Sharky Watch LIVE

[CoffmanStarter]

Oh dear the Bearded One is having another pop ... this time at AM Hillier and our Tornado operations :ugh:

The Air Marshal’s aviation and warfare experience and expertise would appear to be limited to Tornado operations which, to put it kindly, have generally been a resounding failure in terms of operational achievement (although in spite of the evidence to that effect, the Royal Air Force continues to hide the aircraft’s many shortcomings and exaggerate its few achievements).

See www://sharkeysworld2.bl0gspot.co.uk/

Just change the "0" in bl0gspot to an "o"

Coff.

PS. I'm sure the Chancellor enjoyed his other letter ...

[NutLoose]

Yup, bet old Jeffery loved that.

I like his

You will have noted from the evidence given by the Air Marshal that:
a) he has a rather woolly excuse for everything;
b) he pretends to have strong professional views concerning carrier operations - about which he knows very little, and
c) when he is stuck for an answer he hides behind a cloak of unnecessary and unseemly secrecy - which is there really to hide his ignorance (or is used to protect a vested interest?).
A very good example of the Air Marshal’s obfuscation and misleading statements is provided in his response to Question 35 by Ian Swales:

:D

[muttywhitedog]

I do wish Captain Pugwash would shut the ***k up. Face facts - the harrier is gone.

And as a member of Steve Hillier's Sqn when he was awarded the DFC - the bloke knows how to fly, and how to lead. Its little surprise to me that he is now an Air Marshal.

[NutLoose]

I wasn't applauding because of his comments, but because of how sad it makes him appear to be by writing them.




..

[Easy Street]

I was astounded to read Sharkey's comments in his 27 May reply to a letter from MoD, in which he rounded on the F-35B for (among other reasons) being single-seat, saying that a 2-seat Super Hornet or Growler would be better from an EW / ISTAR / UAV control / etc point of view. I would never, ever have expected to hear such words from a Harrier pilot, even allowing for the fact that he would rather see F/A-18s on board than F-35!

[newt]

Could Mr Smith or Mr Jones from Hereford be paid to go round and put This Person out of his misery?:ok:

[rab-k]

FWIW, and having just finished reading "Sea Harrier over the Falklands", if the opportunity ever arose, I'd be honoured to buy the gentleman a beer.

Hat, coat, door...

[AutoBit]

I know its all to easy to have a pop at Sharkey, but if you read the full transcript the answers from the 'top of shop' in Carrier Strike are very wooly, in particular the answers to the variant change questions.

[orca]

We could of course refrain from taking out a contract on the chap and simply ignore him. After all he only spouts rubbish (according to our very own experts) and the majority of us have only heard said spouting because people feel the need to post links to it here.

(Usually with some form of incoherent statement to the effect of: 'This guy whose opinion I am distributing shouldn't even have an opinion, let alone a distributed one.')

Given that I haven't read a single syllable from his site/blog I have no idea how he makes the 'Harrier was great, F-35B is rubbish, Harrier shouldn't have gone but could we have F-18E?' argument hold water, but that does seem a little incoherent to me.

It doesn't seem to be incoherent to argue that a land based practitioner of air power might not have carrier expertise, but again I have only so few heart beats and have to select what I waste them on carefully. Finding out what this brave and decorated chap (maritime persuasion) said about another brave and decorated chap (land based persuasion) is something I can't be bothered with, but I am pretty sure he didn't say he wasn't brave or couldn't fly an aeroplane.

[Laarbruch72]

The majority of us have only heard said spouting because people feel the need to post links to it here.


Nail on the head Orca, I'm only aware of his blog because people start threads on it here. So please let's leave the silly old bugger in peace in his dotage.

[Milo Minderbinder]

I only ever met the guy while he was helping out at the local farm during harvest / sheep shearing, but my understanding was he was a Phantom Pilot first, and a Harrier pilot later - his preference for a two-seater could be based on that comparison. With the Sea Harrier he made the best of what was an inadequate platform. I suspect he would have preferred to have still been flying the Phantoms off the Ark

[AutoBit]

Milo,

The Sea Harrier had its limitations, sure, but its operational record was pretty much second to none. I thinks its a touch harsh to call it 'inadequate'.

It had its day, and did a bloody good job of it for my two penny's worth, although i take the jist of what you're saying.

As always ORCA your points are well made. Again having read the full transcript of the SC's report Sharky does raise some interesting points, he just undermines his arguments by making the whole thing very personal.

[500N]

What if the Argies hadn't been as far away and the Mirages
had been able to be used more and other aircraft had been
able to stay over the target longer.

Would that have swung it more in the Argies favour ?

[orca]

So are you saying that the Argentines would entirely support Cdr Ward's assertions that sea based air power is the business? After all a carrier could (did) get their fast movers further down range than their little publicised, but somewhat futile, attempts to move the islands west or their whole country east.;)

Or are you suggesting there was a closer country that they might have operated from?

Must admit I don't have a chart handy but I can't remember one!

[CoffmanStarter]

Without doubt Commander Ward RN served with distinction during the Falklands conflict and was decorated accordingly. However his continual "swiping" at the RAF is unforgivable.

Example ...

The RAF has been resting on the laurels of the Battle of Britain for 70 years and our politicians (management) have been all too ready to listen to RAF ‘sweet talk’ without ever checking on what the RAF actually can do to provide the Defence and Security that this nation needs.

Until he desists in making personal and derogatory remarks about the RAF, and it's Leadership, he deserves to be exposed.

Coff.

[Milo Minderbinder]

AutoBit

Maybe that "inadequate" seems harsh given - as you say - the Sea Harriers record, but is it really that wrong if you compare the capabilities of the SH with other carrier borne aircraft of the time? The Navy were given a lesser aircraft and made an excellent job of it. But things would have been better all round if they had retained their Phantoms and Buccaners.
My point was simply that Ward was in the position to directly compare the capapbilities of the naval two-seat jets with the Harrier, and his experience leads him to prefer the two-seater. I doubt if there are many of you who have the personal experience to make that comparison - or to make a valid argument against him on that subject

[Wander00]

CS - or just ignored - problem is that he probably would not just go away. Shame really.

[CoffmanStarter]

W00 ... agree :( ... but he does make ones blood boil ...

[Agaricus bisporus]

While Cdr Ward's pronouncements often seem personal and (are) opinionated a lot of what he says does appear based on sound common sense and practicality.

The personal swiping begins to look a bit too personal when he is slammed for speaking in favour of a two seater simply because it is felt he "ought" to be favouring a single - perhaps the man is actually voicing a sound military viewpoint? As you might expect from a professional and highly experienced man like him.

From what I've learned over the years from other RN flyers his sniping at the RAF is not altogether unprovoked, given the extraordinary political infighting (not to say outright chicanery, if the tales I'm hearing are true) that the RAF has conducted against the RN in a relentless battle to secure monopoly of control over fast jets and their pilots. He is far from alone in harbouring such thoughts

As a man who cares passionately about the RN it is unsurprising that he (along with some of our close allies) feel strongly that the removal of the Navy's fast air and carriers is irresponsible insanity as lessons from history clearly demonstrate, and the notion that the RAF are capable of or the least bit interested in supporting naval ops is equally questionable. I also think that his remarks on the Tornado aren't entirely without substance either.

With our political masters showing such lack of understanding of the importance of military matters I think it is important we have outspoken people like Cdr Ward out there to stir things up a bit, even if it does sound like monotonous bleating at times.

[Plastic Bonsai]

Easy Street:..2-seat Super Hornet or Growler would be better from an EW / ISTAR / UAV control / etc point of view

For these roles a second seat makes sense surely?

It's sad that Cmdr Ward's sallies sullies an impressive war record but haven't we a history of treating such people... like ACMs Dowding and Park.

Cometh the hour cometh the man and afterwards bin 'im.

[Genstabler]

Seems to me, as a Pongo, that the bearded aviator is a very plain speaker and totally without subtlety or guile. That is why he upsets so many people who do not share his viewpoint. Actually an awful lot of what he says makes good sense and, taken with several spoonfuls of sugar, should be considered seriously.

[BEagle]

Indeed, Genstabler. But he'd be taken far more seriously if he would only stop his silly sniping at 'RAF Battle of Britain mental attitudes' et al.

I hope Sharky's outstanding South Atlantic achievements won't be sullied by his rather petulant blogs which mark him out as something of a Bearded Bull$hitter, very regrettably.

[just another jocky]

Trouble is Gen, try separating the facts from the lies.....too monumental a task. And so how does anyone know which bits are worth heeding and which ignoring? His love of the Harrier is easy to see, but he cares not a jot for those who love the Tornado which has had a longer operational service than the Harrier (ie ON ops) and has been incredibly successful, increasing the theatre capability when it took over from the Harrier back in 09.

I love the Tornado (cos I flew it for 20+ years) but you don't find me knowingly lying and denigrating the Harrier.

Despite his distinguished service in the FI campaign, he brings little but shame by his continual lies and vehemence.

[SASless]

As an outsider to all this....there is truth in the opposing views....and I can understand why the RAF folks get their feathers ruffled by some of the comments. Likewise, I can also understand the sensitivity the RN folks have about how things have gone re Fast Jets and funding for Aircraft Carriers.

We had a similar spat between the USAF and USN several years ago that almost turned into open warfare....and the remnants remain yet today but thankfully at a much lower intensity.

There have been many Battles fought since Dunkirk.....and the BoB was but one of them.....and I would suggest the Battle of the Atlantic was just as important.

I suppose I sit in Sharkey's Corner just because I get so much enjoyment out watching Crabs dance around making lots of noise. As the RN is in a minority here....I would also have to root for the under dog.

When I see the personal attacks on Sharkey.....and not a response to his criticisms or comments....I sense he is winning on the issues and facts or the discussion would be all about his position and not his character.

But then I am an American Dogface Helicopter Pilot.....so what would I know.

For sure I admire the way the Royal Navy stood in Harm's Way in the Falklands....along with the rest of the UK Troops who performed in such an admirable manner under very tough conditions. My hat is off to all of the forces involved in that campaign.

[Easy Street]

Easy Street:..2-seat Super Hornet or Growler would be better from an EW / ISTAR / UAV control / etc point of view

For these roles a second seat makes sense surely?

Those that sought to characterise my post as a personal attack on Sharkey were wrong - I find myself in 100% agreement with his views on the 1 seat / 2 seat point! The thrust of my post was that I was surprised to hear this view expressed by a former Harrier pilot, when pretty much every other British single-seat pilot I've ever met has (publically, anyway) viewed 2-seat fast jets and their operators with derision! So, rather than being aimed directly at Sharkey, it was aimed at those who have consistently sought to denigrate those of us who share the task of flying a combat aircraft.

Over the past 30 years the "single-seat or die" community has convinced those with the purse strings that modern computing and data fusion renders the nav/WSO unecessary for future combat tasks - hence we end up with F-22, F-35, Typhoon, etc. It's one thing with air combat (where the reduction in aircraft mass and size of a single-seater has certain advantages) but for all the roles mentioned above, it's possible lunacy! When, at some point in the future, politicians decide that enough is enough and the damned aircraft has to come into service NOW, imperfections in mission software and data fusion are very, very easy to gloss over - "hey look everyone, we have some aircraft we can put on the carrier - job done". We then get saddled with working around various shortcomings in the mission kit until they get ironed out over the first decade in service. With a second body on board, 'data fusion' issues can be worked around in real time through the simple expedient of CRM.

[orca]

SASless,

Don't disagree with any of what you say and we of course take note that there were plenty of RAF crews involved in the Falklands Crisis in both GR3 and FRS 1 cockpits (and in various others but I shall focus on Ward's community). Ward's own book is very complimentary about the service rendered by RAF QFIs in introduction on the FRS1 and also of the contributions of RAF pilots (and of note his own AWI) during hostilities.

There is also considerable resonance between Ward's book and that of Pook when it comes to their disdain for how the C2 piece was handled down south.

In response to other posters:

I'm not convinced that overall the GR4 introduction to Herrick offered a dramatic uplift in capability and am pretty sure it wasn't done cheaply. But that's just my opinion and I don't expect people to agree with me.

If one were to trace the reason for Ward's anger (whilst not excusing some of his content - which I still haven't read but I'll take your words for it) we can perhaps look at the following. We are a small island nation with worldwide commitments and responsibilities. A carrier capability would therefore seem to be somewhere in the 'highly desirable' category - but not mandatory I will grant you. We haven't got one. That would annoy any naval aviator - and should annoy the public at large. (Again just my opinion)

We are getting a carrier capability and for some reason the Royal Air Force is involved. No-one else in the world runs FW carrier aviation like this so we can only assume that they are all wrong and we are right. Or we can assume that our own RAF is amazingly far and joint sighted - or simply wants the aeroplanes and is happy to tell anyone it's buying into a capability to get them. I don't know which (if any) is correct - I'm not privy to how CAS et al actually think, but it does sound peculiar when I find myself telling people that the RAF will deploy its aircraft to the new carriers and the RN will not own a single airframe of a type procured specifically for carrier strike.

I think issues such as these provide the fuel for Ward's furnace.

So, in summary, do I find Ward an embarrassment to my cloth and kin? No, he has some good points. Could he do with throttling back and offering the 'pithy and balanced' occasionally, vice the 'somewhat inaccurate and vitriolic' the whole time? Yes.

[just another jocky]

orca - I didn't say "dramatic uplift". :=

[Bismark]

Orca,

I think you have summed up the situation in the most succinct and accurate way I have seen for some time.

It was (is) the obsession of the senior RAF to do away with the FAA FW that has poisoned all. But what is really sad is that although this was known about at he CDS and Prime Ministerial levels absolutely nothing was done about it. At least one CDS (RAF) and one CAS should have been sacked at the time but weren't. At least he Irish Air Marshall has been put out to grass and not allowed to progress to a position of further influence.

Hopefully with helicopter men and navigators at the top of the shop we might see some more reasoned play - my fingers remain firmly crossed!

How can he RAF possibly own the capability for embarked air power when nothing in their history gives them the ability to own this risk. The MAA should be all over this and direct that the RN should be the capability holder.

[4Greens]

For those of you who have read his book on the Falklands war, you would have noticed that he was just as harsh on his RN counterparts when he felt they were not doing the right thing.

For those who have not read the book, go for it. There is a relatively new version around in paper back.

[dragartist]

Can someone please tell us how the RAF and RN got on together on 360 sqn? I assume they had mixed crews.
It seams an age since the RN had a FW carrier capability. I assume non of those guys will be around to operate the F35. So what does it matter what colour blue the future jockeys wear after this capability holiday. Carrier ops will be new to any cadre who will have to learn a fresh how to exploit the capability to good effect. The RAF showed they were capable of operating Harriers on the carrier during CORPARATE as Sharky acknowledges. They did not have years of training and indoctrination into the ways of Nelson. Lets have some agile flexible forces that can be deployed on land or sea as the need dictates. FFS there is not enough cash in the economy to support any overlap. JHC is quite purple. It appears to work.

[FODPlod]

Let's try the shoe on the other foot. Imagine the RAF having to suffer the near total elimination or transfer of its FJ/AEW capability (plus associated air stations) as a direct result of the RN vaingloriously promising 24-hour global air cover. Next, imagine the RAF having to witness the subsequent destruction of several of its remaining air stations with many personnel suffering death or horrific injury.

In such circumstances, wouldn't some members of the RAF, particularly jet jockeys, be excused for holding views as bitter as Sharkey's?

While guilty of going for the throat at times, Sharkey still makes some salient points. Ironically, his most effective publicity managers are those, mainly of the light blue persuasion, who continue to draw attention to him purely to insult him. I think this is the fifth such thread on here.

[Wander00]

History is here - 360sqn (http://www.360sqn.org.uk/)
mix was 25% RN/75% RAF air and ground crew. Every 4th OC (roughly) was RN - last one Cdr Phil Shaw. When I joined as the sqn formed in Oct 66 I was the (only) first tourist, and there was a heck of a lot of experience to learn from. Also a shortage of aircraft with a scratch collection of B2s and the odd B6. We also were AFAIK the first RAF sqn to adopt the RN's Divisional officer system

For a brief period I even had a posting notice to 361 Sqn and Singapore - did not last!

[Easy Street]

his most effective publicity managers are those, mainly of the light blue persuasion, who continue to draw attention to him purely to insult him. I think this is the fifth such thread on here.

People keep banging on this line but I would simply observe that, during Op ELLAMY, a particularly inaccurate set of costings and analysis from his blog was picked up by the press (directly from his blog, no-one had posted it here first; this was about the same time as the 'RAF in hotels in Italy' scoop) and led directly to a flurry of entirely nugatory HQ staff work being directed merely to rebut it to press and parliament alike - needless to say, no 'clarification' was ever published in the media. So I would say that the press were far more effective than anyone on PPrune on that occasion, and the reason why people keep anti-posting here is to demonstrate to any passing journos that there are other professional views besides Sharkey's, and that cut-and-pasting his material into the papers might not necessarily be a good idea.

[just another jocky]

While guilty of going for the throat at times, Sharkey still makes some salient points.

He does, but try sifting those out from the bitter inaccuracies and downright lies.

And there has long been a recognised campaign by both the RN & Army combined to eliminate the RAF.

[Finningley Boy]

Those that sought to characterise my post as a personal attack on Sharkey were wrong - I find myself in 100% agreement with his views on the 1 seat / 2 seat point! The thrust of my post was that I was surprised to hear this view expressed by a former Harrier pilot, when pretty much every other British single-seat pilot I've ever met has (publically, anyway) viewed 2-seat fast jets and their operators with derision! So, rather than being aimed directly at Sharkey, it was aimed at those who have consistently sought to denigrate those of us who share the task of flying a combat aircraft.

