wart above the R/H inlet, the gun pod has about two bursts of ammo, and they need a new round anyway...

[Not_a_boffin]

I totally agree with you about simulation vs live trials and I was very interested in NoHoverstop's use of the phrase,

Originally Posted by NoHoverstop

However SRVL has been done for real by a digital STOVL jet pretending to be an F-35B


which seems a strange way to describe a simulation.

I suspect Nohoverstop was referring to this.....

Carrier trials prove JSF's rolling vertical landing concept - 7/4/2007 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/carrier-trials-prove-jsf39s-rolling-vertical-landing-215253/)

[LowObservable]

I remain a bit puzzled.

If fitting on the Invincible was never a requirement for STOVL, then what did the UK Ambassador and the MoD and BAE Systems think that the RN would use?

And why were both Boeing and LM going to some pains to ensure that the aircraft would fit pretty much anywhere a Harrier did?

http://notreally.info/transport/planes/jsf/x-32/img/BoeingF-32small7.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/jsf/jca_lockheed_04.jpg

[ORAC]

I totally agree with you about simulation vs live trials and I was very interested in NoHoverstop's use of the phrase,

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHoverstop
However SRVL has been done for real by a digital STOVL jet pretending to be an F-35B
which seems a strange way to describe a simulation.

No sim, I believe he is referring to the VAAC Harrier. (http://articles.sae.org/5783/)

[sandiego89]

A summary of the USS WASP trials completed:

Marine Corps F-35Bs depart USS Wasp after carrier tests - 5/30/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/marine-corps-f-35bs-depart-uss-wasp-after-carrier-tests-412909/)

-6 aircraft (maybe 7 from the earlier report of a spare flying out)
-10 pilots
-108 Sorties flown over a "week and a half"
-85.5 hours
-As a test. A spare engine flown out in a MV-22.
-Sounds like lots of software workd remains

[Not_a_boffin]

I remain a bit puzzled.

If fitting on the Invincible was never a requirement for STOVL, then what did the UK Ambassador and the MoD and BAE Systems think that the RN would use?

And why were both Boeing and LM going to some pains to ensure that the aircraft would fit pretty much anywhere a Harrier did?

Given that numerous studies in the mid-late 90s had concluded that any attempt to fit what was SSF on a CVS would require huge amounts of work on the ship - much of it structural, (think Victorious' 50s refit) - for minimal OC, one would have hoped that they thought the RN would be using a new ship........Don't forget that CVF original ISD was 2010-2011 and that the SHAR OSD was much further in the future than it ended up being.

Fitting anywhere a Harrier did might just describe the US LHDs....

As for the artists impression, they usually reach for the nearest available template - and the PR people that commission the work don't know any better.

[John Farley]

However SRVL has been done for real by a digital STOVL jet pretending to be an F-35B

That is not a strange way to describe a simulation that is a literal description of flight trials carried out at Yeovilton many years ago.

[Engines]

LO,

I sincerely apologise if I've not been sufficiently clear over the way UK requirements influenced the design.

As I think I've already said, the UK's involvement at the early stages (CALF, JAST) was pretty limited. At that time, early studies were informed by the UK's NST 6466, which certainly did call for a replacement STOVL aircraft capable of operating from an Invincible class ship.

However, as nab points out, it soon became clear that getting a larger (over 50,000 lb) aircraft on a CVS was never going to be much of a starter. The requirements for the technical demonstration phase (the X-planes) were very generic, and didn't go into much detail. However, the USMC and made it plain that the new aircraft would be required to fit into roughly the same footprint as an AV-8B. That started setting STOVL size.

The only formal requirements for the F-35 were set out in the JORD, somewhere around 1998/1999/2000. You will remember (but others may not) that this was the culmination of around 5 years' requirements development, and a key piece of that process was making sure that it didn't contain any items that inadvertently lead the design into a bad place - your example of the TSR-2's massive landing gear, (driven by a strange requirement for soft field ops) is an excellent one. Anything before the JORD was general and indicative - the JORD was the document that nailed down exactly what the customers wanted.

By the time the JORD was being nailed down, the UK had already decided to go for CVF, but they were miles away from a defined ship. As a result, the UK decided to put in a minimal set of ship compatibility requirements that would not drive the aircraft anywhere strange. Thats why the requirements were set out in the way I explained in a previous post - 'compatibility with CVS flight deck and hangar layouts'. The folding wingtips for the F-35B were a scheme (not even a design) offered by LM for discussion with the UK - but they were turned down pretty smartly, as the UK had deliberately omitted reference to CVS lifts. Like I said, the UK MoD were terrified of applying additional national requirements that might affect weight and cost. They were by then aiming to design the ship around the aircraft.

On the gun, you're on the money - LM weren't paying very much attention to weight in around 2001, which was a major error for a powered lift aircraft programme. The through life cost estimates they used were skewed to show the Gatling in a good light, the Mauser in a bad light. But, as I've said, water under the bridge now.

Hope this helps,

Best regards as ever to those making the trials work,

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

...flight trials carried out using a Harrier, not F-35. So no F-35 handling characteristics, not the full F-35 system, not the F135 engine, not the 2015 software, not the F-35 brakes....

A Harrier trying to simulate an F-35? For proving a concept, fine. But that is still a simulation on a completely different airframe. The interest that raised the question, remember, was weather the F-35 had been tested on a QE sized deck.

Sorry, I should add it was proving for the Bedford Array, was it not?

[MSOCS]

Sorry, I should add it was proving for the Bedford Array, was it not?

Yes it was CM; HMS Prince of Wales will be the first to be fitted with the Bedford Array. HMS Queen Elizabeth should get it on first major refit but until that time will have a more basic lighting array for SRVL.

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, MSOCS.

[John Farley]

Courtney

Sorry, my post clearly annoyed you. That was not my intention. I think everybody realises that the Yeovilton SRVL flying did not use an F135!

Moving on for those who may not be as familiar with FBW as you, I would point out that the handling characteristics of a FBW aircraft are those that are provided by the FBW system and not those of the aircraft’s aerodynamics. For example In circumstances where the Typhoon is longitudinally unstable aerodynamically it seems normally stable to the pilots thanks to the FBW.

So the SRVL pilots at Yeovilton were definitely looking at the chosen F35 ‘handling’ characteristics (pull the stick back to go up regardless of speed etc) but the software was dealing with Harrier aerodynamics. Mind you I guess at 70 odd kts there is not much V squared about so the different aerodynamics would not have been a huge deal.

Big rant coming about words used.

What does annoy me about this whole Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) thing is that to the purist it is no such thing. An RVL is where you start from the hover and choose to step forward for the touchdown because of surface conditions. A Slow Landing (SL) is where you have to add wing lift to the vertical component of engine thrust in order to equal your weight. So these SRVLs are (will be) SSLs. Indeed when an RAE boffin introduced me to a new control system in 1954 he called it a Manoeuvre Demand system. How much more correct and informative than FBW.

[Courtney Mil]

John, no, not annoyed, I was just making a point, somewhat bluntly, perhaps.

I do like your description to those not used to FBW. And even more the use of RVL. Let's face it, something is either vertical or it ain't. I guess the origin of the definition must come from whether it's the wing assisting the lift fan/nozzle or the other way round. In this case it is clearly not vertical.

[peter we]

Isn't there already a video of a F-35 doing a rolling landing?

Anyway.. back on topic.

UPDATE: DOD wants to block-buy 450 F-35 jets from Lockheed - 5/29/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/update-dod-wants-to-block-buy-450-f-35-jets-from-lockheed-412894/)

[LowObservable]

Engines -

Thanks. I think your assessment of the formal requirements process is about right. On paper, there was no reason that the evolving Preferred Weapon Systems Concept designs needed to look exactly like the Concept Demonstration Aircraft, or that the JORD should be the same as the (quite rudimentary) requirements that the CDAs were designed around.

In theory, either manufacturer could have gone into the final SDD round with a plywood canard triplane as long as they could show traceability from their CDA work. That was indeed Boeing's defense of its quite radically changed PWSC/SDD design.