I understand Sharkey had experience flying the F-4K with 892 and the PTF at Leuchars and off the old Audacious Ark Royal before the Sea Harrier. Indeed, I think I'm right in assuming he is of a sufficient vintage to have seen operational flying on the Sea Vixen at the start of his post-training flying career.

What I find alarming, and can't help thinking it is somehow politically engineered over funding to a degree, is that the R.A.F. and R.N. have been reduced to fighting over who should have all the fixed-wing combat aircraft.

FB:)

[Genstabler]

And there has long been a recognised campaign by both the RN & Army combined to eliminate the RAF
And Elvis is alive and living in Cuba.

[4Greens]

I have a thought that a few RN pilots are on exchange with the USN, so are up to speed with fixed wing carrier ops.

[FODPlod]

I have a thought that a few RN pilots are on exchange with the USN, so are up to speed with fixed wing carrier ops.

And then some. Watch the video:Aviators Receive Wings of Gold
(http://www.wtok.com/home/headlines/Aviators-Receive-Wings-of-Gold-212554481.html#.UcboqtRYVgA.facebook)
Meridian Naval Air Station, Miss. Ten pilots received their wings of gold in a ceremony Friday afternoon at NAS Meridian. They represent members of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps and the British Royal Navy who have completed nearly two years of specialized training.

Graduates at this level have earned the aviator designation and will move on to advanced training. Lt. Robert Hunt of the Royal Navy was chosen to be the SERGRAD and will stay on for a year as an instructor at NAS Meridian. Lt. Christopher Mould of the Royal Navy is moving on to NAS Oceana, Va.

"When I joined the Navy 7 years ago, if I'd have expected to have been in the states doing flight training, I never would have believed it," said Mould. "So it's a really, really surreal experience, I think, is the thing. But a happy one at the same time."

Mould was also presented the Golden Stick, which goes to the top graduate of the class...

[BEagle]

Apart from the penny-pinching nonsense of 'purple jointery' :yuk:, why on earth would the RAF think it has any claim to shipborne aircraft operation?

This all started when RAF Harriers went to the South Atlantic and were embarked aboard RN aircraft carriers. One wonders whether, if that action had never taken place, RAF aircraft would have been operated from ships...

A great shame that the FAA killed off the excellent Sea Harrier F/A 2 with its Blue Vixen, Link16 and AIM-120B AMRAAM capabilities. A very potent fighter. Once it had been withdrawn, it was clear that the thoroughly inadequate GR7's days were numbered as a naval aircraft - a bomber never makes a sound interceptor.

[Wander00]

Congratulations to the RN graduands from flight school. Very, very well done.

[orca]

Just Another Jockey.

I took care not to quote you, I replied to your point, and my view is simply a counter to yours.

Cheers,

Orca.

(Excellent - just got another Sharkey thread to three pages!;))

[Bob Viking]

Please allow me to briefly play devils advocate, just to stir things up a little.
How many frontline FJ Sqns does the RAF have? Ooh ooh, pick me, I know that one - 9.
How many frontline FJ Sqns does the RN have? Ooh ooh, me again - 0. Although I acknowledge there is a cadre currently operating in the US (I know most of them).
So here is my question which I hall leave you to debate. Since UK PLC is currently out of the habit of operating FJs from boats (I say that deliberately because I know how it annoys the Fishheads) who would you turn to in order to reinstigate the capability? The organization that has no FJs but a lot of (historic) carrier experience, or the organization with lots (relatively speaking) of FJs but much less carrier experience? Which organization should take primacy in such a situation?
Or could they indeed work together towards a common goal (as is currently the plan!)?
BV

[orca]

In reply to other posters.

There is a significant and increasingly Joint presence with the USN.

The point about JHC is interesting, mainly because JHC does of course contain the CHF, a bunch of SH chaps who specialise in amphibious ops. Their existence could be used as a foil to the notion of the independent air force.

The parallels with JFH and 360 squadron are interesting too. With the exception of a single light blue squadron OC, JFH was awesome at the working level. Above that it wasn't much short of an disaster and despite attempts by command to keep high level (well puerile and childish actually) politics from effecting day-to-day work, well....they did.

Let's have flexible forces? Couldn't agree more. Joint forces? Don't believe in them anymore myself. So which would you rather have and which is safer to assure? Maritime specialists who occasionally turn the anti skid on and operate from land or land based chaps who occasionally go to the boat? Why not copy JHC exactly and have the FAA FW as a self governing entity?

Last point. The success of RAF Harrier crews in Corporate and subsequently right through to GR9 retirement (and lets add in all the RN sons of Herrick with pitifully few Deck Landings here) is unchallenged. This was only possible, however, because the inexperienced were able to 'plug in' to the socket of experience that was available (and still is in glowing ember form in the USN). As has been noted elsewhere the inexperienced did a great job - but let's be careful about what could be viewed as a 'standing start', but wasn't.

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Are these not the facts:

1. The Navy got rid of the Sea Harrier during Gordon Brown's tenure because they (The Sea Lords) decided that they could not afford it whilst the surface and submarine fleets might face the wielding of the Defence Budget axe, despite the fact that air defence of the fleet would be compromised!

2. Some Navy pilots were absorbed into Harrier Force and formed a Navy badged Harrier GR9 Squadron (with help from the RAF in manning terms) to take to sea on the one remaining carrier!

3. The Harrier GR9 was incapable of carrying Storm Shadow. During the Operational Requirement stage of its procurement, we tried to fit CASOM to the Harrier when I was in OR(Air) but there were ship magazine issues and carriage limitation issues which, in the end, were financially insurmountable.

4. Returning to the deck with an asymmetric bomb load (Paveway III, for example) on Harrier GR9 was a non-starter and would have had to result in the jettison of valuable weapons into the sea!

5. Tornado GR4 suffered from none of the above and whilst it could not launch from a carrier with a Conventionally Armed Stand Off Missile (Storm Shadow) or any other weapon it could reach many targets that the Harrier could not!

It was a no-brainer really and whilst the RN will continue to blame the RAF for the loss of the Sea Harrier (when they really mean Harrier GR, in which they are wrong too) they do so from a very myopic point of view ignoring the facts as above!

Tornado GR4 may be getting long in the tooth and it may have its problems BUT as a weapons delivery platform of ALL the air-to-surface weapons in the UK MOD's inventory it beats the Harrier GR hands down.

Sorry! But these are the facts (although I may have forgotten some of the detail as the grey matter grows increasingly forgetful)!

Bloggs
Fg Off
OC Bogs & Drains (and, in a previous incarnation, procurer in OR(Air) of most of the air-to-surface weapons currently in our inventory)
:ok::ok::ok:

[Wrathmonk]

single light blue squadron OC

Come on Orca, you know the rules. You've got to give enough of a 'nickname' so that the person can be identified but not name him directly so as to avoid any "legal" issues! Something similar to The Bungling Baron, The Scottish Group Captain, The Bearded Bull$hitter or the Irish Air Marshal would do!! ;):E

I can see

the FAA FW as a self governing entity

becoming the case - as the cost of F35 goes up, and the number being procured goes down, it won't be long before the RAF switches tack for the -A as a "replacement" for the GR4 (unless it goes UAV only of course...) leaving a much reduced -B purchase, and the associated costs, to the RN.

In reality though, money will still be the stumbling block and the in fighting will lead to the whole UK F35 purchase being cancelled. The UK will end up with either the two biggest helicopter carriers in the world or renting out deck space to the USMC AV8/GR9s......

[Engines]

Fg Off Bloggs (and others)

Sorry, but I really have to come in here. You start your post with the stament 'are these not the facts' - err... not really, sorry. Taking your 'facts' in turn:

1. 'The Navy got rid of the Sea Harrier during Gordon Brown's tenure because they (The Sea Lords) decided that they could not afford it whilst the surface and submarine fleets might face the wielding of the Defence Budget axe, despite the fact that air defence of the fleet would be compromised!' - wrong on all counts. The Sea Harrier was canned soon after it was transferred to the RAF. The RAF offered it up as a savings measure. It was an RAF owned asset that the RAF decided could not be afforded, in large part because the GR7/9 upgrade costs had ballooned more than four fold. It was an RAF decision. Fact.

2. 'Some Navy pilots were absorbed into Harrier Force and formed a Navy badged Harrier GR9 Squadron (with help from the RAF in manning terms) to take to sea on the one remaining carrier!' - again, plain wrong. JFH was formed with three SHAR squadrons and four RAF squadrons. On cancellation of the SHAR, a plan was hatched to form five squadrons (2 RN 'heavy', 2 RAF 'heavy' plus one joint OCU). The RN formed the first 'RN heavy' GR squadron, (800), and were in course of setting up the second (801) when the RAF unilaterally imposed RAF manning criteria they knew the RN could not immediately meet. Soon after, the RAF decided to unilaterally ditch the UK's maritime strike capability. Fact.

3. 'The Harrier GR9 was incapable of carrying Storm Shadow. During the Operational Requirement stage of its procurement, we tried to fit CASOM to the Harrier when I was in OR(Air) but there were ship magazine issues and carriage limitation issues which, in the end, were financially insurmountable.' - I worked in DA Arm at the time for this one. Storm Shadow NEVER had a ship carriage requirement, nor a requirement to recover to the ship on a GR anything. GR7 could carry a SS with conventional TO and rolling landing, but with severe limitations, not surprising for such a big weapon. No money was ever put aside to get the weapon to sea. Want to trade facts? Ready and waiting.

4. 'Returning to the deck with an asymmetric bomb load (Paveway III, for example) on Harrier GR9 was a non-starter and would have had to result in the jettison of valuable weapons into the sea!' - God, I don't know where to start on this one. Let's try. The GR9, GR7, and FA2 were perfectly capable of getting back to the deck with an asymmetric 1000lb weapon load (PW2, PW4). PW3 was a 2000 lb weapon, and once again never required to go to sea. (By the way, if you are the genius in OR(Air) that paid out hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' money to have the PW3 modified to remove the thermal safety coating from the bomb, so rendering it unsafe to go on board our ships, I'd love to meet you and have a chat).

5. 'Tornado GR4 suffered from none of the above and whilst it could not launch from a carrier with a Conventionally Armed Stand Off Missile (Storm Shadow) or any other weapon it could reach many targets that the Harrier could not!' - you are perfectly correct that the GR4 could land on with a SS or a PW2. However, to the best of my knowledge, it couldn't launch off a carrier AT ALL. Care to specify 'many targets'? Libya? Well, yes, plus hours of flying plus a tanker or two. Oh, could the Tornado land back on on land with a loaded JP233 fitted? Come on, let's have some 'facts'.

Look, I don't mind anyone having a view. That's why we have a free society and free blogs. But please, for the love of all that's holy, please don't rewrite history and then try to use it to justify the RAF's point of view. Harrier's gone. Damn shame, but it was a political choice. Move on. But let's leave facts as 'sacred', shall we?

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Gullwings]

just another jocky
You have stated
“try separating the facts from the lies.....too monumental a task. And so how does anyone know which bits are worth heeding and which ignoring? His love of the Harrier is easy to see, but he cares not a jot for those who love the Tornado which has had a longer operational service than the Harrier (ie ON ops) and has been incredibly successful, increasing the theatre capability when it took over from the Harrier back in 09.”

and then

“He does, but try sifting those out from the bitter inaccuracies and downright lies.”

Are you sure that your own statements are also actually correct? Whilst the UK may have lost the use of its Harriers, other nations have of course continued to use theirs in Libya (Italian) and Afghanistan (US).
If the UK still had Sea Harriers then they would have also no doubt been used in Libya along with the Italian Harriers. Here is an interesting link about that -
A tale of two Harriers: How Italy held on to carrier strike - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=20709)

I also believe that the US are now looking to extend the use of their Harriers until 2030. Therefore the Harrier may well end up having a longer operational service use than the Tornado.

Fg Off Bloggs
Tornados are no doubt good at doing what they do but the Navy need to rely on a capability that is able to focus on their maritime defence needs and those that require their support a long way from any friendly land base that ‘may’ let the RAF use it. When at sea it is best to have dedicated Navy air defence aircraft already with you. If it was you out there on RN or merchant ships, surely even you would want Sea Harrier air defence/ reconnaissance/ strike capability (or any other more modern Navy fixed wing aircraft) support with you. That is much more preferable than having to hope that the RAF may be able to support you when you actually need them.
Not even the best aircraft in the world is any good if it is unable to support you when you may urgently need it! Those that understand and depend on maritime operations should therefore be responsible for it. If they are trained to carry out such demanding operations anywhere in the world from both sea and land, then that force can be used wherever it is needed, including from the UK when required.

[ex-fast-jets]

I have watched this thread and promised myself that I would not respond.............

But here I go!!

Sharkey was no braver than any other Harrier participant in '82, so let's not overdo what he did. He is just more vociferous and he gets more attention thanks to modern communications!!

After the 1 May encounter, as far as I recall, no Argentinian fighter armed with air-to-air missiles entered the Falklands airspace. If they did, then they certainly did not use them.

Thank you Black Buck for that!

I seem to recall that some/many Mirage fighters were held back to defend the mainland in case Maggie decided to attack the Argie Heartland!! Unlikely, perhaps, but good spoof, so well done Maggie and the Vulcan Team!!

As far as the Sea Jets were concerned, it quickly became a "Turkey Shoot" when they encountered Argie aircraft.

Big Strategic/Tactical error by the Argie heirarchy.

When the RAF GR3s arrived - mid May - the RN Sea Jets gave up attacking land targets, apart from the occasional radar offset toss/loft dumb bomb attacks which were conducted clear from any ground defence threat..

Sharkey and his boys - and the greater number of Sea Jet folk on HERMES - spent most of the conflict at medium altitude, seeking aircraft which did not have missile escort so, once seen, a quick turn for pursuit without looking for escort fighters was the way to go, given that the Sea Jet did not have speed superiority over the Mirage or the A-4. Great effort by all those involved, and those that achieved "kills" deserve credit for all that they did.

On HERMES, we got on extremely well with our RN colleagues, and I am unaware of any significant or worthwhile inter-Service difficulty above the rank of Lt Cdr/ Sqn Ldr. But I do think that very few of us got on well with the heirarchy that were telling us what to do.

Many - perhaps all - those involved in flying operations did a good job - as did the supporting troops who kept the jets flying under some pretty extreme and difficult circumstances. I, again, am not aware of any inter-Service difficulty between the light/dark blue folk that kept the jets flying.

But let's keep a sensible perspective.

I spent 3 years on exchange with the USN, and I am a firm believer that Carriers have a great power projection role. For the particular circumstances of the Falklands in 82, they were an essential item - but you need to have enough of them to be reliable and available wherever you need them, and they need to be big enough to have the necessary power projection to be worth the cost and effort of the self defence and support that they need.

Can we, as a nation, now afford to do that?

Now, hypothetically, if that exocet in '82 had found INVINCIBLE instead of ATLANTIC CONVEYOR....................

What might have been the current debate???

[Knight Paladin]

Is our employment of our first 5th generation, LO platform going to be dictated by where we happen to land, or what we do while airborne?

If the former, then the RN would seem to have an argument. Personally, I think the latter is far more important, especially as most of the scenarios the UK is likely to get involved in would involve operating from land bases. Due to the inherent limitations of carrier ops, land basing allows much more effective generation of air power capability. Lightning II should therefore be operated by this country's professional air power experts - the RAF. Even the USN admit that the USAF are far more effective than themselves at employing air power.

However, as has been mentioned, the USN have enough mass to justify their own specialist fixed wing air arm. In this era of financial austerity, can we really justify keeping a fixed wing FAA, with its own structures and overheads, to man 42% of a single FJ squadron?

[TurbineTooHot]

Gullwings: you've pretty much nailed the point, but I will spin it in a slightly different way

That is that if the Royal Navy think/thought organic fleet air defence and carrier strike indispensable, and requiring to be manned by sailors rather than airmen then (regardless of conspiracy theories as to who sabotaged what) the Royal Navy should have put its hands in its pockets and bloody well prioritised and paid for that capability.
If it was the RAF's green eyes seeing the utter awesomeness of the SHAR and how much of a threat it was to light blue aviation and hence set about trashing the FAA, then surely the ADMIRALS' duty was to protect not give up that capability.
That they didn't is a failing of the Royal Navy, and while the demise of the RAF's Harrier force was extremely regrettable, it really wasn't an anti Navy conspiracy but protection of a much larger force when the threat was an economic one.
The pissing contest of which aircraft type was the most capable will never be won, because neither side will modify their quasi fanatical views on their chosen champion, but quantity was the trump card when salami slicing was an invalid cost cutting technique and the loss of an entire type was the only answer.
Sharkey and his ilk need to direct their ire somewhere it's just a shame that it turns out to be paranoid and misplaced in large part when there could be some decent points to be made and sometime respected credibility to be used rather than ridiculed.

[Engines]

TTH,

Yours is another of the many posts on PPrune that state 'as a fact' that the RN ditched the Sea Harrier. Sorry, wrong.

To use your words, the RN had 'put its hand in its pocket', 'bloody well prioritised' and paid for the Sea Harrier, and then the FA2. By 2000, that aircraft was, by some distance, the UK's most effective in service AD aircraft. Fact.

In 2000, that fleet of aircraft was transferred to the RAF to form Joint Force Harrier, with a complementary strike (GR7) and AD (FA2) capability. Fact. No contest over 'which aircraft was best', but a force with both capabilities capable of both land and sea based ops. There was no 'threat to light blue aviation' from the Sea Harrier. The RAF owned it as of 1 Apr 2000. Fact.