However, in practical terms the designs were fettered by the choice of engine and lift system, which was set in 1995-96. Which is why (formal requirements be blowed) what they took into SDD was much the same in terms of fuselage length and wingspan as what they started with in CDA.

[Courtney Mil]

Peter WE,

Oh yes, of course there is. In fact here's one from years ago. But it doesn't look very short and it looks a lot like its on a runway, not the surface that the poster was asking about.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vo1xoNoi3uM

[Engines]

JF,

Great post. I'll be calling them SSLs from now on.

Courtney,

I think what this discussion makes clear is that the F-35B (like the Harrier, and also like the V-22) can use its powered lift systems as well as aerodynamic (wing) lift to optimise its landing modes to achieve desired landing distances at various weights. (The USMC have a hard requirement for F-35B SLs to short land strips).

It's a neat trick and one that is achieved with extremely good handling characteristics, low pilot workload and improved safety. And it's largely down to the great input from the BAES team who designed the STOVL flight and propulsion controls, working with LM at Fort Worth and Pax River. I'd really like, just for once, to see their efforts recognised.

Best Regards as ever to those making this powered lift stuff work,

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Engines, mostly what I've been saying and what I believe too. Once again, your post looks like you thought I was questioning the reason, utility or practicality of a feature of F-35. I was not. I was addressing a question about whether it had yet been trailed in the context of the QE class carrier. My remark about the marines was, in context, about their obvious choice to use VLs on the small ships; the point being that RVLs take space.

But thank you for the update and please don't think I fail to recognise the efforts of good people in the programme.

I shall attempt to be even more clear in my posts to avoid being misunderstood in future.

[NoHoverstop]

...flight trials carried out using a Harrier, not F-35. So no F-35 handling characteristics, not the full F-35 system, not the F135 engine, not the 2015 software, not the F-35 brakes....

A Harrier trying to simulate an F-35? For proving a concept, fine. But that is still a simulation on a completely different airframe.

well, the intent was to provide F-35B handling characteristics, using the VAAC digital active control system. As in inceptor displacement (and force, since XW175 at the time had an active sidestick that could and did represent traditional spring/damper systems as well as 21st century servo-controlled inceptors) to aircraft response. So when you say "no F-35 handling characteristics" I don't think you're being fair, as a lot of effort went into matching what the F-35B was predicted to do (and, as I understand it, now does). You're quite correct that the Harrier undercarriage doesn't match the F-35B's, but someone probably thought that looking at the flying to the deck bit was worth looking at so the stopping bit, with Harrier's weedy brakes, wasn't really part of the trial, I mean demonstration. Apart obviously from practical considerations of doing the trial, I mean demonstration, safely.

At the time, in June 2007, with no F-35Bs and QE class ships available, what more could be done?

The interest that raised the question, remember, was weather the F-35 had been tested on a QE sized deck.

Well, maybe you've forgotten that the F-35C has been to a bigger deck, or was that not what you meant :}. The F-35B has been to a smaller one. As I tried to explain, an aircraft (a real life and death aircraft) with F-35B handling (as best as could be done, but you'll have to look at the response-matching data and judge for yourself) has been to a deck about the right size (PA Charles de Gaulle, so actually a bit smaller and not helpfully lined-up with the ship's wake) at SRVL speeds on an SRVL flightpath (plus or minus the variations induced by several test pilots, not all from the same country).

At the time someone (I'm admitting nothing) did suggest the Admiral Kuznetsov. Maybe if the SRVL demo had been done to that deck you'd be happier?

Sorry, I should add it was proving for the Bedford Array, was it not?

Not in June 2007 on PA CdG it wasn't. For the pretty sound reason that the Bedford Array hadn't been invented then. You'd have to look at the November 2008 trial (trial, not demo) on HMS Illustrious for a full-scale physical implementation of that, although by then quite a bit of simulation of F-35B/QEC had been done as well.

[Courtney Mil]

NoHoverstop,

All good points. Your first, yes, I see what you mean. It's still simulation, though. And, as you wrote, based on a set of predictions. And, as I wrote, it proved a concept.

Your second, yes, as you spotted I missed out the letter B. Yeah, it's been to a number of decks and runways, but I think the original question that someone asked was more specific. I should go back and look, but not now. Again, I know this will work, but they will still have to do it for real on the actual ship, with the actual aircraft. But they will make it work as it will be very important to bring back for the RN and the RAF.

Final one, I had always thought that the VAAC test/demo (very good:ok:) series was all part of exactly that, a series of trials proving various aspects of projected F-35 ops. So, yes I knew the Bedford Array was towards the end, but I did think it was all part of the same series of tests.

Still, as I said, RVLs (or as John Farley rightly remarks, SSLs) will be an important part of the repertoire, and there's no doubt in my mind that it works. Now they (the Wizards) just have to bring it all together.

[PhilipG]

It was me who suggested that there had been no testing of an F35B in SSL mode on an area equivalent to that of a QEC class carrier. A reverse Doolittle raid experiment in a way. SSL will be important for the UK, it would seem that there has been no actual testing of SSL concept for a QEC carrier by actual development or test aircraft.

I take thus that it is unclear as to if SSL is physically possible for the F35B to do, irrespective of bring back weight. There is also implicitly uncertainty as to how the software deals with SSL, no doubt it has been tried in a simulator however.

I am sure that people on this side of the pond would feel more comfortable with the project when the ability of the F35B to land at required weight on one of our aircraft carriers and of course take off with a decent load has been at least demonstrated in concept.

[dat581]

Would it be possible to test the SSL on USS Wasp with six F-35B's aboard for operational testing with RN and RAF staff involved? The Wasp is only 27m shorter than Queen Elizabeth but with the ski ramp inplace the length available for an SSL is close enough not to make a difference.

[PhilipG]

My point was that SL has not been tried on a runway marked out with the length of a QEC flight deck, better to do this before trying it out an SSL, obviously there are differences however it might be better to prove concept on dry land before trying it afloat. "F35B skids off Wasp's deck and is lost when testing Limey concept" would not be the best PR.

[Courtney Mil]

Your proposed way forward makes sense to me, PhilipG and I would expect that to be a step on the way there, again to prove the concept and iron out wrinkles. You probably don't even need the deck markings as long as the pilot can land it consistently in the right place and the Wizards can measure the landing roll for various weights and conditions. They might even do more "hard sums".

At some point, of course, you have to try it on the actual ship to see how it copes with other factors like a moving deck, anomalies like wind-flow around structures, visual effects or proximity to other equipment, etc. That's what test pilots are for once the ships are built :ok:.

Presumably all part of the testing and work-up.

[PhilipG]

Courtney, besides the obvious Sense and the F35 project possible oxymoron. It would seem that the requirement for SSL has yet to be taken very seriously by the project team, at least in the face of it.

It would be extremely embarrassing, for the UK, if when the version 3F Software comes out that the SSL landing mode had not been sorted out, debugged, or the requirement for crash barriers to be installed on the QEC class because say brake fade or tyre blow outs were causing unacceptable losses of airframes, had not been recognised. Not that I am suggesting that the F35B is as fragile as the initial Seafires.

[Courtney Mil]

Philip,

I don't think that needs to be a concern as work has been undertaken on SLs and the Marines want it so it won't get overlooked. The fact that they weren't done on the recent, successful sea trials will be because they already had enough work to do. SLs have been done, it's now (as you say) refining it for the UK's ships.

I was looking for a vid to show "RVL" (I know they're out there somewhere and I'm sure someone here knows where they are), but got distracted by this one because it's got lots of old Harrier and Lightning (EE, not LM) stuff. Takes a while to get to F-35, but right at the end there is a B landing whilst moving forward. Come to think of it, aircraft have been doing that for years, so it should be possible :E.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gUzJW71m6pw

Edited to add a quote from Engines...

SRVL software - the aim of the programme was to use the existing flight control modes (and cockpit displays) as far as possible. Remember that SRVLs are a required manoeuvre for the USMC to short strips, and have been cleared for use in service. Work started on SRVL ship landing capability as far back as 2004, but the UK's indecision on F-35B/C procurement between 2010 and 2012 led to delays in the later stages of this work.