It was the RAF who decided to offer up the Sea Harrier to pay for the GR9 programme. Fact. They owned it. It wasn't a Navy decision. Fact.

In 2010, the RAF (CAS and CDS) decided that 'maritime strike' was a capability that had to go to support the RAF's budget. Fact.

Opinion is one thing. These forums are full of them, and long may that continue. But facts, people, are supposed to be sacred.

Best Regards as ever to those (of all cloths) trying to pick up the pieces,

Engines

[Plastic Bonsai]

BomberH: Sharkey was no braver than any other Harrier participant in '82, so let's not overdo what he did.

Lt Cmdr Ward had 3 kills along with Flt Lt Morgan. He was also leading 800 NAS and several of his pilots were lost. Without doubt a very intense experience that would mark anyone

[TurbineTooHot]

Engines. I am aware of your heritage and so please don't take this to be disrespectful, even if I find your penchant 'fact' at the end of your statements childish.

If you look at your facts, it still looks like a failing in the Navy hierarchy on the count of protecting its assets and its organic capability. And if you come forth and tell me that the RAF conned the Navy out of its jets then you are condemning your leadership to the charge of being foolish for giving something so important up.

The RAF quite rightly didn't prioritise Maritime fast air. Because its the Navy's business, and should have been kept the Navy's business by the Navy.

[FODPlod]

Perhaps Engines feels the need to highlight the 'facts' because his adversaries seem to believe that their 'personal opinions/pseudo-facts' hold equal weight in the argument if expressed with sufficient derision?

[Engines]

TTH,

Sorry, and this will be my last post on the subject. and no 'facts'. And no, no disrespect seen. As ever, happy to engage.

I absolutely agree with you that maritime air was the Navy's business and they should have kept charge of it. However, as directed by their political masters, the RN handed its assets over to the RAF.

If you are now saying that the Navy should have defended its assets better - yes, I agree. But, and this is sort of the point, they weren't their assets any more. The RAF had been given, and taken responsibility for, the business of maritime air. They ditched it as soon as they decently could.

No, I am not going to 'come forth' and tell you that the RN were 'conned' out of anything. Outmanoeuvred? Outguessed? Guilty of naivety? Yes to all three.

But please, let's stick to the truth here. The Navy didn't ditch the Sea Harrier or the Harrier, or 'maritime air'. Those decisions were the RAF's and the RAF's alone.

But hey, all done, all dusted, all in the past. Time for the new generation to pick up the baton and run with it. And they'll do a great job. Whatever their cloth.

Best Regards to all, everywhere,

Engines

[Justanopinion]

The RAF quite rightly didn't prioritise Maritime fast air. Because its the Navy's business, and should have been kept the Navy's business by the Navy.

In answer to earlier debate, precisely why the RAF should not have ownership of a platform being specifically bought for Maritime Strike. Interesting that F35 A is being looked at as a serious proposition for the RAF (not withstanding its inability to AAR with any of our current or future tankers). Why didn't we stick with the C again?

[Knight Paladin]

Justanopinion - by "maritime strike" do you mean attacking boats or a normal strike mission, launched from the maritime environment? If the latter then that's exactly where the RAF's expertise lies, just with a different style of take off and landing, during the few occasions that the aircraft will actually have to operate from a boat. The RN, in contrast, have shown precious little understanding over the years of how actually to employ air power once the aircraft is away from the boat - IMHO. And we switched away from the C when we finally accepted that we didn't have the critical mass of the USN!

[Justanopinion]

just with a different style of take off and landing, during the few occasions that the aircraft will actually have to operate from a boat.

Again, the incorrect mindset as to why we are buying this platform. It is a platform to be operated primarily from sea, deploying ashore as required. Not the other way round.

The operating primarily from sea bit, and ALL that this involves, leads to Maritime Strike. It is not just another airfield that happens to be floating. Not sure how we are going to do this with the A. Oh that's right, not planning to; all of a sudden F35 is a Tornado replacement.

[FODPlod]

...or a normal strike mission, launched from the maritime environment? If the latter then that's exactly where the RAF's expertise lies, just with a different style of take off and landing...

What, submarine launched TLAMS is an RAF speciality too? :)

[orca]

Could one of the experts give us a quick dit on where the UK's swing/ multi role expertise is at the moment?

Some on this thread are saying the RAF, but I thought the RN had chaps flying Super Hornets and they are both multi and swing role where the Typhoon and Tornado aren't. Where am I mistaken?

[MAINJAFAD]

Typhoon not swing role??? The link below suggest very otherwise.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raf-develops-typhoon-multi-role-capability

This is of course the tranch 2 Typhoon and is of course currently limited to one type of AGA weapon. Plenty of EPW2's have already been dropped by Tranch 1 aircraft 2 years ago by the 2 squadrons on the windy Lincolnshire cabbage patch with the bomb symbols on the aircraft to prove it (plus of course it wasn't just EPW2 that Typhoons guided in Libya, they did guide EPW4 off Tornados as well).

[Bob Viking]

No aircraft being currently flown by any RN or RAF pilot is really going to prepare them for the quantum leap that JSF will bring. The swing/multi role aircraft being flown by the RN guys in the US are not much different than the ones being currently operated by the RAF. Don't forget there are plenty of RAF guys on exchange too.
Since nobody answered my earlier question I will give my own slant on things. Rightly or wrongly it is now (at least partially) a numbers game. The RAF can provide a lot more pilots than the RN for the JSF force. We're not just talking line pilots but Sqn leadership as well. The majority of the RN guys currently out in the US are unlikely to be put straight into the higher echelons of our first JSF Sqn. They will, however, have an awful lot of very useful deck experience and I hope to god that knowledge is utilised correctly (provided they actually come home and don't decide to stay).
Regardless of what I say above I am sufficiently out of the loop on these matters to not be able to state anything as being fact. I will however give my standard opinion on such matters. I am very proud of all of our armed forces. I would love to see Sqns (note plural which may be ambitious) of JSF operated in the best possible fashion by individuals of any cloth who are capable of operating them effectively. If that calls on RN experience of boat ops and RAF experience of air power then so be it. Hell you could throw in some army input if it helped. I just wish that we could all remember we're on the same side and stop whining about who knows best.
I accept that I am a hopeless idealist in that respect. Fact.
BV

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Justanopinion

In answer to earlier debate, precisely why the RAF should not have ownership of a platform being specifically bought for Maritime Strike.

And I thought the RAF Buccaneer Maritime Strike Force did a pretty good job when the Navy last/previously binned their FJ Force in 1978!

Bloggs:ok:

[Genstabler]

Though a very effective platform within its limitations, Buccaneer Maritime Strike was a misnomer. Land based system when in the hands of the RAF, so Littoral Strike would have been more accurate. True Maritime Strike requires a floating platform to deploy the capability out of reach of fixed land bases. Therefore must be dark blue led.

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Genstabler,

Though a very effective platform within its limitations, Buccaneer Maritime Strike was a misnomer. Land based system when in the hands of the RAF, so Littoral Strike would have been more accurate.

Bo**ocks! ASuW (Maritime Strike) operations are equally effective from land or sea but you have to have a platform to do it; the Navy has not since 1978! The RAF Buccaneers did exactly the same role as the FAA Buccaneers and often worked in concert with 809 when both (12 Sqn) were based at Honington. I have (simulated) attacked more NATO warships in a 4-year tour on 12 (Maritime Attack) Squadron than I care to remember (actually I remember them all because it was such great fun)! I recall very few missions that were against littoral targets!

So to say that it has to be dark blue led is hoop, frankly!

Bloggs :mad:

PS. Give me a limitation of the Buccaneer, please?

[exMudmover]

Engines,

Check your PMs

ExMudmover

[Genstabler]

But how many ships could you not attack because they were beyond the range of a shore based system? The limitation of the Buccaneer when operated by the RAF was that it was a land based system. I rest my case.

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Genstabler,

Bo**ocks! I have attacked ships in mid-Atlantic with the use of AAR! Indeed, I have crossed the Atlantic in a Buccaneer without AAR!

I rest my case.

Bloggs:ugh:

PS. Another limitation please!

[Genstabler]

Crossed the Atlantic without refuelling did you? Well you have really put me in my place!
But wait a mo. if you operated such a fantasticly capable maritime strike platform, why weren't you tasked with attacking the Belgrano?

[FODPlod]

Justanopinion
In answer to earlier debate, precisely why the RAF should not have ownership of a platform being specifically bought for Maritime Strike. And I thought the RAF Buccaneer Maritime Strike Force did a pretty good job when the Navy last/previously binned their FJ Force in 1978!

Bloggshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifSo did I but as you well know, the RN didn't bin its FJ Force, including maritime strike, by choice. This crassness resulted from the Government's cancellation of the planned replacement CTOL carriers (CVA-01 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01)) in 1966 because the RAF guaranteed it could provide 24-hour global air cover, a promise impossible to fulfil even back then.

Irrespective of the UK's premature pull-back from East of Suez, this still left the F.I. beyond any useful RAF FJ reach and the rest is history. Thankfully, the RN had the cobbled-together ASW carriers and a handful of SHAR but their lack of critical AEW and AAR led directly to most, if not all, of the casualties sustained by the Task Force.

As the ball appears to be back in the RAF's court pending the arrival of the QE class carriers, what does its current Maritime Strike Force comprise and how quickly could it react to an urgent requirement or sudden window of opportunity hundreds/thousands of miles from its land base?

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Genstabler,

Because to attack the Belgrano in the South Atlantic, even using AAR from Ascension, was a bit further than crossing the Atlantic by the Great Circle route! Moreover, the launch to strike time from Ascension would have been poor and might have let the boat escape - better to use HMS Conqueror who had been tracking her for some time and required just 3 torpedoes to do the deed!

Actually, the longest route planned without AAR for a RAF Buccaneer was from Hickom AFB in Hawaii to McLelland AFB in California 2300nm with a full fuel load of 23,000lbs! It was certainly doable but the plan never came to fruition!

RAF Buccaneers did deploy to the Falklands with AAR after the conflict to prove that, if required, we were available to deter any further Argentinian aggression.

So not trying to put you in your place just trying to educate you!

Bloggs:)

[MFC_Fly]

Genstabler,
But wait a mo. if you operated such a fantasticly capable maritime strike platform, why weren't you tasked with attacking the Belgrano?Since... True Maritime Strike requires a floating platform to deploy the capability out of reach of fixed land bases....why were the carrier based aircraft there not tasked with attacking the Belgrano?
[Rhetorical question!]

[Genstabler]

...why were the carrier based aircraft there not tasked with attacking the Belgrano?

Because the RN no longer had embarked aircraft with a maritime strike capability. Why? Because the more senior colleagues of Bloggs had persuaded the ignorant politicians that the Crabs could do it all from ashore.

Bloggs' first paragraph in his last post sums up very well why a RN embarked and controlled maritime strike capability is needed. Unfortunately the damage inflicted by their Airships will continue with the introduction of the new so-called carriers and the Micky mouse aircraft chosen for them by the Crabs.

Sharkey. My sympathy with you increases with every new post!

[Not_a_boffin]

And I thought the RAF Buccaneer Maritime Strike Force did a pretty good job when the Navy last/previously binned their FJ Force in 1978!

Now if we're going to be accurate here, that's another bit of disinformation.

1. The RN did not have a choice in the F4/Bucc/Gannet/Ark retirement in 1978. That choice had been removed in Mr Healey's 1966 review, where the "plan" appeared to involve this

http://www.modelblokez.org.au/bthpix/whatif/f111/f111base.jpg

but in fact ended up with aircraft designed from the start to operate from aircraft carriers! You might say that the RAF ended up with such high-performance cabs because of the Navy.....I wouldn't make the same argument for the AEW radar on the Shack though!

2. ASuW (Maritime Strike) operations are equally effective from land or sea but you have to have a platform to do it; the Navy has not since 1978!

Errrr, this little beast was OK, although granted not at the extended range possible with a naval aircraft designed for catapult launch.

http://i2.wp.com/basenaval.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/F18-NICK-TAYLOR-2.jpg?resize=450%2C230

and that missile system stayed in service till the mid-90s. Lynx & Sea Skua have a rather good record for sinking ships as well, although I'll happily admit that is vs small ships.

3. So to say that it has to be dark blue led is hoop, frankly

On one level yes, it's hoop. But on the more practical level where actions speak louder than words, as others have noted, the RAF has consistently argued for responsibility for Maritime air operations and once secured, divested itself of the ability to do them as quickly as it could. To the point where today in 2013, the RAF has no capability to attack maritime vessels mounting any sort of modern PDMS. In fact, you can sum up the attitude to maritime by the rather pitiful "Anti-shipping" entry on the RAF website...

RAF - Anti-Shipping (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/antishipping.cfm)

That's a long way from the ATP34 that I remember.

You may well suggest that the Navy ought to be providing that anti-shipping capability. But the unpalatable truth is that the Navy have in all cases given up that air capability at the behest of the RAF, only to the see the RAF then decide they don't need to do it and bin it shortly thereafter. Whether it's naivete or indifference in senior RN or active manoeuvring by senior RAF is largely irrelevant. It has been a consistent result and goes a long way to explaining why the Navy are so suspicious of the RAF and their motives.

Must be getting close to five pages now!

[Wrathmonk]

Could one of the experts give us a quick dit on where the UK's ..... multi role expertise is at the moment?

Marham and Lossiemouth - the homes of the Panavia Tornado Multi Role Combat Aircraft (to use its original name). :p ;)

[Genstabler]

Does that multi-role capability include air-to-air? Or is that another limitation that the Buccaneer shared?
I am only an innocent Pongo!

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Don't go there Genstabler! The RAF Buccaneers were fitted with Sidewinder, which although limited in their performance gave the aircraft an air-to-air capability (were some fighter pilot stupid enough to drop into our Box formation at 100 feet either over sea or overland!)

Take my advice, as a Pongo, you really do need to undertake more research!

Not_a_boffin,

The RN did not have a choice in the F4/Bucc/Gannet/Ark retirement in 1978.

I know, I know and they didn't have much of a choice when the Government stole SHAR either and, as I stated earlier, it was a no-brainer when the RAF gave up Harrier instead of Tornado, which had a superior weapons delivery capability! I am sure we are all on the same side but, just like it was in the bar at Honington in the 70s, it's good to tweak the Navy's tail on occasions and PPRuNe allows it!!!

Bloggs:p

[Genstabler]

Wow! It was a fighter too! Thanks for educating me Bloggs. But tell me, as you maintain that the Buccaneer could fulfil every role and had no limitations, why isn't it still in service?

[Fg Off Bloggs]

I really really don't know, Genstabler! Maybe it was because it was rotting in the main spar and had served its time with pride going out with a bang in Gulf War 1 where it took over self-designation of its own LGBs from the Tornado (which had called on the Buccaneer to designate for its LGBs) to allow the latter to take on other duties!

Don't get me wrong, I never said it was a fighter just that it had an air-to-air capability, which it had - a live Sidewinder firing is an exciting experience on Aberporth range but it was definitely not as good fun as the day I fired a MARTEL TV Missile which had a great deal more thrust and a far greater range (actually, thinking about it, during Trial MISTICO 2 in 1976, when we (and 809 Sqn) fired TV MARTELs on Aberporth, the last missile misbehaved, vanished vertically into cloud and just missed the port wing of an RAF F4 that was tasked with trying to gain a missile lock on the missile as part of the trial - so maybe the Buccaneer's air-to-air capability was greater than I gave it credit for!).

Bloggs:\

PS. How's the research going? Anything else I can help you with?

[Genstabler]

How's the research going? Anything else I can help you with?
No thanks Bloggs! I think you have very effectively confirmed all of my preconceptions!

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Ha ha, nice one. Well done, Genstabler!

Bloggs:cool:

[Justanopinion]

So, to summarise the last page or so:

The RAF can conduct Maritime Strike (if it is their list of priorities, which it isn't) from land bases so long as any conflict is within range. If not, they'll pop along after it's over and give the defeated enemy a stern demonstration of what they could have done (if they'd had a carrier).

Typhoon is truly a multi role aircraft as its dropped a few EPW2 and PW2.

Tornado/Buccaneer are/were multi role aircraft because they carry sidewinder.

Tornado and Typhoon are "not much different" to the Super Hornet.

Thank goodness we are lucky enough to have the air power experts on our side......

[Genstabler]

That seems to sum it up nicely. :D

[just another jocky]

And thank goodness we also have Tweedledum and Tweedledumbe......:}

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Tweedledum and Tweedledumbe......

Or the Army and the Navy trying to find their thinking caps!!!

Bloggs:cool:

[glad rag]

No aircraft being currently flown by any RN or RAF pilot is really going to prepare them for the quantum leap that JSF will bring.

Yep. Remind me again how many SR 71's were destroyed by the myriad of SAM's launched against it?

[Wander00]

Seeing the name of this thread I keep expecting Kate Humble to appear!

[Wrathmonk]

Seeing the name of this thread I keep expecting Kate Humble to appear!