[Engines]

This post mainly for PhilipG, also others interested:

I might be able to help allay some of your concerns over SSLs - but I might not. Anyway, hope this helps.

The UK requirement for SSLs (SRVLs as were) has been taken extremely seriously by the JSFPO. As I know I've posted before, it arose in around 2003, and has been worked since, apart from the UK induced two year break from 2010 to 2012.

It might help to review how this has been addressed. There was an initial study in around 2003, mainly led by the LM/BAES flight controls. performance and flight test teams, plus ship suitability, to assess whether SSLs were possibly feasible on CVF, and whether any modifications might be required. These led on to initial simulator trials in the UK (around 2004) with early deck layouts for the CVF. Soon after the STOVL aircraft started short landing work to prove compliance with USMC short strip requirements, results were fed into the SSL models (simulations). The Qinetiq trials in 2007 and 2008 using the VVAC Harrier were designed to support SSL work, including landing aid design.

Meanwhile, the hard yards were being worked by the rest of the LM team, checking such aspects as landing gear response, braking performance, structural loads, flight control loads, pilot displays, engine control responses and tons of other stuff.

And the UK has developed a ground breaking new form of landing aid (the Bedford array) that is designed to exploit the F-35B's flight controls and displays to further reduce pilot workload in higher seas and bad visibility. Again, I don't expect anyone behind that work to get much credit on this forum, but they should.

I'm trying to get over the fact that this is a serious requirement, and is being worked as part of the overall programme. It's not a 'Dolittle' type measure, it's not being done 'half arsed' and it's not something terribly new - the aircraft already has to be able to do land based SLs, and is specifically designed to do them.

The key 'uncertainty' (to use your term - I'd use 'risk', but there you go) is putting the SSL manoeuvre into practice against a moving ship with the expected Wind Over Deck (WOD) - this means that the aircraft is moving faster through the air than relative to the deck. Clearly, this can't be tested on land. The main results that the ship trials would deliver would be the actual 'landing scatter' along and across the deck, as well as actual braking performance, as well as detailed routines for the people on the ship as well as in the aircraft to conduct these safely and effectively. This is normal, standard, well understood, ship integration stuff. It's not being done on a wing and a prayer.

Finally, I might be able to help with your concern over the ability of the F-35B to take off 'with a decent payload'. The programme had a KPP for a US flat deck STO and also a KPP for a UK ramp STO. (incidentally, this was the only UK specific KPP on the whole programme). This KPP assumed a set payload for a set mission. All the early data, later confirmed by flight test, was that the aircraft met this KPP with room to spare. Ski jump launches will, as expected, deliver safer and lower workload STOs at significantly higher weights than from a flat deck. As to whether these weights are 'decent' or not, I can't say. What I can say is that they are considerably higher than any catapult launched aircraft the UK ever put into the air, and exploit the F-35B's envelope to the full.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever to those actually doing the stuff for the people at the front line,

Engines

[sandiego89]

Good stuff Engines.

Any idea what kinds of airspeeds are we talking about for a B doing a SSL at sea? Yes I get it could vary considerably with weights and conditions, but rough idea?

I imagine the QE class will be able to generate good wind over deck in most climates, and I was impressed with the short field landings I have witnessed up close with B's at Pax River. Perhaps a SSL would be a bit more sporting on a LHA/LHD (or Invincible), but looks like there is a good more room on a QE class.

[Engines]

Sandie,

Having been so long out of the programme, any figure I gave would be a guess, but I think they're looking in the 55 to 70 knots airspeed region. Repeat warning - this is a guess. This would equate to somewhere around 30 to 45 knots deck speed, if the QEC can generate 25 kts WOD. Speeds would vary with assumptions/wind, ship speed, etc. As I remember, 45 kts WOD would be about the maximum for safe personnel ops on the deck.

I don't think an SSL would be cleared to an LHD deck, simply on account of the lateral safety margins required - unless they could clear the deck of aircraft, which is hard given their hangar capacity. Might be different on the larger LHA 'America' class deck, but probably still tight.

There should (in my view) be plenty of room on the QECs.

Standards have changed - an old friend of mine was a Sub Lieutenant Sea Vixen pilot flying off Hermes in the 1960s. Night deck landings gave a wingtip clearance of less than 15 feet from parked aircraft. In a Sea Vixen. Manual flying. At night.

I was just an engineer - God gave me c**p eyes, and in any case, I could never do what those people did back then. Huge respect.

Best Regards as ever to those who fly to the deck at night,

Engines

[Finnpog]

Engines et al.

When the thoughts around an angled deck on the QECs to enable recovery with arrestor gear versus a 'through deck' design, was there the option to run a bastardised variant with an angled deck for SSL recovery and a through deck launch with a ski jump?

This would seem to offer the best of both worlds; however I am not blind to the fact that there would have been some other loss of capacity - even if this was a reduction of on-deck standing for the cabs.

I recall watching one of the ACA videos last year (?) showing some of the simulator work used to define the usable deck space.

No agenda - just thinking.

[CoffmanStarter]

This SLD article is worth a read ...

The New UK Aircraft Carrier: Reshaping the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-new-uk-aircraft-carrier-reshaping-the-royal-navy-and-the-royal-air-force/)

Some will know that Group Captain P G is the RAF F-35 Desk Officer at the MOD.

[Not_a_boffin]

When the thoughts around an angled deck on the QECs to enable recovery with arrestor gear versus a 'through deck' design, was there the option to run a bastardised variant with an angled deck for SSL recovery and a through deck launch with a ski jump?

This would seem to offer the best of both worlds; however I am not blind to the fact that there would have been some other loss of capacity - even if this was a reduction of on-deck standing for the cabs.


Your angle plus through deck is actually the worst of both worlds in terms of safe parking area. See the three STOBAR ships for details - big flight decks, very little parking area.

The point of an angled deck is to allow a CTOL recovery that misses the wires - a bolter - the ability to go around and try again. Happy to be corrected but I very much doubt whether an SRVL/SSL will be able to wind up sufficient thrust to do so. In which case the angle serves only to dump the cab over the side......

[LowObservable]

You were not a big fan of SRVL a few years ago, as I recall.

[Courtney Mil]

NAB,

Just my thoughts on that concerning F-35B. It doesn't need to worry about missing a cable, so a bolter for that reason isn't going to be an issue. A rejected VL, for whatever reason, would only be realistic with the engine already at high rpm, so not an issue if the engine is working, too late if it isn't. SSL is still jet-borne flight with the engine at high rpm so a rejection is still feasible until touchdown. After touchdown I can only imagine that a total break failure would necessitate a bolter. But I can't answer that one. Too many variables really.

Regardless of all my thinking above, yes, if the brakes fail once the engine is running down to idle and the jet is running along the deck and the sea is getting close, I can see your point. But I don't think it's as big a concern as it might be on a traditional carrier.

[Not_a_boffin]

CM

The latter is the issue. Once you've touched down and dumped the rpm, it's all down to the brakes. There is no way back.

Can see it's probably fine if you're in the approach still with power on, but does mean you've got to carry enough fuel for a go-around - part of the bringback?

Still concerns me, but it seems to be being taken very seriously, which is good. Just as a bit of context, ISTR the first murmurings on SRVL were actually back in 2001 ish.

[PhilipG]

About brake failure risk, there could always be a barrier rigged when SSL was being undertaken, on the flight deck as there always was on axial decked carriers to stop the cab going onto the sea or other parked ones, just a thought.

[Courtney Mil]

That raised a question, if anyone can help. Obviously the choice would depend greatly on circumstances, but would it be better for a B to take a barrier with weapons on or bolt, dump stores, etc and VL if it were able to? Waste the stores or make a (possibly slow speed) engagement? I wonder what the top load strap would do to the doors and stuff or foul the canopy.

I remember in the early days of the Hawk T1 there was a lot of resistance to taking the barrier because on the long canopy, the worry being that the top load strap would prevent crew egress.

[Just This Once...]

Install a RHAG for the hook?

[Courtney Mil]

http://www.bpwrap.com/images/chad.jpg

Wot, No hook?

[LowObservable]

Not even an emergency hook, and if you believe the Marines 90 per cent of ops will be CTOL.

And how well does the new deck coating work as anti-skid?

[Engines]

LO,

Answer to your question - same coefficient of friction as the old deck coating - as per specification and tested out to prove it. As long ago as 2004.

Incidentally, much better friction than a runway, but that's due to all that seagoing aviation on rolling wet decks expertise the USN and the USMC have got

Just to clarify - why the question? Didn't you think the team doing this stuff would have thought of it? How did you think the USN and the RN go about getting aircraft to sea? I'm not criticising, just genuinely interested as to why these sort of questions are being asked. However., happy as always to help where I can.

Best Regards to those putting the coatings down,

Engines

[sandiego89]

Is the QE class even going to have a barricade/barrier?

As for the US Marines, they may say "CTOL" 90% of the time but I wonder if that is the full picture? Knowing the Marines they may want to practice in STOL (austere strip) mode more often and as perhaps a carry over from the Harrier. I get the F-35 is not like the Harrier in conventional mode, but I wonder if they would really use two quite different modes (CTOL from land, STOVL from the ship). I would think STOL most of the time (partial deflection, lift fan engaged) with similiar approach and pattern speeds would be preferred?

[LowObservable]

Engines - Because antiskid was a concern Mr Boffin raised some years ago.

SD89 - In the course of a discussion over life-cycle costs a while back, the Marines disputed a CAPE (Pentagon budgeteer) assessment that was based on AV-8B ops (where nearly all operations are STOVL) and argued that only 10 per cent (IIRC) of F-35B ops would be in STOVL mode. See this post:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-158.html#post8008227

[Not_a_boffin]

No, the deck coating per se was not a particular concern.

What was a concern was the impact of brake failure on a 20 te cab, moving at 40-50kts relative, on what might yet be a crowded flightdeck with plenty of armed and fuelled cabs. Whether the deck coating was worn or whether there was "lubricating" fluid present on the surface were strictly secondary concerns.

[PhilipG]

Engines et al,

As far as I am aware when the F35B goes to sea on a QEC class carrier, it will be the first time ever that in normal operations that an aircraft has been embarked that will normally be expected to do SSLs.

We are all aware that the weight limits for the F35B are tight and that the undercarriage is not as robust as on F35Cs, what some of us are reasonably concerned about is will the F35B be able to SSL on a QEC, as well as take off on the ski jump with a defined weapons and fuel load.

As far as I am aware there is no evidence that an F35B has been shown to land on the area of a QEC deck doing an SSL, loaded or unloaded. The serious maths might have been done about how the F35B will perform off a ski jump but it has as far as I am aware yet to be demonstrated by a test or development aircraft.

By demonstrated here I mean two things, that the airframe, cracks and all, can withstand the loadings of going through these evolutions and that the software solution does not get itself into an inappropriate state when these evolutions are attempted.

The Barriers bit was unless many of us have read the SSL procedure incorrectly, that we understand that the F35B approaches the rear of the carrier with both forward motion lift and vertical lift, when the F35 is over the deck of the carrier and the wheels have touched down, yes with on PoW with help from the Bedford Array, stopping power comes from the brakes, the engines go to idle I am assuming.

If there is a tyre blow out, brake failure, landing gear failure or some other unplanned occurrence, it would seem that the F35B would have the propensity to slide along the deck of the carrier and project itself into the sea, I do not think that it would be reasonable to rely on the ability of the engine to spool up to give enough power to do a vertical take off, having discarded any and all external stores, to give the damaged plane the opportunity to take off again.

It just seemed sensible risk mitigating and indeed not rocket science that a proven method of stopping planes crashing on axial deck RN and USN aircraft carriers was investigated again.

I am sure that being taken by the barrier will cause structural damage to the F35B, let us hope that the damage is not as serious as kerbing a 1966 Mk1 Lotus Europa was, it meant writing it off, the body work was initially bonded to the chassis, saving a rather expensive aircraft and its pilot, would seem a good idea. I am sure that even the MoD would countenance the purchase of kits of spares to repair on-board F35Bs that have simply taken the barrier, far cheaper one hopes than buying a replacement.

Of course I am not suggesting in any way that the F35B is as fragile as a Seafire was at the beginning of its time as a fleet defence fighter, it would be interesting to know how many spitfire props the BPF, Task Force 57 et al got through, that is not for this thread.

I am sure that you can give us all comfort that all these risks have been theoretically mitigated, it would just be nice to know in the real world that these leading edge evolutions can be safely undertaken by normal FAA and RAF pilots, as they will be required to do with possibly not much sea training in a surge.

Philip

[Courtney Mil]

Philip,

I have read through your post twice now and have to agree that your questions are good ones that will be massively important. Hopefully there will be some answers and hopefully the final outcome as they go to sea and start doing it for real will be safe and effective.

[glad rag]

As has been intimated earlier, the thorny question of µ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28letter%29) has never actually been fully addressed.
It will be VERY illuminating to see how the RN will actually manage deck operations incl rvl etc, from the aspect of µ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28letter%29) and F35 flying ops in ALL conditions..

Edited to add that this could be ground breaking stuff for ALL aviation types..

[Courtney Mil]

Glad Rag,

Didn't a Harrier pilot discover the value of mu when his jet started to slide off one of our carriers in the South Atlantic in '82?

[peter we]

The F-35b has a bolter mode as part of the SRVL process, I think its a 'press one button to abort'.

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, here it is,

29 May 1982
Royal Navy Sea Harrier FRS1 (ZA174) slid off the deck of HMS Invincible into the sea in bad weather, pilot recovered.[12]

Peter WE,

Only if the engine can wind up in time.

[glad rag]

The F-35b has a bolter mode as part of the SRVL process, I think its a 'press one button to abort'.

But where does it "bolt" too?

Unfortunately having no AFD this commits the now sliding aircraft along the length of the flight deck...

[MSOCS]

The F-35b has a bolter mode as part of the SRVL process, I think its a 'press one button to abort'.

This does not exist.

[LowObservable]

The F-35B DOES TOO have a bolter mode, described here:

The A25 Song (http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiA25;ttVILDINAH.html)

[NutLoose]

But where does it "bolt" too?

"Spanish container ship?"

[MSOCS]

Ha ha LO!

Well if the song says it does, then it must do!

"Cracking show!"

[Not_a_boffin]

As has been intimated earlier, the thorny question of µ has never actually been fully addressed.
It will be VERY illuminating to see how the RN will actually manage deck operations incl rvl etc, from the aspect of µ and F35 flying ops in ALL conditions..

If by Mu you're referring to frictional coefficient, I refer you to Engines' post #6173 at 13:52. Seems to work for me.....and the RN, USN etc for that matter. Then there are the Pte Fraser faction........

[peter we]

This does not exist.

Of course not, nobody has ever thought of a reason its would be needed because RVL was thought up yesterday by a fellow smoking a pipe, singing a song.

[Engines]

Glad, Courtney and others,

Please be as sceptical as you wish - open forum and all that. I don't 'always' cover things - if I don't know, i say so. Or try to.Sorry if I'm not clear enough sometimes.

Deck coefficient of friction is well understood and the expected values are known. The USN have always had much better deck coatings than the UK, at higher cost. The question of mu has been addressed - in that the team know what it should be if the coatings go on as per spec. And they know what the F-35B landing gear will produce. It's been tested - like most everything else.

A small point of clarification - I was on the deck of Invincible when the Sea Harrier went over the side. Wasn't all about mu. Here are the facts - be as sceptical as you want.

The aircraft was on the runway about to launch against a suspected incoming threat. (So no lashings fitted). Fully loaded. The ship had to manoeuvre quickly to get on to the flying course, and went hard starboard in a biggish sea. We started heeling over to port. Quickly. The angle of heel was somewhere around 10 to 15 degrees - possibly a bit more. Lots. Enough to get everyone on deck grabbing for something to hold on. High wind also from starboard, coming round on to the bow.

It was at this point that the FAA learned something about the Harrier nose leg not covered in any of the manuals. It had a break out design so that excessive side forces weren't fed into the airframe. So, even though it was centred for launch, as the side loads came on it suddenly (and I mean suddenly) castored, allowing the aircraft to (very quickly) rotate around the main wheel assembly to port. Deck was still heeling over to port.