Well there's certainly a "Bill Oddie" or two, that's for sure!:ok:;)

[CoffmanStarter]

Happy now chaps :ok:

http://cdn.seethedifference.org/images/book-aid-international/books-for-kenyan-slum-libraries/kate-humble

It was quite deliberate on my part :}

[Knight Paladin]

Justanopinion - From what I've heard, Lightning II will most definitely not be spending the majority of its time at sea. Deck capability will be just one string of many strings to its bow. I have not V/STOL experience, but I have it on very good authority from a number of sources, that while V/STOL onto a deck is certainly harder than to a land base, it's not sufficiently hard enough to merit all the downsides of the squadron being embarked most of the time. JFH proved the ability of RAF Harrier squadrons to maintain deck capabilities through short deployments, while using their land-based time to concentrate on other skill sets. JFH also proved the ability of RAF squadrons to maintain a credible air power capability from the deck of RN carriers. In an ideal world, with limitless armed forces, then I can certainly see the argument for a fixed-wing FAA as a branch of the RN. However, in this era of austerity, I really don't think it can be justified. A separate fixed-wing FAA, with all the extra overheads that generates, just to man 42% of a single squadron? I would not suggest that the captains of the QE carriers should be RAF Officers, just because they operate aircraft. To argue that pilots of aircraft that happen to take off from such carriers should wear dark blue uniforms is similarly ridiculous. There has been an awful lot of bad blood between the RAF and the RN in the past; this thread is testament to that. But can we not try to put the past behind us and move forward together? A very effective 21st century partnership, showing all the best bits of all things 'joint', could result from a carrier capability with the maritime power experts operating the carriers themselves, and the air power experts operating the aircraft. Incidentally, the RN pilots currently flying Hornets in the states are not really on 'exchange' per se, are they? Instead they are filling slots that the MoD pays the USN extremely handsomely for. While it made an awful lot of sense to build up a seedcorn of cat and trap experience when the UK was lined up to buy the C model, is this massive expense another one that can be culled (maybe not completely) to deliver further savings to the cash-strapped MoD? As for anti-ship missiles: it would indeed be great to have them in our arsenal (stand fast Sea Skua), but once again the coffers are not limitless. Defence procurement is centred around likely threats and the capabilities necessary to counter them. I don't believe a modern blue water navy features particularly highly up the MoD's list of likely threats. Again, please don't get me wrong, it would be great to have such a capability, just as it would be great to still have Harrier in service. Unfortunately, when cuts have to made, it makes more sense to sacrifice anti-ship missiles in order to keep other weapons, that we are much more likely to require in the kinds of conflict the UK envisions itself getting involved in in the future. Edit - sorry all for the mono-paragraph, for some reason it's not letting me insert line breaks.

[downsizer]

^^^^^That'll get the usual responses and round and round we will go.....

[Knight Paladin]

Fair point. I suspect we've all already expressed everything we have to say on the issue, much more will just be re-hashing the same arguments. A shame, because I genuinely think there's an opportunity for a tremendous defence partnership, with each shade of blue contributing their own particular area of expertise. Ho-hum.

[lj101]

Perhaps this briefing needs updating then;

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN06278



3 Number of aircraft and basing
The decision on the overall number of aircraft will not be made until the next Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in 2015.15 The original planning assumption for up to 140 aircraft is not expected to be realised. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed in July 2012 the UK will order 48 aircraft (including the four test aircraft) with further numbers to be confirmed in the 2015 SDSR.16
The decision taken in May 2012 to use the STOVL variant rather than the Carrier variant will not affect the number of aircraft to be deployed on the Carrier. Twelve aircraft will be routinely on board the carriers with a potential surge to 36 aircraft if required.17
The F-35 force will be operated by both Royal Navy and RAF pilots.

[Evalu8ter]

I think the example of CHF surviving is apposite here; the strongest reason, in capability terms, for retaining CHF is not the pilots on the Sqns (landing a SH on a 20K+ boat in the littoral is not hard - only slightly more difficult in AR5 on NVGs - as proven by several CH47, Lynx and AH crews) but generating seasoned maritime operators to serve on the embarked staffs. The pure skill set of flying from the deck, once trained, is not difficult to maintain. The hard bit is planning the ops and being fully conversant with minutiae of the several unique challenges of working at sea (SHOLs, deck cycles, RAS etc etc). This requires people who go to sea often - ie the RN - to get it right and allows us Crabs to drop in when required to boost the TAG when it needs it. I enjoyed my time embarked, but I wouldn't want to do it all the time.....

Sharkey, bless him, is starting to sound like some AAC aviators from the 1980s with a myopic and increasingly irrelevant take on contemporary Ops....

[Genstabler]

You were doing fine, and then you had to blow it.

[Knight Paladin]

Perhaps this briefing needs updating then

Perhaps it does!

[AutoBit]

JFH proved the ability of RAF Harrier squadrons to maintain deck capabilities through short deployments, while using their land-based time to concentrate on other skill sets. JFH also proved the ability of RAF squadrons to maintain a credible air power capability from the deck of RN carriers

I'm sorry but this is simply not correct. There is a big difference between getting a jet on and off a carrier without crashing set against maintaining a credible air power capability. How many Harrier Sqns had a night CVS capability for example? None.

Unfortunately far too often it would seem the RAF mistake popping on and off a carrier every so often to actually having a credible maritime capability, which takes time and practice. And before the inter-service arguing starts the Naval GR9 Squadron was no different, but at least we recognised it.

[WhiteOvies]

Autobit - unfortunately we were just getting back to that in 2010 when SDSR pulled the rug out from under JFH. Remember that the priority for JFH had been Afghanistan so Maritime ops took a back seat. That was being put right once Tornado took over at KAF (shame they were late ;-))

Joint ops between RN and RAF crews have always seemed fine at a working level, the issues come higher up the food chain.

Another fact to add to the mix is that there are a number of both aircrew and engineers from the RN, currently involved in both F-18 and F-35 who have experience of FA2 and GR7/9. All that experience adds up, especially when mixed with RAF experience of Typhoon and USAF/USN exchanges.

Sharkey has always had his opinions, maybe he should visit Eglin or Pax River to get an updated view from yhe chaps making F-35 a reality?

[alfred_the_great]

KP - you'll be interested to know there are currently RAF Pilots, on hold, doing their Bridge watchkeeping certificates. Moreover, the budget sending people to the USN is the RN's (under Levene), and thus it is up to 1SL to spend. In much the same way it is up to CAS to spend his budget by sending RAF pilots to go and complete seedcorn for MPA (another capability we're unlikely to see soon).

Be careful of throwing stones when you're not quite sure if you live in a house with big windows.

[Mortmeister]

How many Harrier Sqns had a night CVS capability for example? None.???

I seem to recall that our pilots on 3(F) Sqns were day and night CR? I would be surprised if those of 1(F) were not similarly qualified. We all certainly spent enough time on board, both squadrons completing multiple 3+ month deployments at sea!

For what it's worth, as a 'floating crab' I quite enjoyed my time at sea. My time as Flight Deck supervisor was one of the best I have ever had and would happily return if the chance was available. I would certainly fight for a go on a CVF with some Lightning IIs!

[Justanopinion]

ncidentally, the RN pilots currently flying Hornets in the states are not really on 'exchange' per se, are they? Instead they are filling slots that the MoD pays the USN extremely handsomely for. While it made an awful lot of sense to build up a seedcorn of cat and trap experience when the UK was lined up to buy the C model, is this massive expense another one that can be culled (maybe not completely) to deliver further savings to the cash-strapped MoD?

The RN are paying only for the training of these pilots (and the living costs as per an exchange Officer) so the figures involved are not as astronomical as you indicate. Plus, its not just about the landing and taking off part of the carrier they are learning. It is whole maritime operations that they are being immersed in, experience which will be invaluable to the UK with F35.

How many Harrier Sqns had a night CVS capability for example? None

I seem to recall that our pilots on 3(F) Sqns were day and night CR

There is a difference between being night CR and being night boat qualified. That said, it untrue to say that no Harrier Sqns had a night CVS capability. The Harrier force, even at the end, had a cadre of night CVS qualified pilots.

[AutoBit]

Just to be clear, the planned Nov 10 Ark Royal deployment was when the Harrier Force was due to get its 'rubber stamp' as having a deployable night CVS capability, but as we all know that never happened.

Throughout the Herrick years JFH's CVS capability declined, quite understandably, to a level that was dangerously low. You could count the number of night LSO's on one hand excluding your thumb! The point I make is that there is a big difference between having a few guys who now and then can pop on and off the 'boat' and having a genuine fully deployed maritime capability. Without wishing to sound like a stuck recored JFH was in the process of regenerating that, but that took time and effort in the post Herrick stand-down.

[PhilipG]

What concerns me about the proposed set up on the QE Class carriers is how do you train for a rolling landing on a carrier, so you can bring back some weapons etc, without constant practice? I am aware that most likely it is not as hard to do as catching a wire on a pitching deck the skill level needed though is in my view much higher than doing a vertical landing be it during the day or at night, when it is perfectly possible to practice vertical landings on shore. This brings the concept of a surge of aircraft to the carrier during times of tension, something of a safety concern does it not?
Unless someone is going to tell me that LM has it all covered and the rolling landings are all going to be done under 100% software control....:confused:

[WhiteOvies]

PhillipG,

A lot of the training is/will be simulator based. Warton already has a simulator set up for SRVL, there may even be a Yout*be video of it (check the main F-35 thread).

The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC.

[orca]

I'll save the RAF a whole bunch of heart ache.

All we need to see is a signed document from CAS saying that he will embark his jets as soon as the CO indicates his ship is ready in all respects to conduct aviation.

The second sentence will indicate that he will disembark them only when the Air Management Organisation is fully up to speed, the Air Group is fulfilling ATO tasking, the Air Weapon supply team have produced weapons to surge capacity and these have been loaded on jets and dropped, the Yellow Coats can marshal, chain and chock a fourship in all weathers, whilst another fourship is taxying for take off. The jets will remain embarked until every Fighter Controller in the fleet has worked a fourship through Red Crown procedures and the JFACCHQ have established resilient comms for a week or two and Flyco have exercised being b#ggered about from dawn to dusk. Repeat all for night ops. When all this is crimped the TG in its entirety will take part in a COMAO based exercise of Neptune Warrior type scope and we'll call it good.

The third sentence will indicate that the jets will be back as soon as any of the above notice any degree of skill fade and the process will start again.

So come along CAS, a quick scribble and we'll all know that the RAF is up for MarStrike and all it entails! And at that point the RN may well shut up! Should only take 6 months a year embarked at the outside.

By the way - loved the Typhoon multi role stuff, not a dry eye in the house!

[SpazSinbad]

For 'PhillipG': http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/348/6394.JPG

The state of auto landings today will be improved by JPALS and better software for F-35B/Cs in future, including Bedford Array and indications via ship to aircraft for optimal landing spot as seen via HMDS III down the axial deck WOD (no crosswind) CVF.

http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/348/6394.JPG

[orca]

Anyone know the LSO shorthand for <<'appeared to have hands on head' - cut pass>>?

[4Greens]

The USN has just carried out a successful catshot with a UAV. Landings have been carried out for some time. The writing is and has been on the wall for some time. The era of manned aircraft for military purpose is nearing the end.

In addition, aircraft carriers are more and more vulnerable from a long range missile attack.

This long discussion is more or less history.

[PhilipG]

Spaz and White Ovies, thank you for your replies, I appreciate that it is part of Plan A that a large amount of training will be done in Sims, this would of course be fine if anyone knew how the F35B and indeed the other types did actually perform in flight. As I understand it there was a simulator that allowed F35Cs to catch a wire on a QEC carrier, as far as I am aware it had not been demonstrated that the F35C can catch a wire on a carrier.
Once the concurrent flight testing and development has been completed, the software is a war fighting version and the computing hardware in the plane is as planned updated, as well as the actual proof of concept of SRVL actually having been demonstrated and exhibited reliably on a QEC or other large deck, I am sure that an accurate sim can be programmed and used as a training aid.
I am not 100% sure that I would like to see a pilot make his first night landing on a pitching deck when bringing back a heavy and expensive weapons load.
Only time will tell what is the safest way to ensure that pilots can land safely on a QEC in any conditions.

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not going to feign unwarranted concern. SRVL trials with UK F-35Bs aboard CVF will not occur until 2018. Until then the concept will be tested as much as possible in both simulation and ashore - with some obvious limitations. It is best to keep in mind that the fall back IF SRVLs became an accepted practice aboard CVFs (this is not clear today but may be in the future as indicated) then given conditions that make an SRVL not safe - a Vertical Landing will be carried out. Best to dump a cheap weapon than put the ship, the crew, the aircraft and the pilot at risk during an SRVL when a good ole VL will do it every time. Those conditions will be worked out. I take comfort that this SRVL has been under development now for more than a decade. It is obvious to me that if it was not a worthwhile operation that interest in it would have waned by now. There are many years to go until an SRVL can be conducted on CVF with wind straight down the axial deck (a limitation of shore based SRVL practice for a start).

It has been stated that SRVLs will be safe in Sea State 6 conditions (possibly only by day but who knows). All this will be sorted by practical experience in five years time.

It has also been made clear time and time again now by all the pilots who have used the FMS then flown the actual aircraft that the simulations are as accurate as they have ever experienced. There has even been comment that a VL in the sim is more difficult than the real life VL. I can only go on these public statements myself.

'PhillipG' said: "...I am not 100% sure that I would like to see a pilot make his first night landing on a pitching deck when bringing back a heavy and expensive weapons load...." Why on earth do you think a pilot will ever be in this situation? Pilots will be tasked according to their experience and ability - which will improve over time. A pilot making their first night landing will be carrying out a VL. After that will come night SRVLs if these are warranted. Before that will be many simulation rides and of course daytime flying before going out there at night.

Bear in mind the 'day for night' capability of the HMDS II/III night vision which will improve pilot confidence in what they can see out there compared to how it is all black (without NVGs) these days. Factor in the JPALS assisted Bedford Array gizmos which may well supplant IFLOLS even on CVNs if it is so deemed, then things look great for all round day/night any weather (within defined limits) F-35 ops.

Of course every aspect of F-35 ops will be refined with more testing and experience. It is a marvellous time for F-35 pilots and they know it.

[orca]

If wind perfectly aligned to DFC is a pre-requisite for SRVL perhaps we ought to be worried?

I remember a time the fishheads got the wind right, but suspect (on the grounds of a couple of hundred iterations when they didn't) that it could have been an accident!;)

[PhilipG]

Spaz, I was trying to pick up the point that ORCA was making, if there is a surge of planes and pilots to the carrier in time of tension, it is perfectly possible that a pilot takes off heavily laden in the day light goes some distance, the plane exhibits a fault/ the conflict comes to an end / he is retasked from his primary mission and needs to reconfigure and returns to a carrier in sea state 6 with say Storm Shadows under his wings and 1,000 bombs both on the wings and carried internally.
As I understand it there is no way this plane can land back on a CVF vertically, a rolling landing is called for. Woops sorry never done one for real, sorry I will have to dump two Storm Shadows and 4*1,000 lb smart bombs to get back to the carrier. Carrier crews need to be carrier qualified is what I am saying, yes the Falklands showed that RAF crews could deploy to Hermes and Invincible, where all Harrier landings were vertical as was practiced regularly by the RAF.
As far as the software and other aids, yes I am sure that they help going down the experience curve of attaining carrier landing skills, I do assume though that you are not suggesting as you post seems to that hands free landings are possible in all conditions, or are you?

[downsizer]

I think it's a fair assumption that it'll never bring back 1000lbers as that weapons days are very limited. And to bring back a SS it has to be integrated onto the platform before it's OSD...lets wait on that one too...:\

[althenick]

A bit more here about simulators

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8135

[SpazSinbad]

'PhillipG' the F-35B/pilot combination will dump down to carry out a VL if the conditions for SRVL are beyond aircraft/pilot limitations. What these are we - the public - do not know - yet. Simulations will be carried out along with dry land simulated flights to a CVF deck but with variable winds, unlike CVF at sea steaming directly into the wind OR as required within limitations (determined by testing beforehand or during 2018).

'orca' is a making a point about limitations of wind whereas I'm making the point that unlike angle deck landings, with wind down the angle - that angled flight deck is moving away to the right all the time during a conventional angle deck approach, making lineup just that more difficult compared to an axial deck SRVL, where the option will be to have the wind straight down the centreline at all times, making lineup that much easier for the SRVLer.

IF the VACC Harrier carried out the first completely automatic VL back in May 2005 (with a beginning iteration of JPALS in use) then I foresee the F-35B being able to do a lot when JPALS (soon in use) will be available. We see the X-47B using the almost finished JPALS now for completely automatic conventional landings on CVN. Way to go if needed. As for a completely automatic SRVL on CVF - probably not because of the braking precision required by the pilot but I will wager the SRVLer will be able to take over from an automatic approach quite close to touchdown. We'll see.

VAAC Harrier Completes First Auto STOVL Landing

VAAC Harrier Completes First Auto STOVL Landing - YouTube

[orca]

I do concur that an axial landing would prevent the continual input of right corrections to keep up with a deck mis-aligned by 10 or so degrees to the way it's moving.

Or indeed the temptation to line up in the STOVL manner only to find yourself well left of centreline with the LSO shouting at you to come right. (Errr...might have done that once or twice!)

I was actually just being flippant about the (small) task the bridge has of aligning boat with wind and the fact that the only time they manage it is when the CO's in the Lynx and the nav track takes you straight onto a rock...or similar!;)

(I will admit to not being an expert here - I have never flown a Lynx or crashed into a rock.)

[Bill Macgillivray]

Sharkey,

Keep it going, you still have the ability to "stir it up" in a very reasoned manner. Upsetting a few people is one of those things that we can all do, it does not mean anything on a personal basis, as well you know!!

I now confess to all other PPruNe posters on this topic that I was Sharkey's QFI/Flt Cdr when he went through the JP course at Linton in the late 60's. Not the perfect stude (is there ever one?) but I wish that there had been more like him! :ok::ok::ok::ok:

[SpazSinbad]

For 'PhillipG' above worried about F-35 Sims: Recent praise for F-35 Simulators...