This was the point at which mu came into play. The flight deck was, by this time, fairly dirty and slick. (We had no effective deck scrubbing kit at that time). So, as the aircraft nose wheel went over the side of the deck, there was very little to stop the aircraft sliding to port and simply jumping over the side, clearing the catwalk as it went. Pilot ejected at around 45 degrees nose down, recovered by a Sea King that was standing off waiting to recover. (Good work in hefty seas by the way).

Lessons learned very quickly:

1. Get the deck scrubbed and keep scrubbing. An old FAA routine that we had forgotten through not doing carrier aviation for a few years. Deck scrubbing machines were procured immediately and are still in constant use.
2. Restrict ship manoeuvring when aircraft not tied down on deck. See above.
3. Stuff happens in war.

It should (but probably won't) go without saying that the F-35B's landing gear is massively better for deck work than the Sea Harrier's somewhat 'hokey' 1950s style bicycle layout. Brakes that work, and a stable tricycle layout. Moreover, QEC will not move around at anything like the amount the CVs did.

But are there risks in SSLs? Sure there are. The team are working those with all the techniques at their disposal. Deck trials will be the final proof. But they won't even take place unless the teams have wrung out all the data as far as they can first. The fact that they are still going forward with SSLs should tell us that they haven't found a 'stopper' yet.

I hope this stuff helps a little. I'll now desist further posts on this subject, as I think I'm at the point when I'll start repeating myself. And few will listen - I don't blame them.

Best Regards as ever to those who have actually worked on seagoing STOVL and have the knowledge

Engines

[ORAC]

Interesting article, data translated from a an analysis piece posted on Sina's military news web portal.

Japan can't outgun China's J-20 with F-35A purchase (http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150520000057&cid=1101)

[draken55]

Engines

Please desist from desisting as your input is invaluable!

[Courtney Mil]

Engines,

Good commentary on both topics there, thank you.

Your first paragraph confuses me slightly; I am not sceptical about this, merely interested in a part of the programme that is going to be important the UK operating the F-35 and that has not been widely publicised. It looks to me like glad rag, judging by his question, feels the same.

Neither was my illustration of the importance of maintaining mu an attempt to be sceptical. Talking to others, who were also involved, in the South Atlantiic after the event, their feeling was much as you described; the condition of the deck was a player in the loss of ZA174.

I cannot see where there was a remark about you "always" covering things. When you do, it is very much appreciated. Again, it looks like you may mistake the opinions and questions from those of us that are not as well-informed about the programme as being sceptical. I don't think that is the case.

But thank you again anyway.

[Navaleye]

The USN have always had much better deck coatings than the UK, at higher cost.

What is wrong with grey paint mixed with sand?

[NutLoose]

Is that radar absorbing sand?

[John Farley]

B STOVL flight control software - background

The B’s flight control software which provides the handling characteristics that the pilot sees during the STOVL speed range (regardless of the airframe aerodynamics or lift system forces present at any time) is a very well developed and tested aspect of the overall programme.

If I can convince some posters of that it may help them have confidence in the handling queries that crop up here from time to time and stop some people feeling that if they can’t see a video of a particular manoeuvre on YouTube then there has to be a future problem being covered up by L-M or others.

My personal position is that I know nothing about programme costs, politics, support issues and timescales and all those other things that may be right or wrong with the programme. However I do know a bit about the flight control software because I went to the first meeting about it in 1971 (yes 1971) and was associated with its development from then until I last flew it in the VAAC Harrier in 1999.

In 1971 the RAE scientists at Farnborough were looking to improve on what the pilot experienced in the Harrier, which at that time had then been in service for two years. The elephant in the room was asking the pilot to control both thrust amount and thrust direction with his left hand. They wanted (correctly) to get rid of the nozzle lever to avoid the pilot boob of moving the wrong lever. It was after all only a matter of time before any of us did that (one day I stop-cocked the engine instead of selecting the reverse thrust angle but was lucky enough to have a few knots on at the time and the dying whine woke me up).

As befitted a research establishment the RAE were not looking to mod the Harrier fleet but to start with a clean sheet of paper about what the pilot should be given in any Harrier replacement which turned out to be the F35B. I won’t bore you with the very large number of “what does the left hand do and what does the right hand do” ideas during a whole raft of possible STOVL manoeuvres, however we flew most of these options in the VAAC Harrier from the completely digital rear cockpit, the front cockpit having normal Harrier controls for the safety pilot.

In the end the preferred option (for all except Harrier pilots) turned out to be “the left hand controls speed and the right hand controls height”. The team found even non pilots could use this system without training. Result. Harrier pilots had of course learned to use the nozzle lever which (they thought) made them better that non nozzle aviators and turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

The capability of the VAAC aircraft as a design tool had to be experienced to be believed. It was possible to sit in the hover on this single channel 100% authority flight control system and wobble the stick to see what you thought of (say) the roll control sensitivity, feel you would like a higher value, then select that parameter on a panel in the cockpit and while the system was engaged and flying the aircraft (!) dial up the higher value and have another wobble on the stick. Do optimisation systems come any better?

(Before anybody gasps at the apparent risks of such a system let me assure you that the boffins knew what they were doing and had installed an independent monitor to keep the aircraft safe regardless - but that is a whole other story and not relevant to this thread).

By 1999 a lot of JSF project office personnel and others had flown the optimised system and it is a matter of history that this RAE (later DERA and later still QinetiQ) STOVL flight control system was taken up by the JSF team for the B.

So please relax. There may well be issues over the whole JSF programme but the B’s STOVL flight control system is not one of them and don’t forget that in decelerating to the hover every intermediate speed is experienced!

[LowObservable]

JF -

I actually agree.

The STOVL element of JSF, in isolation, seems to work amazingly well, transforming what was very tricky on the Harrier to something quite stable, routine and easy for the pilot.

My main issue is whether the extra military options that it provides to a joint force is worth the cost in money, schedule or impact on the other variants.

[Courtney Mil]

LO -

I actually agree too. The politics and the history have led us to where we are, though, and the most important thing now is where it goes from here. We're way past the point of redesigning the carriers again to take anything else so we pretty much need to crack on and keep asking the questions about how THIS will work.

Nothing wrong with that.

[glad rag]

JF thank you for that very informative post above. It would be great if you could point us [me] towards any sources that detail the VAAC Harrier flying control integration.

thanks

gr.


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DbUhEnlI3OkC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=Harrier+VAAC+aircraft&source=bl&ots=dbrgt27tdX&sig=ZjEcVTXJgcn4rKdQHSewi47aHZc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0K5wVbifJoajU7rRgJgJ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=Harrier%20VAAC%20aircraft&f=false

[t43562]

As befitted a research establishment the RAE were not looking to mod the Harrier fleet but to start with a clean sheet of paper about what the pilot should be given in any Harrier replacement which turned out to be the F35B. I won’t bore you with the very large number of “what does the left hand do and what does the right hand do” ideas during a whole raft of possible STOVL manoeuvres, however we flew most of these options in the VAAC Harrier from the completely digital rear cockpit, the front cockpit having normal Harrier controls for the safety pilot.

Out of interest, why not mod the Harrier fleet? Perhaps it's a bit late now but there must have been a time when it would have been useful.

[John Farley]

t43562

Don't start trying to use common sense when it comes to research organisations and defence matters - especially with hindsight!

Seriously, with a clean sheet of paper approach to the controls research nobody knew how long it would all take.

Also changing a fleet of mechanical aeroplanes into FBW would just never have been a starter.

[LowObservable]

There were plans along the way for a Harrier III, which could have been fly-by-wire (instead of fly-by-bicycle-chain?). However, at that point you'd probably have wanted to start over.

The much-maligned Boeing X-32 was more Harrier-like in terms of moving parts than the LM design (dubbed "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" by a designer friend, very early in the game) but could just not generate the necessary performance needed for a stealth design.

[kbrockman]

Some picks from the F35A engine fire released;
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--TIN9x_ex--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/1284302590509734695.jpg
&
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--E5vzBu-N--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/1284302590558173991.jpg

[Wander00]

I suspect not too far from losing the aircraft, but hopefully the pilot would have whacked out first - would that have made it the most expensive abandonment in history.................

[ORAC]

I suspect not too far from losing the aircraft, but hopefully the pilot would have whacked out first - would that have made it the most expensive abandonment in history.................

8ZB-iziY2Bw

[LowObservable]

It was described to me last fall as resembling "the guy in Alien when the thing bursts out of his chest". Not far off.

They must have known within about five minutes of the incident that the jet was a write-off, and it is no credit to anyone that they took until now to admit it in public.

[PhilipG]

What confuses me is that it has been said that this problem cost c$50m, hard to belive, a write off aircraft costing north of $100m, a program to develop a refresh for the F135 engine, including repairing /replacing all in service engines.
You have got to love accountancy 2+2= what do you want it to equal?

[Wander00]

ORAC - thanks -"For the want of a shoe........."

[Turbine D]

You have got to love accountancy 2+2= what do you want it to equal?

Indeed, the write-off cost for the F-35 is $50M.:suspect: Oh, wait, that is the write-off cost on a rather new F-15C/D, I brought the wrong insurance value book. We'll have to get back to you sometime on the F-35 write-off cost.;)

[Courtney Mil]

Really, Guys? An aircraft was lost during the development of a new type. That, of course, has never happened before, so I can see why, months after the event it's suddenly attracting as many rubber-neckers as M1 pile-up.

LO, as you know, nothing is written off until it's examined and evaluated. I agree, it looked like it at the time, but if all investigations were carried out by the likes of us from afar, watching a YouTube video, we probably wouldn't be as smart as we think we are.

As to what it costs, too late. Now go and add up the cost of all the other accidents, put all that money in a pot and donate it to the defence budget.

Why not do something constructive instead and guess how the actual problem is being fixed?

[glad rag]

Why not do something constructive instead and guess how the actual problem is being fixed?

That's an interesting one Courts, wasn't the fix meant to be out, what, last December? :}

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, that's more like it, Glad Rag. The temporarily permanent fix. Pre-trenching.

Now most of us don't know the answer to that, whether it will fix it or not.

I suspect the solution may just be as simple as that, for now. But, of course there are no details yet apart from a vague promise to come up with a permanent permanent fix if this one doesn't work.

Now, we're all guessing, maybe too early to do so, but I would be far more interested to understand more about what happened, how to fix it and what may be the future issues.

[glad rag]

Pre-trenching may [or may not be] the permanent solution, but there are plenty more issues that have been highlighted previously, that need addressing as well...

http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2015-111.pdf

and that's just the WIP for the donkey....

Hmm.

[Hempy]

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/84475A2D-E2D4-4815-8B70-9C1630338BF0_zpsclh5glyw.jpg

[glad rag]

You see, the problem was, this was a great aircraft on paper in the original specifications.

But as it stands at the moment it is anything but. Which is BAD news.

Saying that there are fixes coming is fine but, as I believe to be correct, the aircraft will never return to those original specifications for numerous reasons.

Which kinda makes you think the original specifications must have been completely unrealistic from the beginning.......<scratchchin>

However, with the news that both F15/16 lines may be closing, the US could well be in the horse manure if someone, somewhere, doesn't take an executive decision....

meanwhile the freight train keeps on rolling (http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.com/wtfo/traitors-really/) ...

[Turbine D]

Courtney,
Now, we're all guessing, maybe too early to do so, but I would be far more interested to understand more about what happened, how to fix it and what may be the future issues.
What happened was a titanium fire, rare in modern day jet engines when it occurs forward of the HP compressor area, but in the colder area of the LP fan. The phenomena of a titanium fire involves subjecting a titanium part to a temperature above 1,600ºC (2912℉) and within 4 to 20 seconds a white hot fire starts which reaches a temperature of 3,300ºC (5972℉). The energy destroys surrounding materials by burning and melting. You can see in the photos provided by kbrockman how it has burned a hole or holes in the aircraft skin. The fire once started is nearly impossible to put out. Common extinguishing agents don't work and some make the fire worse as well as their usual quantity being inadequate. An argon blanket type gas coverage in place of normal air that contains oxygen works the best. Titanium fires behave like magnesium fires, it is why there are no magnesium gearboxes on jet engines provided to the Navy for carrier operations.
Titanium is used in the front end of the engine where possible because of its high strength-to-weight ratio verses steel or nickel-base alloys. So what causes titanium fires in the case of a rotating inner seal?
- Bearing failure
- Rotor unbalance, or
- (rarely) high g-loading and flexing under certain flight maneuvers
BTW, these reasons were known in the 1960s and were published in 1979 in a report for the FAA by the National Engineering Laboratory. There is no guessing and the reason given by USAF General Bogdan was the third item above. So what do you do to avoid the problem?

Proper design processes:
- Mechanical stacking determination between stationary and rotating components
- Heat transfer and deflection analysis
- Transient heat transfer and deflection analysis under burst and chop conditions in both radial and axial directions
- Determination of transient stresses so LCF of the part can be assessed.
- Analysis of out of round instability caused by local rubbing
- Frequency analysis to prevent resonance to determine the acceptable margin
- Determination of damping requirements
- Determination side-slip instability of the rotor stator at low speed affecting fan and LP compressor seals.
But, if the design proves to not work, what do you do to fix it?

- Open up seal tolerances (performance loss and potential adverse affect on bearing life)
- Configuration and material changes (probable added weight)
- Strengthening support structures (added weight but preserves performance)

glad rag quote:
Saying that there are fixes coming is fine but, as I believe to be correct, the aircraft will never return to those original specifications for numerous reasons.

Which kinda makes you think the original specifications must have been completely unrealistic from the beginning.......<scratchchin>

I suspect most of this applies to the engine as well.

[sandiego89]

Thank you kbrockman for posting the pictures- she looks "well-done" indeed. Actually I am surprised with a fire burning that hot and so deep, the fire did not spread to the rest of the aircraft, and all we would normally see is a burnt out blob in the rough outline of a F-35 on the runway. I seem to recall she was about to fly, so would likely have had a good amount of fuel aboard. Wonder how quick the foam/fire trucks were on scene.

Could this say anything positive (not sure we are allowed to say anything postive about the jet in this thread :E) about fire not spreading to fuel tanks and other structures? Not trying to downplay the engine fire and problem at all, but the logs books are full of ramp fires for many aircraft types, and it often results in a total burn out- not a partially burnt aircraft still sitting on it's gear.

[Courtney Mil]

Turbine D,

A good recount of the physics of titanium fires. Thank you. It takes something serious to make the stuff burn and once it's going, forget the built in fire extinguisher.

I would take issue with one of your statements,

is why there are no magnesium gearboxes on jet engines provided to the Navy for carrier operations.

It's not just the fire risk, it's the way it reacts with salt. Generally, the salt wins. You are right that magnesium and titanium fires can't be extinguished with water. Pour water onto a magnesium fire and it aggressively reacts with it, releasing hydrogen, which then causes an even more energetic reaction. If you deprive it of all sources of O2, magnesium reacts with nitrogen - hence the need for noble gasses to suppress it.

But the intensity of titanium and magnesium fires are, as you have suggested, very energetic, release lots of heat.

The phenomena of a titanium fire involves subjecting a titanium part to a temperature above 1,600ºC (2912℉) and within 4 to 20 seconds a white hot fire starts which reaches a temperature of 3,300ºC (5972℉). The energy destroys surrounding materials by burning and melting.

And that's interesting when you consider Sandiego's point about the state of the airframe after the fire.

the fire did not spread to the rest of the aircraft, and all we would normally see is a burnt out blob in the rough outline of a F-35 on the runway. I seem to recall she was about to fly, so would likely have had a good amount of fuel aboard.

And

the logs books are full of ramp fires for many aircraft types, and it often results in a total burn out- not a partially burnt aircraft still sitting on it's gear.

Please excuse me for paraphrasing you, Sandiego.

[LowObservable]

Was about to make the same comment about magnesium - I believe it was once said that "on contact with salt water, magnesium-based alloys demonstrate the structural qualities of Alka-Seltzer".