F-35C Pilots Praise Simulator’s Capabilities 24 Jun 2013 RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
“ARLINGTON, Va. – The Navy’s first F-35C Lightning II joint strike fighter squadron commanding officer instructor pilot says the aircraft’s cockpit simulator will be “light years ahead of earlier simulators.”

“The simulator is very good,” said Capt. John Enfield, commanding officer of the Navy’s F-35C fleet readiness squadron Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101. “Given the advanced capabilities that this aircraft brings to the fight, there are a lot of things that are best trained in the simulator anyway. From a basic flying skills standpoint it’s great, and from an advanced combat standpoint it is light years ahead of anything we’ve seen previously.”...

...“The simulator here is unlike any simulator I’ve flown before,” Tabert said. “It’s high fidelity. All the tasks that are required to safely operate the aircraft can be done in the simulator. It’s very close to how the airplane actually flies. You have full 360-degree views. You can tank [aerial refuel] in it. We won’t have an issue training pilots predominantly in the simulator and having less time in the airplane.”..."
SEAPOWER Magazine Online (http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20130624-f3c.html)

[PhilipG]

Spas, yes Sims can be very good for training pilots and others, my point is that there are major uncertainties about the way the plane flies and the actual war fighting software has not been written, the probe of concurrency.
It will be interesting to compare and contrast the abilities of the F35 according to the SIM now and the abilities of the F35 in the SIM when the aircraft's final flight characteristics are programmed in.
I assume the Sims were designed to replicate the as promissed by LM performance, not the as yet delivered performance.
The project has as we all know suffered much death by PowerPoint, let us hope that pilots expectations of the real plane are not raised too high by unrealistic sessions in the initial Sims.

[SpazSinbad]

'PhilipG' I think you have said this: "... let us hope that pilots expectations of the real plane are not raised too high by unrealistic sessions in the initial Sims." in error? What part of the phrase in quote from Tabert above is misunderstood? "...It’s very close to how the airplane actually flies...."

There are plenty of quotes elsewhere that support this pilot experience in the sims. There are other sims not flown by line pilots which test actual control laws which are very accurate.

Any changes to aircraft control software / characteristics are replicated in all the sims as required.

[Pontius]

PhilipG,

Stop being such a bloody drama merchant. An RVL is a piece of piss whether it be done on an airfield, STOL strip or boat. With the advent of all the clever gubbins in the F35 it'll be even easier, so stop trying to complicate a basic, everyday manoeuvre into some sort of magic science, which it ain't.

Landing and taking off are just something that has to be done, it's what's in between that's important.

[PhilipG]

Spas, as we all know testing has not been completed for any version of the F35, to my knowledge, prepared to be shot down, no F35 has gone above Mach 1, there ate transonic problems with the C etc, so if the real plane with real world warfighting software and hardware, was available today are you saying that it would perform 100% as the latest SIM does?
The SIM might well exhibit how LM etc hope the plane will perform in its initial warfighting configuration, an unknown, that does not enable pilots to train for real world situations.
Obviously I hope that when push comes to shove the F35 achieves all the initial KPIs at the initially promissed purchase and running costs, sadly I have my doubts.

[SpazSinbad]

'PhilipG' you have a misunderstanding about the F-35 Simulators (there are at least three kinds but one is flown by ordinary pilots in the large form FMS (Full Mission Simulator) with two smaller variations which are either portable or just small form factor (compared to full FMS size). These FMS replicate the aircraft faithfully and are updated along with the actual aircraft flight control laws if they change along with any other flight parameters that need to be changed (discovered during testing). Why is that not good enough?

The latest LM 'Fast Facts' PDF dated 12 Jun 2013 is here:

https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12648/f-35fast_factsjune2013.pdf (0.2Mb)

On page four of five it states: "...The F-35 flies supersonic for the first time ..." Searching the internet you will discover that it has flown slightly beyond M1.6 limit these days. All KPPs are being met. The F-35C transonic roll is being tested for solutions (with/without upper wing spoiler). Ordinary pilots are not able to fly to the aircraft limits ,as we know, until cleared by test pilot testing and regulation in future.

On page one: "...Last month, the F-35B performed its 400th vertical landing and first vertical take-off. (May 10 –VTO and May 14 400th)..."
_____________________

And to add to 'Pontius' comment above, it has been made clear by test pilots and COs and instructors etc. that the F-35 has been made easy to land (especially the F-35B) so that pilots concentrate on the mission and not the landing phase. Col. Tomassetti has a good recent quote there:

The F-35B Coming to the MAGTF: “Turbo” Reflects on the Past and the Future of USMC Aviation 27 Jun 2013
"...SLD: From the time you flew the X plane, which is now in the Smithsonian, to the reality of an F-35B, what’s the biggest difference concerning what you imagined and what you actually see on the flight line?

Turbo: [Col. Tomassetti] We wanted to build an airplane that was easy to fly and an airplane that was easy to maintain. If you build an airplane that’s easy to fly, your accident rate comes down. Your requirements for training come down. And in the long-term life of an airplane, if you can reduce those two things, the cost of everything comes down.

And what we can do today with fly-by-wire technology digital flight controls is, again, it’s leaps and bounds over where we were 20 years ago when we first started with fly-by-wire airplanes.

Right now, we have an airplane that the pilot says I want to go here, I want to do this, and the computers make all that happen. And the airplane goes where you want it to go.

And I think as much as we hoped for that, we all knew that that’s a hard thing to make happen. It sounds like a very simple concept; build an airplane that’s easy to fly, why don’t we do that all the time? Well, in practice, it’s very complicated because airplanes today are complicated machines.

And we demand a lot out of them in today’s environment. The fact that we’ve achieved that is great....

...I think we’re getting to that point with the block 2 airplanes where some of those capabilities are available. Even if it’s just available in the simulator for a few months before it’s out there on the flight line, those folks are starting to figure out how are we going to teach somebody electronic attack type capabilities in the simulator because it works in there in the beginning...."
The F-35B Coming to the MAGTF: ?Turbo? Reflects on the Past and the Future of USMC Aviation | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35b-coming-to-the-magtf-turbo-reflects-on-the-past-and-the-future-of-usmc-aviation/)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

WhiteOvies

The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC.

A cause of much angst I think. At least the senior Officer (sic) quoted by the Telegraph had concerns (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8799280/Royal-Navy-sackings-will-lose-aircraft-carriers-skills-forever.html):

Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.

Are (as I wondered loudly here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-92.html#post7820523)) we doing enough? Whilst we can only send a limited number of personnel on exchange, if we were to embark some STOVL jets (yes, that means Harriers) it would give that experience to a greater number (and wider range) of personnel.

RN Recruits are given training booklets which include a large section on aviation safety, emphasising the whole ship nature of naval aviation, and describing the hazards from and to aircraft including jet blast and downwash, FOD, tool control, and so on. That was considered as basic safety awareness, not specialist skills. I wonder to what extent the actual skills needed for fixed wing operations are implicit, and difficult to be learnt except by experience?

Operating an aircraft from a ship is different to operating it from land, and operating fixed wing aircraft is different to operating helicopters (greater speeds, more potential for FOD issues, the need for wind over the deck for launching, narrower windows for recovery times before the fuel runs out, and others).

In late 2009, I was at a presentation by the FAA Command Warrant Officer, who stated that in order to prepare for CVF/F35B, we would need to build up expertise by embarking more aircraft (about the two CVS) for longer periods. How has that changed post SDSR?

All we need to see is a signed document from CAS saying that he will embark his jets as soon as the CO indicates his ship is ready in all respects to conduct aviation.

What comes first? The carrier capable of embarking fixed wing aircraft, or the carrier capable fixed wing aircraft?

The second sentence will indicate that he will disembark them only when the Air Management Organisation is fully up to speed, the Air Group is fulfilling ATO tasking, the Air Weapon supply team have produced weapons to surge capacity and these have been loaded on jets and dropped, the Yellow Coats can marshal, chain and chock a fourship in all weathers, whilst another fourship is taxying for take off. The jets will remain embarked until every Fighter Controller in the fleet has worked a fourship through Red Crown procedures and the JFACCHQ have established resilient comms for a week or two and Flyco have exercised being b#ggered about from dawn to dusk. Repeat all for night ops. When all this is crimped the TG in its entirety will take part in a COMAO based exercise of Neptune Warrior type scope and we'll call it good.

A system of systems.... Not much systems thinking by current politicians (not just in respect to defence).

SpazSinbad/PhillipC

Pilots (and perhaps a few others) can be trained by simulator with respect to landing or launching the aircraft at sea, but what about the deck crews, Flyco, OOW/Bridge, Ops Room, Ship Control Centre, and others?

Bill

If nothing else, Sharkey Ward stimulates and provokes debate.

[SpazSinbad]

Further to the Col. Tomassetti quote above, here is one more (he is retiring/retired now):

The “Ready Room” as the Learning Center for Air Combat Jun 2013
"...The goal — I know why the Marine Corps wanted an expeditionary airplane, I get it because I grew up in that environment, but I will tell you, the sort of personal stamp that I have tried to put on this thing since I joined the program in 1998 is I wanted a STOVL airplane that could do all the things that the Marine Corps needed, but was easy to fly.

Because like you said, I went to three memorial services in my first year in the fleet [in a Harrier]. And that was painful, and that hurt because I knew those guys and I lived with those guys.

There were some shortfalls of the airplane, there were some shortfalls in our training, and again, it was airplane that really demanded that you were on your toes every single minute you were in the cockpit.

And we’re smarter than that now; we’re better than that now. A little bit because computers are better than they used to be and what we can do with computers and airplanes are better.

But the whole point of building this particular STOVL airplane, From my view and the other Harrier pilots in the developmental phase was to make it easy to fly. We knew what the price that the people who flew that airplane paid, and we didn’t want to see that repeated.

Simple things like hey, the airplane won’t let you decel to the hover if you’re too heavy. A simple safety feature like that, might have saved people in the Harrier.

And the fact that we’re smart enough now to figure out how to incorporate that into an airplane and make it work and the fact that I have a STOVL airplane that I don’t need three hands to fly like I did in the Harrier.

I got an airplane that you tell I want to go up; I want to go down, I want to go forward, I want to go back, and it says I got it. I’ll figure out what to do with all of those things that can maneuver and wiggle. And you just tell it what you want it to do.

I think we need to give the airplane time to sell itself, and we need to give the folks a chance to digest what that means, and then go back and take another look at how we train people to fly it and realize that we’re going to spend 90 percent of our time talking about tactical capability of the airplane and about 10 percent talking about takeoff and landing."
The ?Ready Room? as the Learning Center for Air Combat | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-ready-room-as-the-learning-center-for-air-combat/)

[SpazSinbad]

A humourous quote to accompany the photo here on page 6 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7910094

OR: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-18autoLandLookMotherNoHandsWhatMeWorry.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-18autoLandLookMotherNoHandsWhatMeWorry.jpg.html)

SPECIAL REPORT AIR WARFARE & FLIGHT OPERATIONS SEA POWER / OCTOBER 2011
HIGH-TECH FLIGHT DECK DIGITAL-AGE ELECTRONICS, UNMANNED SYSTEMS WILL MEAN BIG CHANGES IN CARRIER OPERATIONS
By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent
"...Hands-off landings on a carrier are not new. Technology allowing carrier-controlled approaches to a landing was first tested on Aug. 12, 1957, and updated versions are installed in the F/A-18 and other recent carrierbased aircraft. But those systems, which are intended for use in extremely poor visibility conditions, require the pilot to fly into position aft of the carrier where the electronic system can take over.

Given the nature of jet pilots, the hands-off system is almost never used."
Seapower - October 2011 (http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/201110#pg20)

[Mach Two]

Spaz,

You usually confine yourself to posting news about the F-35, often offering something that is timely in the debate. On this occasion, I think your posts are somewhat out of place. The points being made are to do with more than just landing the jet on the deck. I think you understand that, but probably from an outsider's perspective. Also, the systems you cite have their limitations. The combination of a good bit of humour and a serious quote in your post may be an attempt to hide a serious point (it's sometimes hard to tell) so I'm interested to hear what point you're making.


M2

[APG63]

I think someone who doesn't fly jets is seduced by automation and a huge trust in digital technology. What when something fails and thee pilot is required to fly in a reversionary mode? Actually, what are the reversionary modes?

Sharky seems to be expert on just about everything, perhaps he can help?

[SpazSinbad]

JPALS comes along nicely for some more auto landing fun (especially essential for X-47Bs and derivatives as well as F-35s (there will be an ashore version including a portable land version for those inclined).

'Mach Two' expresses some concern about my experience. I have no auto landing experience whatsoever - but - have read umpteen pilot reports about same in various publications and online over the last several decades.

My own completely manual deck landings in an A4G number some 125 during the day, with my first four touch and goes hook up aboard HMS Hermes, visiting our shores in August 1971 or thereabouts. OMG I have a bakers dozen night deck landings also + plus a night rampstrike thrown in - hence my interest over the last several years to investigate the history of NavAv to better inform myself on the issues. I must admit to being gobsmacked by all the technology available to the Navy Pilot today (compared to simple mirror & 'meatball, lineup and airspeed [Opt AoA] of the A4G with a short and sweet GCA to the start for a night approach to HMAS Melbourne). Nothing fancy but effective in those times. Youse can read all about it at the usual online places with 'SpazSinbad' PDFs etc. If 'Mach Two' you are a crab then you are excused reading this info and take 'Courtney Mil' advice that it is all just crap. :} My Basic / Advanced flying training in all of 1968 was with the RAAF so I have some understanding of their complete disinterest in NavAv. What a relief to go to the bosom of the RANFAA at NAS Nowra beginning 1969 and the adventures thereto undertaken.

'Mach Two' my input to this meandering thread started with 'PhilipG' expressing 'fake' concern on page 6 about Naval Pilots ability to land on a deck at sea: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7909330 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html) - AS IF.

Navy closes in on making landing on aircraft carrier safer 28 Jun 2013 NavAirSysCom

Navy closes in on making landing on aircraft carrier safer (http://www.asdnews.com/news-49978/Navy_closes_in_on_making_landing_on_aircraft_carrier_safer.h tm)

"...The Hornets flew 65 low approaches to touch-and-go or full-stop landings during our two weeks on CVN 77,” said Lee Mason, PMA-213’s JPALS Ship System integrated program team lead. “The King Air completed 29 low approaches. So far, we are very pleased with the results. The system is expected to achieve tremendously improved landing accuracy.”
...

...Later this summer, JPALS is scheduled to complete additional at-sea testing to further refine the verification and validation effort and enable the completion of the operational assessment of the JPALS ship system, which is needed to progress to the program’s next milestone, Lack added.

“JPALS will provide adverse weather, adverse terrain, day and night, and survivable precision approach and landing capability that supports service and multi-national interoperability,” Lack said. “It is particularly suitable for the F-35, future aircraft and unmanned air vehicle operations at sea.”"

[PhilipG]

Spaz, you say that I had fake concern about Navy pilots being able to land on a QEC at night doing an SRVL.

As you quote SRVL will not be tested in the real world till 2018, there are a number of tasks that the F35 has been assumed to be able to do that when push came to shove it has not quite managed, so I sadly assume nothing.

My point was that unless the pilots and deck crews have practiced SRVL on a QEC with a high bring back load, it might be rather dangerous. It is not the same as RAF Harrier pilots going to Hermes etc in the Falklands when the standard return was a vertical landing.
The SRVL concept has yet to be proven, the amount of time that pilots who in time of crisis will be surged to the carrier(s) have previously spent on a carrier is uncertain, I thus find you use of the word "fake" interesting.

[SpazSinbad]

'PhilipG' focus on 'fake' all you wish. I do not resile because to my knowledge the point about SRVL being an option has been well made on various threads throughout this forum but I will repeat it here. IF a pilot is not up to an SRVL for whatever reason then that pilot will dump fuel/ordnance to carry out a VL. End of story. Much better to sacrifice the weapons/fuel to save the aircraft/pilot. No?

Whatever your point is - IF SRVLs are deemed to be useful then of course firstly they will be practiced/tested ashore by relevant test pilots before anyone gets near CVFs to carry out any SRVL. This is a given in carrier aviation. However it is been said many times now also on this forum that the F-35B/C are going to be much easier to carrier deck land in all the forms due to the computer flight controls making such VLs/SRVLs that much more doable under adverse conditions. No carrier pilots gets near the carrier without demonstrating their skill ashore first.

So I hope the timeline of events is clear. First testing ashore (ongoing) then testing at sea before any new pilots get to do carrier landings after first demonstrating their skill. These requirements are clear to any carrier pilot. Flunk FCLP or VLs or SRVLs and you are not going to the ship.

[Finnpog]

Shirley for Shore / Land based B-model frames and crews, the SRVL should be the default method of landing at the airbase, with VLs also thrown in. In that way, SRVL currency is improved upon and will enable an easier transition to the flat-tops if 'surged'.

Better that that defaulting to conventional approaches, except where that is practiced as a contingency option in case of lift fan malfunction scenarios.

[orca]

What land based F35B crews? We are buying this thing specifically for Maritime Strike are we not?

[Knight Paladin]

Orca - No. Not since the DPOC funding was assimilated into the JSF purchase. Boat ops are just one part of what we need this platform to do.

[Not_a_boffin]

Which part of DPOC mandates land-basing?

[orca]

I bow to your greater knowledge.

Are we saying that FCBA that became JCA, for which we are buying F-35 has now merged with FOAS, that became FCAC, that became DPOC?

I thought the requirements were still distinct but that the DPOC cash was thrown at the QECV conversion to cats and traps...only for that to fall flat.

As I understood it F35B couldn't possibly be DPOC due to a combat radius requirement.

Or are we just saying that at a working level we are not getting DPOC so JCA will naturally be the GR4 replacement...which sort of makes it DPOC by default?

[Justanopinion]

Orca - No. Not since the DPOC funding was assimilated into the JSF purchase. Boat ops are just one part of what we need this platform to do.
/QUOTE]

From the CDS; seems fairly heavily , some would say totally, pointed towards the importance of Maritime Strike to the purchase of this aircraft.


[QUOTE]Military command is about taking difficult decisions in changing and challenging circumstances. Over the 40 years I have had the honour to serve in the Armed Forces, I have consistently found that such decisions demand both vision and courage. The change of course over our carrier programme announced this week certainly required both. It was not easy, but it is right.

It is worth explaining why I, and my fellow military chiefs, proposed this move. Carriers are expensive - there is no way around that. But they offer a capability that few can match: an independent, flexible, sovereign base, not tied to other countries’ wishes, that can operate around the world.

By choosing the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) model of the Joint Strike Fighter over the Carrier Variant that we had previously ordered for our two new aircraft carriers, the UK is significantly shortening the time it will take to deploy our maritime air power.

For me, this is the key factor. We are getting an exceptional military tool that is capable of projecting power, deterring our enemies and supporting our friends. In an uncertain world, this is a capability that I know we all wish to have sooner rather than later.

It is worth understanding why this change is necessary. Two years ago, we looked at the facts we had, and made our decisions. They were right at the time, and based on the best information available. But since the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), some important things have changed.

The more cutting-edge aspects of the carrier jet programme proved very difficult to cost accurately. What we were told in 2010 has changed.

We had an opportunity to put this right, and it has been taken.

Contrary to the criticism levelled at the Ministry of Defence in the past, when the facts changed, our decisions did too.

The reasons why it was right to do this are clear. First, the improvements to the STOVL aircraft since the SDSR are impressive. Once a troubled project on probation, it has now demonstrated its capabilities, flying more than 900 hours. This reduces the danger of complications and cost increases that we feared in 2010.

Second, we could not operate the previous aircraft from a British carrier before 2023 at the earliest. By choosing STOVL aircraft, we have removed the risk of further delays, giving the UK a powerful carrier strike capability years earlier than would otherwise be possible.

Stretching the gap in carrier capability any further is neither desirable nor necessary.

Third, the costs of converting carriers to operate the Carrier Variant have increased by over £1bn, and may rise further. This raised the prospect of this vital capability being unaffordable - or of having to take money from other key programmes.

Whilst it is true that the Carrier Variant offered greater range, this is not a crucial advantage - given our major investment in air-to-air refuelling - when weighed against the greater time to bring it into service, and the increasing cost. The balance has tipped back in favour of STOVL, which has distinct advantages of its own, such as versatility and agility.

Switching to STOVL means we are getting an outstanding capability sooner, for less financial and technical risk. It also gives us the ability to operate two carriers if we choose, a decision that the next SDSR will review.

Managing the Carrier Strike programme is as complex and demanding as the maritime and air environments in which these ships operate. They are not just mobile flight decks, but among the most capable intelligence and targeting tools in the world.

Both the Carrier Variant and the STOVL aircraft represent a generational shift from the jets that we use today. Through their computer technology, stealth and communications they are more capable than their ship- or land-based predecessors. They are cutting-edge, multi-role platforms fit for the battlespace of the 21st century.

They can both carry the full range of weapons we intend to buy.

The bedrock of successful combat capabilities is Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance. This allows us to understand, track, strike and remain poised to react to the unexpected. It is this capability that ensured our success in Libya.

The Joint Strike Fighter increases it immeasurably.

This fifth-generation aircraft is a weapons system unmatched by our rivals, and will be an integral part of the package we offer our friends and allies - not least the French, with whom we have developed such a close relationship, and the Americans, who have been and will continue to be essential partners in developing our new capability.

Yesterday’s decision guarantees that we will have a hard-hitting carrier capability up to five years sooner than looked likely. The advice of the Chiefs of Staff is clear: this is the right decision for the Armed Forces, and the right decision for Britain.

And from Parliamentary papers in April 2013

The decision taken in May 2012 to use the STOVL variant rather than the Carrier variant will not affect the number of aircraft to be deployed on the Carrier. Twelve aircraft will be routinely on board the carriers with a potential surge to 36 aircraft if required

Routinely, not now and again.

[Finnpog]

Land based is clearly those units not deployed afloat. Even in the heady days of Phantoms and Buccs, not all the the FAA was onboard Eagle or the Ark.

I would have thought that 'routinely' means that the embarked squadron(s) will stay on board for a full cruise whilst the others stay ashore (unless the best operating model is faffing about with replacements every one-third of the cruise) so it makes sense for those units at home to be as ready to deploy as they can, hence suggesting the SRVL default.

I would appreciate Engines' input (I would hope that the construstion of the fan and drive-shaft don't limit it to x landings before it is slagged down and rebuilt) but would it not be dumb-thinking to not keep current in high bring back weight landings.

[Knight Paladin]

Are we saying that FCBA that became JCA, for which we are buying F-35 has now merged with FOAS, that became FCAC, that became DPOC?

I thought the requirements were still distinct but that the DPOC cash was thrown at the QECV conversion to cats and traps...only for that to fall flat.

Yes... well, that's my understanding of the various Whitehall machinations anyway! So if we wanted to go down the line of petty service rivalries, then the RAF could potentially feel aggrieved that FOAS/FCAC/DPOC funding, which was (largely) an RAF project, ended up getting thrown into a dark blue pot. HOWEVER, as I've tried to stress before, in our current era of austerity I think there's even less place for such single service small-mindedness. However marked we may feel the differences between the various services are, we're all actually pretty similar. I really do think the time has come to try to put our differences behind us and instead devote our energies towards together delivering the very best capability we can, within the budget constraints put on us, for UK Defence.

While Sharkey clearly has strong feelings on the issue, I can't help but feel that his (often ill informed) rants risk having a negative impact on defence overall, by fostering the kind of petty bickering this thread has nicely demonstrated. JSF promises huge capability for the UK, and AMI is steadily gathering the momentum in rightly deserves with the powers-that-be; please let's stop fighting each other!

[Engines]

Finn,

Happy to oblige.

As far as I know the lift fan system does not pose any severe life limits - there was certainly a lot of work going into endurance and cycle testing many years ago, and it's continuing. That said, I'm certain that there will be some life limits on it, just like other systems, such as the engine.

I agree that if SRVL is needed (don't forget that it's to address a corner of the environmental envelope, and the aircraft has a healthy bring back in all other conditions) then it will have to be practiced and declared as a capability along with all the other capabilities needed to embark.

There's an important discussion going on here about F-35 basing, and in my view, it will probably come down to 'ownership'. Putting to one side 'who paid how much money for what programme', my analysis runs something like this:

1. UK F-35 was a Navy led programme at its inception, aimed at getting a new generation of Maritime Strike aircraft. The SDSR and subsequent 'variant hokey-cokey' was driven by aircraft/ship combo affordability. Bottom line is that if we didn't need it to go to sea, we would not buy the B. So, my take is that F-35B is still being bought as a maritime strike aircraft.

2. The conundrum of 'what replaces Tornado for land based Strike' has been kicked around for many years via FOAS/FCAC/DPOC - but the decision was repeatedly put off as Typhoon ate the entire RAF tactical aircraft budget. In the end, all that was left was a rump of 'DPOC'. In reality, the UK's land based fast jet fleet has been moving towards a 'Typhoon/F-35' mix for some years.

3. We now have the RAF mounting a campaign to assume ownership of the F-35 programme - look at their official web site.

4. So what this means is a debate over how the F-35B is based. My take (based on experience) is that if the RAF own the aircraft, they will view CVF as a 'potentially useful alternate basing option' (to quote CAS in 2010) and carry out occasional 'detachments' on board to keep the aircraft at what they view would be an acceptable level of currency - but only once all land based commitments are serviced. A number of land based F-35s would be declared 'R2' (or whatever they will be calling it) for CVF ops.

5. If the RN own the aircraft, the plan would most probably be to 'embark' a squadron as near full time as possible on the CVF, and declare the ship and embarked squadron at R2 (or equivalent). Shore based aircraft would be used to support training for CVF based units, and support land based ops as available.

My own preference (not that it matters in the least) would be for the RN 'embarked' model, as it would deliver what the UK is buying the aircraft for - effective carrier based strike capability. The RAF 'detachment' model would not. I'd like to be clear - it's not that I think the RAF 'hate the FAA'. They don't. It's just that, deep down, the RAF's leadership just don't see carrier based aviation as relevant. Given that, they will not commit time and energy towards delivering it if there's a land based alternative. And as far as the RAF is concerned, there is always a land based alternative.

Knight's post is very well phrased and I agree with the sentiments - the problem is that there is no agreement between the RAF and the RN on what 'the very best capability' actually is. Until that agreement is reached, the 'small mindedness' will probably continue.

Hope this helps a bit

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[thowman]

Say what you like about this man, this is a tough interview to do with the son of one of Argentine crew of the C130 Nigel shot down. It is all translated. They didn't tell him previous to the interview that they would be including the son of the pilot - so Nigel did it off the cuff.

charla con el piloto que derribo el hercules en malvinas - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

For 'PhilipG' to ease concern about flying the F-35B with a hint perhaps about 'automatic VLs' - after suitable testing we may see 'automatic SRVLs'? Dunno. Just spitballin'. Remember with JPALS F-35Cs will be landing completely automatically also....

Jim’s vertical landing is a Lightning II eye-opener desider 02 July 2013
"SQUADRON LEADER Jim Schofield has again praised the capabilities of the Lockheed Martin F-35B after completing a vertical landing of the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Lightning II.

After the flight from Naval Air Station Patuxent River in the US, Sqn Ldr Schofield said: “The F-35 has truly revolutionised STOVL flying. With legacy types, such as Harrier, the pilot was always working hard to land the aircraft onto a hover pad or ship.

“Now with F-35B, at the press of a button the aircraft transforms into ‘short take-off or vertical landing’ mode whereupon the aircraft can take off or hover hands-off. This means pilots will require less training and operating the aircraft will be much safer than legacy types. It’s a fantastic aircraft to fly...."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210290/desider_62_july2013.pdf (6.5Mb)
_______________

Repeated also on the 'other long running thread'...

UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight by Chris Pocock AIN Defense Perspective 05 July 2013
"Senior British military officials confirmed that the UK will conduct shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) trials on the F-35B version of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II stealth combat jet. The SRVL technique would allow the aircraft to land at higher weights than is currently possible in the VTOL mode....

...The officials said they are satisfied that the F-35B could bring back the internal weapons load that is initially planned, comprising–in the UK case–two AMRAAM air-air missiles and two Paveway IV smart bombs weighing some 5,000 pounds. But, one added, when high temperature and/or low pressure conditions prevail–such as in the Gulf of Oman–it would be prudent to achieve another 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of bring-back weight, for either fuel or weapons, especially since the F-35 will be able to carry additional weapons on wing pylons, when stealth is not a requirement....

...the UK’s three T&E jets will embark on the new Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier for trials in the same year[2018]."
UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight | Aviation International News (http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-07-05/uk-will-try-boost-f-35b-landing-weight)

[SpazSinbad]

At the time this event was disputed but whatever... (see immediately above for reference why this old news appears now)....

Just Push ‘Auto-Land’ April 2011 — John A. Tirpak
“A Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff & vertical landing test aircraft last week achieved an impressive milestone, according to Warren Boley, Pratt & Whitney military engines president. “For the first time,” Boley said in an interview, “a pilot pushed a button & the [air]plane landed autonomously.”

Boley joked that the pilot could fold his hands behind his head or ‘read the paper’ while the air-plane safely settled down to a vertical landing from hover. The flight was the 74th vertical landing of the F-35 test program, & the fact that the Marine Corps was willing to allow the test indicated high confidence in the airplane & its Pratt-supplied F135 engine, Boley told the Daily Report April 8.”
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2011/April%202011/April%2011%202011/JustPushAuto-Land.aspx

[Gullwings]

Thowman,

Thank you for sharing such a very interesting and tough interview with us which was of great credit to all of those who arranged and took part in it, particularly of course the son of the Argentine crewmember and Nigel. Well done to the both of them and the many others on both sides who have shown such a willingness to communicate with each other with such respect. :D

[Genstabler]

A very moving and humbling interview to listen to. He did well.

[thowman]

Glad you enjoyed it.

The shooting down of the C130 is quite controversial in Argentina, as the plane was unarmed, and they claim that the footage from Nigel's gun camera shows that the cannon attack was head on, not from behind. I have not seen this myself, but I don't see why he would lie.

That said, the average argentine still think that invincible was bombed on the 30th May, and that the true UK losses were much higher than claimed, though I don't see how any UK government could keep such a big secret as that. It's got more leaks than a sieve.

A

[orca]

Talking specifically about the engagement, what difference would it make to public perception if it were a head on attack?

I didn't know the footage existed - and for a while I was custodian of the 801 NAS 'scrap book' which they kept down south with hand written de-briefs and diagrams of the engagements.

[ExAscoteer]

The shooting down of the C130 is quite controversial in Argentina, as the plane was unarmed, and they claim that the footage from Nigel's gun camera shows that the cannon attack was head on, not from behind. I have not seen this myself, but I don't see why he would lie.

There are three versions of events. Lt Cdr Ward's original Combat Report, the 801 NAS History, and what Lt Cdr Ward says in his book.

[smujsmith]

Sorry chaps,

And maybe my level of comprehension is not as "internationally massive" (or intellectually come to that) as others. A military C130 is shot down, in a combat zone, by a defending fighter. Head on, athwart ships, under the radar ? Really, surely a kill is a kill ? Or was the Falklands conflict fought under the Knights code of chivalry ? Perhaps all the books I have read on the subject missed the point as well.

Smudge :hmm:

[500N]

"There are three versions of events. Lt Cdr Ward's original Combat Report, the 801 NAS History, and what Lt Cdr Ward says in his book."

ExAscoteer
This was also said in a previous thread re another of Sharkey's kills.

Why such a difference ?

Also, wouldn't 801 NAS History be taken from a combat report ?

[thowman]

I think the clue in my last post is in the words "in Argentina".

Basically everything in Argentina with regards to the war is controversial. We still haven't admitted that two of their A4s flew over Invincible, bombing and strafing it as they went after it was hit by an Exocet.

As far as the footage goes, no idea how or where, just that "someone" saw it and Sharkey shot down an unarmed plane.

[500N]

The Lear jets were unarmed as well ?

And unarmed or not (C-130), previous C-130's had bombed
the task force so reasonable to assume this one was as well.

[Navaleye]

It might be a good idea to remind ourselves that both the Lear Jet and the C-130 were military aircraft in a combat zone and clearly not under the service of the Queen. In both instances they were undertaking reconnaissance which would have been beneficial to the enemy. Cdr Ward was right to shoot it down and I can assure you great efforts were made to get others. The same applies to the Lear Jets. They knew the risks but did not expect to find a T42 in the anchorage.

[BEagle]

Lear Jet, C-130 or Canberra - any such aircraft operating in the area would have been dealt with according to the prevailing Rules of Engagement - Cdr Ward would quite rightly have followed such RoE without question.

That the Argentinians sent such crews to their doom is a question for them to consider - the SHAR pilots acted quite correctly. It cannot have been much fun to shoot down a C-130 but, as has been said before, the aircraft were known to have been operated in a bombing role and it was entirely possible that this aircraft was being operated in a similar manner.

Edit: While I might criticise Cdr Ward for some of his more recent website comments, I have nothing but praise for his bravery and professionalism during the 1982 South Atlantic War. Single engine, single seat and $od all fuel in the vile weather down there - that took some doing!

[Milo Minderbinder]

FWIW from One of their aircraft is missing (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/argentine-aircraftlosses.html)

"1st June 1982.
0950 hours.
Sharkey WardNo.801 Squadron CAP (Lt. N. Ward and Lt. S. Thomas) destroy Argentine C-130 Hercules 93 km north of Pebble Island. Wards first AIM-l9 Sidewinder he fired fell short of the C-130, but the second started a fire between the port engines, Ward then fired 240 rounds of 30mm, which broke the aircraft's wing of sending it crashing into the sea killing the 7 crew members. This particular C-130 is believed to have been trying to repeat a bombing attempt made by another C-130 the previous day, when an Argentine C-130 made a bombing attack on a British tanker well north of the total exclusion zone. One bomb struck the ship, but bounced off to no effect.

Official Argentine Sources state:
June 1st:
The C-130(TC-63) was looking for sea targets using the on board weather radar. During the attack you mention to the tanker, bombs were dropped from TERs installed under the wings of the C-130! Not dropped from the back door."

Assuming thats correct, it more than justifies the attack on the C-130

The report isn't correct in that the tanker was the Liberian flagged Hercules supertanker. The bomb failed to go off, but remained aboard the ship. The insurers decided to scupper her rather than risk removing the bomb

[glad rag]

Edit: While I might criticise Cdr Ward for some of his more recent website comments, I have nothing but praise for his bravery and professionalism during the 1982 South Atlantic War. Single engine, single seat and $od all fuel in the vile weather down there - that took some doing!

Agreed. Big ones.

[Marcantilan]

According to some Argentine sources, the C-130 was badly damaged due to the Sidewinder missile and it was trying to ditch at the time it was engaged with cannon fire.

That`s why Ward is not in the friends list of some people here.

[Genstabler]

That is a very specific allegation. What is the source of the information you quote? Or is it more mythology?

[500N]

I admit I am not nearly as widely read as most others on here but

1. On his return from a sortie, wasn't Sharkey sent to investigate a contact some distance from the ships but close enough to warrant investigation ?