That is also one of many reasons why we will never see a restored B-36 in the air...

[John Farley]

LO

Agreed re magnesium and salt water. That is why we had to take it all out of the RAF engine and airframe when sorting the Sea Harrier.

We had a titanium fire in a Dunsfold crash in 1968. We could not put it out. Mind you I am sure there have been many developments in fire fighting media since then.

[John Farley]

I forgot to mention that the USMC AV-8s were just like the RAF aircraft of the day. So when they landed on a ship they taxied to a fire hose and the whole thing was very well rinsed before the engine was shut down.

[Courtney Mil]

Not with salt water, I hope, John! :eek:

[sandiego89]

I do like this wording from the USAF press release:

.......The engine failed when the third stage forward integral arm of a rotor fractured and liberated during the takeoff roll.......(my bolding)

Guess that's a nice way to say it...makes it seem it was set free to lead a better life :)


F-35 Accident Investigation Complete > Air Education and Training Command > News Article (http://www.aetc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/136/Article/590754/f-35-accident-investigation-complete.aspx)

And given the below, I am indeed surprised there was not a total burn out as I mentioned in post #6217....:

"Pieces of the failed rotor arm cut through the engine's fan case, the engine bay, an internal fuel tank, and hydraulic and fuel lines before exiting through the aircraft's upper fuselage. Damage from the engine failure caused leaking fuel and hydraulic fluid to ignite and burn the rear two thirds of the aircraft"

As for the $50 million, this editors note says: (EDITOR’S NOTE: The “in excess of $50 million” is a reporting category, and is not a true estimate of the cost of the damage.) http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/164287/usaf-completes-f_35-accident-investigation.html

[orca]

CM,

The compressor washes were done with fresh water and not from a fire hose in my time. They were done on Sea Jet and plastic pig alike.

Bloke in yellow surcoat would form an intake shape with one arm and using his other hand point into it and transcribe a circle. This was usually timed perfectly to coincide with having your hands on your head whilst weapons were made safe.

Once you'd secured the air con, anti g and one other thing that I've forgotten you gave the thumbs up and some mate fired a few gallons of water down each intake.

[Courtney Mil]

Now that makes more sense, Orca. I did't recall the RN using desalinated water for fire-fighting. I knew what John meant, but couldn't resist a bit of mischief. Sorry, John.

That said, I'm very grateful for your description of the process. The way you described it made me wonder if water ingress into other systems (e.g. Anti-g) produced problems later on. Or even for the next pilot?

[alfred_the_great]

If I remember from my YO taskbook, there were Demin tanks on the flight deck with blue hoses run from them. They certainly weren't taken from the HPSW system.

[DeafOldFart]

Warfare is a prelude to negotiation..... so why not keep it simple and cheap?
What does the enemy look like nowadays?
Perhaps we could get them on our side by feeding them better than their current political masters.
So maybe replace F35 with field kitchens...!!
I'm sure Bombardier could do them for less than a million quid per van.

[Courtney Mil]

If I remember from my YO taskbook, there were Demin tanks on the flight deck with blue hoses run from them. They certainly weren't taken from the HPSW system.


That makes sense. Thank you.

[Engines]

GUys,

Just to add some detail that might be useful. The CVS flight deck tractors were fitted with special demin water tanks that replaced existing ballast weights. The installation also included a pump, hose and nozzle for the water washes described in earlier posts. Water wash was, as many have said here, a standard routine post last flight of the day. However, this really only washed the LP compressor section, as it threw almost all the water out the front nozzles.

The Sea Harrier Pegasus engine (might have applied to all Peggies) was also fitted with an integral water wash system that worked via a connection located under a belly panel. This was used during 'remedial' compressor washes in cases of power loss. A very effective system.

Hope this helps

Best regards as ever to those doing the work on the decks,

Engines

[O-P]

Sounds a lot more effective than chucking broken walnut shells down the front of a Spey!




O-P

[Turbine D]

sandiego,
And given the below, I am indeed surprised there was not a total burn out as I mentioned in post #6217....:

That is because it was just an uncontained engine failure that happened to cause a fuel fire that was quickly extinguished. Note there is no mention of a titanium fire. As I see it, there are two different stories, the Bogdan story and the accident investigation story, take your pick.:confused:

[ORAC]

Three comments.

1. Another programme timeline that didn't last 2 years. Slippages on schedule. Not worth the paper they're printed on.....

2. At this rate Block 5 won't arrive till after 2035 - if at all.

3. Not being US and competing against their exports, will Meteor be integrated before 2025? And given the current repeated failures to meet deadlines, is 2030 more realistic?

AW&ST: Opinion: Time To Define The F-35 Upgrade Plan (http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-time-define-f-35-upgrade-plan)

Two years ago, the Pentagon set initial operational capability (IOC) dates for all three versions of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Those dates may be adhered to, but some capabilities may be missing. Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the Air Force’s F-35 integration office, said in late May that there are hardware and software items—all unspecified and some classified—that are running late, so the IOC requirement may have to be amended........

The first post-IOC upgrade, Block 4, has changed shape twice in less than two years. The original plan was to roll out numbered block upgrades at two-year intervals. Early in 2014, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, director of the JSF program office, disclosed that Block 4 would be split into Block 4A and 4B, the latter reaching IOC in 2024—so that anything post-Block 4 would have to wait until 2026. Apparently, some customers had a problem with this. A new plan was unveiled this spring, dividing Block 4 into four segments, 4.1 through 4.4. Block 4.1, mostly software, arrives in late 2019, two years earlier than 4A would have done—but it seems likely that it will include overspill from Block 3F. Block 4.4 is due for IOC in mid-2025.

The idea is to “accelerate incremental capabilities,” according to a program document. The Pentagon and its partners have many requirements and desires between now and 2027, and a process has been put in place to prioritize them. Common items take precedence over customer-unique upgrades unless the program’s Joint Executive Steering Board decrees otherwise. Priorities include anti-surface warfare, with the AGM-154C-1 net-enabled version of the Joint Standoff Weapon, and moving-target attack with the laser-guided version of the Joint Direct Attack Munition. Block 4 also includes the B61-12 nuclear bomb. There is a long list of other new weapons: cruise missiles from Norway and Turkey, and Britain’s three-phase Selective Precision Effects At Range (Spear) project. The U.K. wants two new MBDA air-to-air missiles (AAM): Meteor and a new version of the Advanced Short-Range AAM.

But the presentation warns that “weapon integration requests are likely to exceed capacity,” even though budget documents show that the Pentagon plans to spend around $700 million annually on JSF research and development as the original development phase winds down. That does not include follow-on development funds from international partners. That makes Block 4 a $5 billion-plus program, which ought to be enough to cover most upgrade needs. Air Force acquisition chief Bill LaPlante also appears to think the upgrade money could be spent more smartly. He has floated the idea of moving toward open architecture in Block 4, with a view to opening Block 5 to competition. Boeing’s defense boss Chris Chadwick doubts whether that will work. Any incumbent, he believes, should have enough of an advantage to beat challengers in a fair competition.

Consider, too, the history of the F-35’s sibling, the F-22 Raptor. A decade ago, when the F-22 was approaching IOC, the contractor and customer expected that the jet would be modernized quickly. By 2012, the Block 40 Global Strike Enabler was to be in service, with added radar side arrays, powerful electronic attack capabilities and two-way satcoms. But even with $5 billion in R&D over the last decade, none of this has been done. Operational F-22s still cannot communicate, other than by voice radio, with anything except another F-22, and they are only just moving beyond the obsolescent AIM-9M Sidewinder AAM. Early production F-22s are not due to be brought up to fully operational standards until the 2020s.

The F-22 and F-35 have some strong similarities when it comes to upgrades. Both are stealthy, which makes it more difficult to add or replace a radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture. Both have a systems architecture that leans heavily on a central integrated processor, with the subsystems as peripherals. That has its advantages but means a dedicated development program for each sensor upgrade rather than just porting technology from another aircraft. Above all, both have shown a big appetite for regression testing—the process of making sure that a change or fix to one system has not resulted in a failure in another—which has been the biggest drag on F-22 upgrade efforts.........