2. Wasn't the C-130 at a very low level already so if hit and stayed
at low level, how would a pilot going at speed know if they were
going to ditch ?

3. And as Navaleye said, Military aircraft in a war zone ?

[Navaleye]

The Herc was on a surface search and popped up long enough for Minerva to get three sweeps on her with her 965. The fighter controller vectored Ward and his wingman in. They detected the C-130 on Radar at low level and running at full speed for home. (Anyone know the top speed of a Herc at Sea Level) Ward and Thomas were above the cloud. Ward descended and fire one Sidewinder at a range of about a mile at the Starboard engines. This just fell short, he then closed and fired a second at the port engines this hit between them starting a fire. He then emptied his Adens into rear door and tail causing it to crash.

[Marcantilan]

Nice post above. But posted after that only for chance. I will only answer about the thread. The other troll like commentaries does not deserve an answer.

According to Commodore Cano (he was CO of C-130 Herk Sqn) in "Recuerdos Transporteros", he saw the gun cammera footage of the SHAR in Uruguay. I have another book in the shelf (but I am not close to it right now) about Hercules in the war and it says that a ex military pilot, then civvie, saw the gun cammera in a convention in the Miami airport.

I don´t think no one in Argentina argued about the legitimacy of the kill. I only heard complaints about it was an overkill, because the A/C was (allegedly) already doomed and on fire, trying to ditch at the time of the cannon engagement.

I must end saying that like 8 o 10 years ago I attended a conference by Commodore Pablo Carballo (CO of 5th Fighter Group in wartime) and he said that C130 TIZA was fair game, but regretted the overkill of an aircraft in fire. The widow of a crewmember was there also.

[Navaleye]

I'm sorry to tell you that is nonsense. I was in the Navy at the time and all footage such as you describe is classified. Even we did not get to see it. We only got to see a few unclassified stills after the event.

[SpazSinbad]

Bitchin' about [not] Ditchin' the Herk seems problematic at best - on fire?

C-130 Broad Area Review January 1998)
"3.3 Ditching/Bailout
3.3.1 A review of ditching/bailout information and procedures in various flight manuals reveals a significant variation in implied survivability of a ditching maneuver. Flight Manuals managed by AMC and Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) have significantly different guidance.

Specifically, T.O. 1C-130H-1 managed by AMC states:
"…ditching of transport-type airplanes can usually be accomplished with a high degree of success." Pg. 3-71 under "ditching."

3.3.2 However T.O.-1C-130(A)U-1, managed by AFSOC, states
"…ditching of the AC-130U can be accomplished with a low probability of aft crew member survivability. The flight deck may be survivable, but ditching should be considered an absolute last resort for any crewmember." Pg. 3-90 under "ditching."

3.3.3 Another apparent contradiction appears in T.O. 1C-130H-1 pg. 3-71 under "ditching characteristics"
"…Reasonably high probability that the airplane can be landed on water without major collapse of structure or a sudden rush of water into occupied compartments."

3.3.4 Compare this citation to the following language found in T.O. 1C-130(A)U-1 pg. 3-90 under "ditching characteristics"
"…reasonably high probability the aircraft structure will collapse followed by a sudden rush of water into occupied compartments."

3.3.5 These two flight manuals addressing the same subject portray vastly different projections of success for a ditching attempt. Of similar concern the diagram on page 3-76 of T.O. 1C-130(H)H-1 titled "Emergency Exits-Water" depicts a fully intact C-130 floating in the water. None of the aircraft in the three most recent C-130 ditchings survived intact. The referenced diagram gives support to the idea of a survivable ditching...."
C-130 Broad Area Review (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/c-130-bar.htm)

Find Herculean ditchings here: List of C-130 Hercules crashes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-130_Hercules_crashes)

1982 Flight Globular story here: 1982 | 2566 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1982/1982%20-%202566.html)

HerkyBird NATOPS: http://info.publicintelligence.net/USNavy-C130T.pdf (20.5Mb)

Physical page numbers 780-88 for Emergency Ditching Procedures

[500N]

Navaleye

PM sent.

[Marcantilan]

@Navaleye: I don´t know, and you have a point . Just quoting some sources.
Of course, I never saw it.

From AAF perspective, the final engagement was like this:

http://i.imgur.com/kBhLj7a.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

As my internet connection went to dialup speed I saw only the intro to this video with a glimpse of the 'carrier landing' section. 'PhilipG' on page 6 of this thread was worried about carrier landings etc.... so if for no one else this info is relevant.

VIDEO Airwaves: 9 July 2013
"On this edition of Airwaves, weather watchers keep their eyes to the sky to ensure aircrew safety during tests; plus, a "magic carpet" makes carrier landings safer for pilots; and the Navy's newest unmanned air vehicle flies high above Palmdale, Calif., during its first flight.
&
(Transcript) "A new landing system aims at making carrier landings safer.
Engineers at manned flight simulator are testing magic carpet – a landing system designed to reduce the workload of pilots and improve carrier touch-down performance. By using manned flight simulator, engineers can test the system under normal and adverse conditions, giving them a better idea of how the system will respond at sea. The goal is to reduce landing variability allowing pilots to focus more on the mission.

James Denham / Senior Engineer, Aeromechanics Division 4.3.2
“Airplanes today have very good computer systems, redundant and reliable flight control computers. We are capitalizing on those systems and then providing augmentation in the flight path access for the airplanes. So we are taking a lot of the tasks that the pilot has to do manually and letting the computer take care of those tasks and give him direct control of what he is trying to do which is fly the flight path and line up the touchdown.” In addition to increasing safety, the system is expected to save on training costs for carrier landing signal officers. Engineers are currently testing the system for use on the Hornet and F-35C."
NAVAIR - www.navair.navy.mil (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.VideoPlay&key=F9AB80BB-FB66-4047-B436-0A36B1E3C033)
_________________

Now on Utuby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=165cQsfxNzw http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_MagicCarpetScreenie.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/MagicCarpetScreenie.jpg.html)

[PhilipG]

Dear Spaz,

Thank you for bringing this to the Forum's attention, the point that I was trying to make back as you point out on page 6 was that it in my view is difficult to design software to achieve something that has not really been tried in real life.

As you quoted SRVL trials are going to commence in 2018, I am not sure what software release the trials plane(s) will have, implicitly the software base for the proper IOC planes will have to be the next release, so that the lessons of the trials can be incorporated into the mainstream F35B software suite, I forget what the software update cycle is, no doubt you have it at your fingertips. I did always understand that all the software on the planes had to be written by LM, so a UK built SRVL patch is in my understanding an impossibility.

As far as I know, I of course stand to be corrected, the UK is the only customer that is looking at the moment at implementing SRVL, a rather a different form of landing on a carrier than hopefully catching a wire when guided down under software control in an F35C. The basic dynamics of carrier landings are, except for hooks etc, well understood and documented, so lend themselves to semi automation, when the dynamics of the landing are not fully understood over the required envelope, automation of the process of SRVL could well create issues.

[Engines]

PhilipG,

I felt I could help out here a little.

The F-35B's hardware and software is designed and built to allow the aircraft to execute a wide range of manoeuvres in 'up and away' flight, pure powered lift and also in the 'transitional flight' regimes, both accelerating and decelerating. It's a basic part of the challenge of building a powered lift aircraft, and one which the F-35 team, especially BAE Systems, understand well. They have been working these issues since 2003, and have made a lot of progress.

SRVLs are basically just another point in the F-35B flight envelope. The USMC already call for a short landing to a 1200 foot strip as well as pure VLs, and the B also has to be able to carry out normal landings without use of powered lift.

You are absolutely right that 'automation' of any flight manoeuvre could cause issues. However, doing an SRVL at around 40 kts speed relative to the deck is a whole lot less demanding than trying to catch a wire at 145 kts relative.

I suppose what I'm trying to convey is that an SRVL is an achievable and sensible thing for a powered lift aircraft to do to a flight deck - it's exploiting the platforms' ability to use both wing and jet lift as most suitable to land on in a small area at the weights desired. Really, it's no drama. Honestly.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[PhilipG]

Thanks Engines, Philip

[SpazSinbad]

Some information for 'PhilipG' regarding long history of RN SRVL investigation and testing via VACC Harrier - plenty more where this came from....

Successful Trials
"The new Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) F35 Joint Strike Fighter is another step closer following successful trials of the aircraft’s advanced flight control software which will enable pilots to land onboard ship in all weathers, day and night with ‘centimetric accuracy’.

The trials, carried out onboard HMS Illustrious using a veteran two seat Harrier airframe, the Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Flight Control (VAAC) Harrier, put the new system to the test. The Harrier has been heavily modified with a conventional control arrangement in the front cockpit and the rear being connected instead into an experimental flyby-wire system using left and right hand interceptors[sic] [inceptors?] to manoeuvre the aircraft and simulate the way the new Joint Strike Fighter will fly and respond to different inputs. 66 running landings and recoveries were achieved in varying sea states up to and including sea state 6, with outstanding results. (Late Low Waveoffs for all approaches)

The test aircraft, XW175 is the oldest flying two seat Harrier in the world. Commander Kieron O’Brien, the Air Engineering Officer, HMS Illustrious said “The VAAC Harrier provided an ideal facility to trial the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) techniques that will be utilised by the Joint Strike Fighter in the new carriers. It worked brilliantly. XW175 represents an incredible link between the past and the future of the Fleet Air Arm.”
http://www.fleetairarmoa.org/Content/sites/FAAOA/pages/164/FN100_ISSUE_30.PDF
__________________

Extra long screed about SRVLs and the like in this very informative (but old) article. No need to register continue to scroll down the page here to read it all:

Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort [EDITED] 11-Dec-2008 International Defence Review
“A range of simulation, modelling, risk-reduction and technology-demonstration activities are under way to optimise the safety and operability of the ship/air interface between the UK's new aircraft carriers and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighters that will operate from them. Richard Scott reports....

...SRVL manoeuvre
As currently conceptualised, an aircraft executing an SRVL approach will follow a constant glidepath (five to six degrees) to the deck. This angle is about twice that of a normal CV approach, offering increased clearance over the stern and less touchdown scatter. The touchdown position on the axial flight deck is about 150 ft from the stern, similar to that of a conventional carrier. No arrestor gear is required. Instead, the aircraft brakes are used to bring the aircraft to a stop. Low-key studies to investigate the SRVL technique were initiated by the MoD in the late 1990s, but the work has latterly taken on a much higher profile after the MoD’s Investments Approvals Board (IAB) in July 2006 directed that SRVL should be included in future development of the JCA design to mitigate the risk to KUR 4. Accordingly, the JCA IPT amended the CVF integration contract in mid-2008 to include this requirement. Addressing IPLC 2008, Martin Rosa, F-35 technical coordinator in Dstl’s air and weapon systems department, said the SRVL studies to date had shown “a way forward exists to achieving operationally useful increases in bring-back, compared to a vertical landing, on board CVF with an appropriate level of safety”.

Dstl began early work to examine the feasibility of employing the SRVL manoeuvre in 1999. According to Rosa, an initial pre-feasibility investigation demonstrated the potential payoff of the manoeuvre in terms of increased bring back, but also threw up four key areas demanding further examination: performance (as affected by variables such as deck run, wind over deck, aerodynamic lift and thrust margin); carrier design; operational issues (such as sortie generation rate); and safety.

Further feasibility investigations were conducted in 2000-01 using generic aircraft and ship models. Dstl also ran a two-day safety workshop in late 2001. This showed that there were no “showstoppers, and no SRVL-specific safety critical systems were identified”, said Rosa. “Also, the ability to ditch weapons and carry out a vertical landing instead of an SRVL in the event of a failure was seen as a powerful safety mitigation.”

During 2002, more representative F-35B information became available which altered assumptions with respect to aircraft ‘bring back’ angle of attack (from 16 degrees to about 12 degrees, so reducing the lift co-efficient); wing area (revised downwards from 500 ft2 to 460 ft2, reducing lift available on approach at a given speed by 8 per cent); and jet effects in the SRVL speed range (which were significantly greater than those in the hover).

Aggregated, these revised assumptions significantly reduced predicted bring back performance. Even so, the improvement offered by an SRVL recovery was still substantial and MoD interest continued. In the 2003-04 timeframe, Lockheed Martin became formally engaged in the investigation of SRVL recovery, with the JPO contracting with Team F-35 for a study into methods for Enhanced Vertical Landing Bring Back. Once again, safety and performance characteristics were considered broadly encouraging. “However,” pointed out Rosa, “at this stage work on the adaptable CVF design was progressing rapidly.... Consequently the obvious next step was to consider the detailed impacts that SRVL might have on the CVF design.”..."
Military Nuts -> The F-35 JSF/Lightning II thread (http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120)
______________________

‘carrier waves” Issue 1 - January 2009 ‘Creating a unique & diverse ship-air interface’
"...It is in aircraft recovery that perhaps the greatest challenge exists and here too the team has been busy. Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings (SRVL) is a new manoeuvre, introduced to increase the bring back capability of the aircraft, which requires a radical change in the interface between the aircraft and the ship. Aviation Director John Ward said: “Modifications to the visual landing aids, a stabilised glide path array and aircraft closure rate sensors coupled with glide path cameras are all being examined through studies, simulations and trials. Next year will see the formal introduction of these changes.” The diversity in the ship-air interface is not limited to the challenges associated with the JCA...."
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/~/media/Files/A/Aircraft-Carrier-Alliance/Attachments/publication-and-speeches/cvf-carrier-waves-jan-2009.pdf
________________________

Good explaino about SRVLo here: Jane's Defence Weekly | Mar-04-09 | Inside | Zinio Digital Magazines (http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=384167391&o=int&prev=sub&p=28)

Diagram from thence above.... http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_BedfordArraySideViewApproachtext.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/BedfordArraySideViewApproachtext.gif.html)
______________________

Lockheed gets funds for UK F-35 landing modification 08/10/2010 by Craig Hoyle
"....The US Marine Corps has also shown interest in potentially using the SRVL technique with its own F-35B fleet...."
Lockheed gets funds for UK F-35 landing modification (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/08/348294/lockheed-gets-funds-for-uk-f-35-landing-modification.html)
____________________________________

US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique DATE:15/06/07 Flight International
“A shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique being developed by the UK for the Lockheed Martin F-35B is being eyed by the US Marine Corps as a way to facilitate operation of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighters from US Navy aircraft carriers.

The F-35B is scheduled to replace USMC Boeing F/A-18s and concerns have arisen that integration of the STOVL JSF with conventional US Navy fighters will disrupt carrier landing operations....

...For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short landing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs.

“We strongly support what the UK is doing on rolling landings,” says Lt Gen John Castellaw, USMC deputy commandant for aviation. Studies on how the F-35B will be operated continue, but SRVL “appears to be a viable option”, he says...."
US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/15/214672/us-marines-eye-uk-jsf-shipborne-technique.html)
________________________________

UK to extend rolling carrier landing research for JSF 21 Aug 2008 Flight International
"...Qinetiq used its VAAC Harrier testbed to perform representative land-based flight trials and a ship-based SRVL demonstration aboard the French navy's aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle last year.

Rosa said past work has also identified a promising visual landing aids (VLA) concept optimised for SRVL & stabilised against deck motion. "We will continue to mature the SRVL-optimised VLA arrangements, look at the possible 'tuning' of the JSF flight-control laws, and further study the effect of SRVL on the CVF sortie generation rate," he said. The capability's full scope will be confirmed after flight trials from the 65,000t vessels, which are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016, respectively.

Other forthcoming work includes optimisation of the approach profile, agreement on the optimal post-touchdown technique, and mitigation for failure cases, such as a burst tyre on touchdown.”
UK to extend rolling carrier landing research for JSF (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-to-extend-rolling-carrier-landing-research-for-jsf-314976/)
_______________________

Cleared to Land! 'desider' Jan 2013
"...“...One objective of the trials has been to come up with a set of requirements that define which tools and techniques are required by the Landing Signals Officers in the Flyco, helping in the safe recovery of the approaching aircraft.”...”
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43678/desider_56_2013_Jan-U.pdf
_______________________________

JSF To Develop Landing Technique For U.K. carriers 15 Oct 2010 Graham Warwick
"...The [Bedford Array] lights illuminate based on ship motion to provide a [B]stabilized aimpoint for the pilot. This array is used in conjunction with a special velocity-vector symbol and glideslope scale on the pilot's helmet-mounted display.

Aligning the helmet symbology with the aimpoint provided by the lights on the deck allows the pilot to clear the ship's aft ramp and touch down at the planned point with the specified descent rate, Cook says...."
http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/mstory.do?id=news/asd/2010/10/15/03.xml&channel=null&headline=JSF%20To%20Develop%20Landing%20Technique%20For%20U. K.%20Carriers
_____________________________

U.K. Looks Ahead To F-35 Carrier Ops 29 Apr 2013 Tony Osborne : Aviation Week & Space Technology
"...Simulator experiments have proven the validity of the deck parking layout for the aircraft. Because the U.K. ship in the simulator does not have an angled deck, landings are conducted down the length, but F-35s that are not flying can be parked on both sides of the deck. Initial experiments showed that at certain angles of parking on the port side, pilots on approach would adjust and push the aircraft to the right and closer to the ship’s islands. However, by parking aircraft at a more acute angle to the stern of the ship, pilots were more comfortable touching down on the centerline.

The ships will also make use of a Bedford Array, which is a lighting system that includes a series of flashing units down the centerline of the ship at the landing point that are stabilized for the vessel’s heave and pitch. On the pilot’s head-up display is a new ship-reference velocity vector. By maneuvering the aircraft and the vector onto the Bedford Array, the pilot can comfortably make a 6-deg. glideslope landing using the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) method....