[LowObservable]

Blocks and Spirals can always lead to this kind of "hidden slippage". For example, the Marines were originally scheduled to reach IOC with Block 2 in 2010, so by that count they are "only" five years late. But at that time Block 1 was supposed to have "warfighter utility" with weapons qualified and Block 2 was a step beyond that; today's Block 2B/3I has envelope limits (40 kft and Mach 1.2/5.5 g for the B model) and no external weapons.

[kbrockman]

Meanwhile our Dutch friends have found out that 37 might not be enough, so now they're planning to invest in a second (likely M346 or similar), less expensive type, to keep their pilots' flight hours up to spec and give them the ability to train on something a lot cheaper.

Essentially back to 2 types in their main fighter fleet, it's 1970 again.

in Dutch
Luchtmacht wil extra vliegtuigen|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl (http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24139126/__Luchtmacht_wil_extra_vliegtuigen__.html)

[glad rag]

Hmm additional control surfaces req'd.

One wonders, as this was was known in 2009, then in fact it might not be as big a hit as article makes out.

LM may already have made contingency plans in advance for the modification and future incorporation of said surfaces, control systems for said plus integration into the airframes flight control software ?

Maybe the "B" can get round this by having a little "puff" when required, that would be handy [apart from the blindingly obvious stealth implications] indeed.









YEAH RIGHT.

[Hempy]

And the Super just keeps on giving...

Boeing encouraged by possible US Navy, Kuwait Super Hornet deals - 5/19/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-encouraged-by-possible-us-navy-kuwait-super-hornet-412502/)

[cornish-stormrider]

And why, pray tell, do I hear Yakkety Sax and get the image of spinning bow ties, buttonhole water squirting flowers, custard pies and big shoes whenever I read more gripes with "Dave, WonderJet of the new Millenium"

It's not like this was predicted??

[BossEyed]

F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed (http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/)

[Martin the Martian]

Sky-Net! Classic!:}

[oldgrubber]

Engines,

Being on a "Pinger" squadron I do remember chuckling when a bit of the demin hose nozzle came off one day while the "Zoomies" were carrying out the evolution you described.
We did it engine running one day and the firesuitmen came running up the deck thinking we were on fire!

Cheers now

[artee]

Interesting article in The Economist at Who?s afraid of America? | The Economist (http://econ.st/1B6cps2)

"The military playing field is more even than it has been for many years. That is a big problem for the West"

"Hence the need to come up with a third offset strategy..."

"The programme needs to overcome at least five critical vulnerabilities. The first is that carriers and other surface vessels can now be tracked and hit by missiles at ranges from the enemy’s shore which could prevent the use of their cruise missiles or their tactical aircraft without in-flight refuelling by lumbering tankers that can be picked off by hostile fighters"

"To get its hands on the technologies it needs, the military establishment and the armed forces themselves may have to take an axe to cherished programmes. One possibility would be to scale back plans to buy nearly 2,500 F-35 fighter jets, which have too short a range for many situations, and use the money to buy unmanned combat aircraft and a bigger fleet of long-range strike bombers. The navy might have to give up on two of its fabulously expensive carrier groups in recognition of their growing vulnerability in favour of investments in submarines, both manned and unmanned"

" 'The more successful the offset strategy is in extending US conventional advantages, the more attractive US adversaries will find strategies of nuclear escalation." The enemy always gets a vote"

Makes a lot of sense - to a layman like myself.

[ORAC]

Lockheed Keeps Hiking Dividends Despite F-35 Glitches (http://news.investors.com/investing-the-income-investor/061215-757098-despite-f35-glitches-lockheed-boosts-dividends.htm)

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/j4Iod96yVVitgUILKvjp.w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTI5MztpbD1wbGFuZTtweW9mZj0wO3E9 NzU7dz02MDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt150614.jpg

[KPax]

I see the RIAT organisers have confirmed that the F35 will not be at Fairford this year,not a priority, or should that read unable to fly the Atlantic.

[MSOCS]

More important things for the Program right now KPax, like USMC IOC for instance. F-35 is more than capable of flying the Atlantic, and would have done so for last year's RIAT had the fleet not been justifiably (albeit temporarily) grounded after the Eglin engine incident.

[Maus92]

USMC, JPO, and the contractors are stretched incredibly thin trying to meet the Marines IOC with their F-35B. Mods to aircraft are continuing while spares are accumulated to meet the July "deadline," not to mention getting a solid, performing version of ALIS up and running (and keeping it from downing an aircraft unnecessarily.) There is simply no spare capacity to support a dog and pony show at RIAT at this time.

[Courtney Mil]

No, the jet needs good publicity right now. If an air show last year was worth the programme's trouble to try to get the jet here (before the engine trouble), RIAT would be equally important.

MSOCS, USMC IOC was just as important last year, but they still thought a UK display was important enough to find room in the programme. So what's stopping them now?

[glad rag]

like USMC IOC for instance. Would you care to detail just what demonstrated capabilities will be required for the aircraft to "pass" IOC?

please fell free to edit your reply as many times as necessary..

[rh200]

So what's stopping them now?

Hmm, lets see now, at aguess I would think teh delta T is a bit smaller and hence any buffereing to compensate is also smaller.

[Courtney Mil]

Rh200, although you didn't attribute your quote to anyone I think that was something I wrote, so I guess your post is aimed at me? Saying who you're quoting isn't difficult and makes the thread so much easier to follow.

at aguess I would think teh delta T is a bit smaller and hence any buffereing to compensate is also smaller.

I would love to respond to that, but I have no idea what you're saying. If that is supposed to explain why it was a good idea to send the jet to an air show in Europe last year, but not this year, your reasoning is lost on me. Unless your're saying the programme has slipped again so much that the will to do so has now become a lower priority that is unaffordable?

[Davef68]

Remember last year wasn't just RIAT but also the Farnborough show, which industrially/politically would probably have been more important to LM and BAE.

There was also the chance, albeit never confirmed, that it could have taken part in the naming ceremony for HMS Queen Elizabeth.

This year, just RIAT is probably not enough to justify it.

[Courtney Mil]

Remember last year wasn't just RIAT but also the Farnborough show, which industrially/politically would probably have been more important to LM and BAE.

The failure to turn up at Farnborough for the signing was, in anyone's language a horrible failure for the programme. Lots of folks are expecting good news about the programme in the following year.

Maybe the decision not to come to Europe is simply a result of poor appreciation of the public mood. If so, think again. If that is not the case there must be another reason.

[MSOCS]

CM,

I'm sure USMC IOC was indeed just as important last year, however RIAT/F'boro weren't going to be occurring in the same month back then, unlike this year. That's the biggest difference IMHO.

For what it's worth, I also don't consider the decision related to a wrong perception of public mood; rather just a simple case of where the focus of effort should be. The USMC were a huge part of the joint effort to bring F-35B to the UK and supported it wholeheartedly. That sentiment hasn't changed but current priorities within the Program don't make a UK visit feasible this year. If people judge that a mistake, that's absolutely fine. If people judge it as a pragmatic decision to prioritise manpower, money and effort to make IOC, that's fine too.

Not saying anyone's wrong, just stating the facts as I believe them to be.

[rh200]

your reasoning is lost on me

No, what I'm saying is no different to any project management system. As the time line progresses there are lots of things to do, need to do, really have to do, love to do.

As you get closer to particular milestones depending upon the importance of said milestone, you tend to discard a lot of "love to do's" until you have time.

I would expect them to have their @arses hanging out to make sure they make this one. hence going off to an airshow is not on the radar.

[longer ron]

Maybe the decision not to come to Europe is simply a result of poor appreciation of the public mood. If so, think again. If that is not the case there must be another reason.

With an aircraft as mature as the F35 should now be - not being able to turn up for a couple of uk airshows is a huge indication of the problems with the whole program(me).
And afaik - the turkey still has not done a ski jump - how many years into the project ?

[glad rag]

If people judge it as a pragmatic decision to prioritise manpower, money and effort to make IOC, that's fine too.


Quite an ironic statement there considering the programs protracted gestation.