...Wilson said the SRVL work was also influencing how the Marine Corps may also use their F-35Bs on larger vessels such as the U.S. Navy’s big-deck nuclear carriers. Several Navy carrier air wings feature Marine squadrons, and the Marines are examining if it might be possible to use SRVL on the larger vessels without issues with systems such as the
arrestor wires.

“The B model offers huge flexibility,” said Wilson. “The U.S. Navy has 10 large-deck carriers capable of delivering first-day strike, with the F-35B operating from LHDs [landing helicopter dockships], you have then got 20 carriers capable of doing that, and that’s a very different concept.”

Wilson says the choice of the F-35B for the U.K. is significant mainly because the training burden is substantially reduced, particularly compared with the AV-8B Harrier but also for conventional carrier operations. During the DT-1 deck trials on the USS Wasp in October 2011, one of the test pilots, who had previously flown F/A-18s was cleared to land on the Wasp after conducting 18 vertical landings on ground....”
U.K. Looks Ahead To F-35 Carrier Ops (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_04_29_2013_p35-572845.xml)
_________________________

QinetiQ solution for F-35B ‘rolling landings’ QinetiQ : 27 January, 2009

DefenseFile: QinetiQ solution for F-35B ?rolling landings? (http://www.defensefile.com/News_Detail_Qinetiq_solution_for_f-35b_rolling_landings__4983.asp)
___________________________

Trials Ahead for Navy Carrier Landing Software by Armed Forces International's Defence Correspondent 21/10/2011
"New software designed to assist US Navy pilots landing combat jets on aircraft carriers will be tested in 2012, the Office of Naval Research said in a 20 October press release. The flying skills demonstrated by naval aviators are often applauded - given that theirs is a role that demands extreme accuracy and concentration. Bringing high performance combat aircraft like the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet into a comparatively small space, on a moving platform, is a tricky business. It requires constant speed and flight control surface adjustments to ensure the correct trajectory's being followed.

Navy Carrier Landing Software
The new naval carrier landing software aims to simplify this process, bringing an unprecedented degree of precision to the maritime arena. "The precision that we can bring to carrier landings in the future will be substantial", the deputy chief of naval research for naval air warfare and weapons, Michael Deitchman, explained in the release, adding: "The flight control algorithm has the potential to alter the next 50 years of how pilots land on carrier decks."

The algorithm is designed to work in tandem with a so-called Bedford Array lighting system positioned on the aircraft carrier and a series of symbols presented in the pilot's HUD (Heads-Up Display). It connects the control stick straight to the aircraft's trajectory with the result that, rather than have to make minute shifts, the pilot directs the aircraft so it beams a fragmented green line in the HUD.

"You're tracking a shipboard stabilized visual target with a flight path reference, and the airplane knows what it needs to do to stay there", Naval Air Systems Command representative James Denham stated, in explanation...."
Advanced Navy Carrier Landing Software Trials: Armed Forces Int. News (http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/trials-ahead-for-navy-carrier-landing-software.html)
____________

And as noted elsewhere recently the VACC Harrier has carried out automatic vertical recoveries and here is another repeat tidbit for good measure:

Just Push ‘Auto-Land’ April 2011 John A. Tirpak
“A Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff & vertical landing test aircraft last week achieved an impressive milestone, according to Warren Boley, Pratt & Whitney military engines president. “For the first time,” Boley said in an interview, “a pilot pushed a button & the [air]plane landed autonomously.”

Boley joked that the pilot could fold his hands behind his head or ‘read the paper’ while the air-plane safely settled down to a vertical landing from hover. The flight was the 74th vertical landing of the F-35 test program, & the fact that the Marine Corps was willing to allow the test indicated high confidence in the airplane & its Pratt-supplied F135 engine, Boley told the Daily Report April 8.”
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2011/April%202011/April%2011%202011/JustPushAuto-Land.aspx

[SpazSinbad]

Here is a USN test pilot from VX-23 at Pax River describing how the BEDFORD ARRAY may be used on CVNs in future (which method applies to SRVL to CVF approaches).... [References to Fig.1 & 2 are to the combined graphic as shown attached.]

Paddles Monthly August 2011 ‘What the Future Beholds...’ Dan "Butters" Radocaj Test Pilot/LSO VX-23 Ship Suitability
"...-“...We may also need to add another lens-type glideslope indicator. One idea is called a Bedford Array. You can see in Figure 1 that a Bedford Array is like a lens spread of over the length of the LA. Unlike an IFLOLS which has 12 cells that are always on to create a glideslope reference, the Bedford Array is a set of Christmas lights and only the light corresponding to current position of the touchdown point is illuminated. Just as the dynamic touchdown point moves across the deck on the LSODS screen, the Bedford Array lights would “move” forward and back across the deck corresponding to the dynamic touchdown point. Figure 2 shows what your HUD may look like. You keep the ship stabilized velocity vector on top of the Bedford light that is illuminated. The datum is a reference line in your HUD. As long as the 3 all line up you are on glide path. A Bedford Array & a ship stabilized velocity are indicators of glide-slope that will show you if you are off glide-slope more precisely but they still don’t make the airplane respond differently....”
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf
______________

Pilot Approach View from the LSO PDF above: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_BedfordArrayApproachSSVVusnLSOsExplainoForum.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/BedfordArrayApproachSSVVusnLSOsExplainoForum.gif.html)

[WhiteOvies]

Phillip,

One of the advantages of going back to the B is that the UK requirements, including SRVL, were built in from practically day 1. As Spaz has highlighted a lot of the work to develop the flight control software was done early on at Boscombe, including SRVL trials on Charles de Gaul.

When we switched to C a major challenge was to shoe horn the UK specific testing into the already tight timelines. As it was, UK involvement with the F-35C EMALS launch was important at the time, but became irrelevant when we went back to B.

Back to the thread, I'd be intrigued if Sharkey's views would change if he visited Pax River and actually saw the B and C being tested side by side. With some up to date knowledge he might be better placed to comment.

As far as the C-130 kill? Gentlemanly combat in air to air went out of fashion in about 1915....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

SpazSinbad/PhillipG

Is the lack of a STOVL aircraft in UK service causing problems in developing future landing aids, in addition to causing problems with training both pilots and others? I am assuming that the RVL approach speed is below the stall speed of non STOVL aircraft.

How do you trial aircraft landing aids without aircraft? Sharkey Ward's book, and his internet writings, have flagged up the whole ship aspects, as have the following Gentlemen of PPRuNe: Bismark (here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6022717) and here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-2.html#post6024550)), Not_a_bofin (here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-4.html#post6029196)), Whiteovies (here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7909736)), and orca (here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7910075)).

The risks of Pilots not being able to land is small, particularly since many will have done exchanges and landed Hornets/Super Hornets (at a much higher speed) aboard a CVN. Regardless of possible delays, F-35B will do the business, but what about everyone else if they have not practised? That risk is harder to quantify, but is probably more significant.

Is sending a handful of aircraft handlers (as discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-92.html)) Stateside really enough to prepare?

At least Sharkey Ward considers the whole ship aspects in his writings.

[SpazSinbad]

'WE Branch Fanatic' asked: 'Is the lack of a STOVL aircraft in UK service causing problems in developing future landing aids, in addition to causing problems with training both pilots and others? I am assuming that the RVL approach speed is below the stall speed of non STOVL aircraft.

How do you trial aircraft landing aids without aircraft?..."

I do not have sources inside the UK Armed Forces nor any other force these days so I rely on public information only. It seems to me that these days computer simulations are excellent for all the development described, despite the 'thoughts' of some. Here is an example albeit for the X-47B (I believe I have given ample examples of how the VACC Harrier simulated the F-35B before it existed and how computer sims in UK / USA are in wide use for various purposes for not only the F-35B).

However as always the real deal needs to be tested and so it was thus...

X-47B UAS completes first arrested landing aboard aircraft carrier Brandon Lewis July 11, 2013
"...The UAS [X-47B] flight is completely autonomous, relying solely on computer programs such as GPS (http://channels.opensystemsmedia.com/Connectors) navigation, advanced flight control software, and a high-integrity network connection for flight guidance.

"It has taken several years of software development, thousands of simulated landings in high-fidelity labs, and many hours of flight test in the Patuxent River landing pattern to prove this aircraft is up for the challenge," says Captain Jaime Engdahl, Program Manager, Navy Unmanned (http://tech.opensystemsmedia.com/unmanned-systems/#unmanned) Combat Air Systems."
X-47B UAS completes first arrested landing aboard aircraft carrier - Military Embedded Systems (http://mil-embedded.com/news/x-47b-uas-completes-first-arrested-landing-aboard-aircraft-carrier/)

[just another jocky]

At least Sharkey Ward considers the whole ship aspects in his writings.

Indeed, but considering all the lies, errors of fact and downright misrepresentation contained in his blogs, how are we to know that these writings don't contain the same?

Unfortunately, his writings are tainted and therefore unreliable.

[SpazSinbad]

And that is really sad. I hope Sharkey gets some good/better/best advice from now on. It is way too easy to see the inaccuracies in his blogs via a simple internet search. It seems he is not capable to do his own fact checking. A verbal stoush with blustering 'facts' is a good AWI tactic back in the old days; but not in this age of the interbabble.

[SpazSinbad]

Graphics long delayed inserted in context appropriately above: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_BedfordArraySideViewApproachtext.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/BedfordArraySideViewApproachtext.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_BedfordArrayApproachSSVVusnLSOsExplainoForum.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/BedfordArrayApproachSSVVusnLSOsExplainoForum.gif.html)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Indeed, but considering all the lies, errors of fact and downright misrepresentation contained in his blogs, how are we to know that these writings don't contain the same?

Unfortunately, his writings are tainted and therefore unreliable.

Unfortunately there is truth in that, which reduces the Signal/Noise to a level where his writing fail to communicate some very valid points. However, the anti carrier/anti RN lobby also tell lies, misrepresent things and get them wrong.

SpazSinbad

Interesting pictures. Thank you. Perhaps The Prime Minister is simply happy for the UK to lose our technological base and not to support companies such as Aeronautical and General Instruments (http://www.agiltd.co.uk/index.php) - suppliers of a number of visual landing aids for naval aviation (http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_aids/carrier.php). There are other British companies involved with visual aids too, but how do you test them without (STOVL) aircraft?

[SpazSinbad]

The CVF deck landing aids equipment would be portable enough to take it to where the F-35Bs will be. Probaby PaxRiver (USN test facilities) or where the UK 3 F-35Bs will end up eventually at Edwards AFB for operational testing? My guess would be NAS Patuxent River - Ttere are dummy decks available along with a replica ski jump and all the F-35B test pilots in the world.

The USN (LSOs at least) are interested in the Bedford Array. Probably a good idea for the company to test it where the most potential users can see it in action?
____________________________

Third UK F-35B arrives at Eglin AFB 26 Jun 2013 Dave Majumdar
"...The three current UK aircraft are operating in a training capacity as part of the USMC's VMFAT-501 squadron at Eglin AFB. However, the aircraft will eventually move to Edwards AFB, California, to participate in the F-35 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35.html)'s operational evaluations."
Third UK F-35B arrives at Eglin AFB (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/third-uk-f-35b-arrives-at-eglin-afb-387710/)

[ORAC]

I'm sorry, when you mentioned a "Magic Carpet" landing system my mind went immediately in another direction. Capt Eric "Winkle" Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)) got the Boyd Trophy for this work.

f7Lu6LEQ0zo

[ShotOne]

Sharky seems be allowed to pass on his opinion, almost always derogatory to the RAF, irrespective of whether its total rot, without any form of challenge. For instance he wrote an entirely nonsensical piece about how the Libyan air strikes would have been much cheaper from a carrier. Why do you let him do this without contradiction?

[orca]

When you say 'without contradiction' do you perchance mean that every time he puts pen to e-paper every keyboard in crab-dom lights up with indignation?

I am personally disappointed by the way this passionate advocate of maritime aviation has essentially self-fragged to the point of being a pantomime villain - in the main because I think that in amongst bluster and inaccuracies are truths that would speak volumes for themselves.

Interestingly though, we have now mentioned Winkle Brown. There's another thread running about the Mosquito and I am pretty sure that in 'Wings On My Sleeve' Brown selects the Sea Hornet for special mention - maybe as being the finest propeller fighter he flew?

(I am significantly displaced from my book shelf at the moment so can't check)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Interestingly though, we have now mentioned Winkle Brown. There's another thread running about the Mosquito and I am pretty sure that in 'Wings On My Sleeve' Brown selects the Sea Hornet for special mention - maybe as being the finest propeller fighter he flew?


I went and looked! You are correct.

He describes doing the first wartime carrier landing in a Mosquito during the war (I think at the time they were thinking of the landings in Italy, which were supported by carriers), then the first carrier landing of a Sea Hornet post war. Later he describes the DH Hornet as his favourite piston engined aircraft.

Wings On My Sleeve sets scene, not only for himself, but for the Fleet Air Arm at war. He describes the participation of the escort carrier Audacity is defending a convoy from long range aircraft and U boats. He describes a fairly significant battle, interestingly, because of the escort commander, Cdr (later Capt) Johnny Walker, and the participation of the first escort carrier, was described in the Wolfpack episode of The World At War.

His story of teaching new pilots to land aboard a carrier, and of trials of new aircraft and new (mainly escort) carriers illustrate how important carrier based aircraft were to the RN during the War, something disputed by certain PPRuNe posters on various threads.

As for Sharkey Ward becoming a Pantomime villain - surely a fighter pilot does want to get behind you, to be in an optimal missile firing position? I agree that his recent writing do have a low S/N ratio.

The book Churchill's Navy by Brian Lavery is worth a read if you can find it. As you might imagine it is a history of the RN in World War Two, but unlike other books about the subject, it does not focus too much on particular ships, battles, or personnel. He looks at the RN from a wider angle, and naval aviation gets mentioned throughout, as well as having a chapter dedicated to in and being mentioned in the chapters dealing with organisation, and things like communications, and ship design/building, and personnel, it also gets mentioned in terms of its contribution to the battle fleet, escort forces (Atlantic, Arctic, etc), and amphibious forces.

He discusses the problems the Fleet Air Arm had, but puts it in context and mention that the Navy only regained control of naval aviation months before war started, there were no Admirals of staff officers with aviation experience, naval aircraft were given low priority when it came to aircraft production, and so on.

Some of the lessons must resonant painfully with today's Admirals. The Admirals have the undersanding these days, but the politicians refuse to listen. They did not listen to the First Sea Lord at the time of SDSR, despite him being an ex CVS Captain.

Sharky seems be allowed to pass on his opinion, almost always derogatory to the RAF, irrespective of whether its total rot, without any form of challenge. For instance he wrote an entirely nonsensical piece about how the Libyan air strikes would have been much cheaper from a carrier. Why do you let him do this without contradiction?

Maybe people believe in freedom of speech? Why is the example of Libya so absurd? After all, Libya has a coast, and other nations had carriers taking part - including USMC Harriers. As for the UK, we had destroyers/frigates directing aircraft and providing naval gunfire support to suppress defences, plus ship based rotary wing aircraft performing ISTAR roles, flying attack missions, and providing a CSAR capability. Surely it is no great leap of imagination to conclude that had we had shipborne fixed wing assets, they would have not had to fly hundreds of miles to the target, and would not have demanded large amounts of AAR support?

ORAC

Nice reminder. Those were innovative days back then. I remember seeing a documentary in which Rear Admiral Nick Goodhart explain who he had tested the concept of the Mirror Deck Landing Sight in his office using his secretary's lipstick and mirror. The concept to prototype time was shorter is those days. Modern shipborne landing aids (including those for helicopters landing aboard non carrier vessels) are derived from that brilliant piece of innovation.

Sadly, innovation has been all but killed of by the drive for mediocrity.

The CVF deck landing aids equipment would be portable enough to take it to where the F-35Bs will be. Probaby PaxRiver (USN test facilities) or where the UK 3 F-35Bs will end up eventually at Edwards AFB for operational testing? My guess would be NAS Patuxent River - Ttere are dummy decks available along with a replica ski jump and all the F-35B test pilots in the world.

The USN (LSOs at least) are interested in the Bedford Array. Probably a good idea for the company to test it where the most potential users can see it in action?

Surely the whole point about deck landing aids is that they are built to exist aboard ship and need to be tested aboard ship? After all, deck landing aids exist to help the pilot land his aircraft at sea, aboard a moving ship that has six axes of freedom - the linear motions of heave, sway, and surge, as well as the rotational ones of pitch, yaw, and roll, as well as intended movement through the sea. Then on top that are issues relating to things like vibration from the ship's powerplant and other machinery as well as EMC issues. It has to exist side by side with other equipment - from things like radars and communications systems to flight deck vehicles and RAS equipment.

Everything intended for naval use (from a new 30mm cannon to a new radar) has have trials aboard ship, surely this applies here too? The system needs to be demonstrated aboard a ship (preferably RN) recovering STOVL aircraft that can simulate a 60 knot approach from astern.

Perhaps this is not dissimilar to the problem of preparing people for the future, as many different things need to take place within the confines of a moving ship. We can send a few people on exchange, but as I wondered (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-92.html), is that enough? We have the ability to simulate a carrier deck ashore (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Air-Stations/RNAS-Culdrose/School-of-Flight-Deck-Operations) at Culdrose, but it is static. Like equipment, people need to be tested and trained at sea. Many of the posts by the dark blue PPRuNe contingent (such as those quoted here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-151.html#post7934621)) allude to that. Have Their Lordships managed to educate the Ministers?

Back to Churchill's Navy - reading gives you a sense of how similar today's issues are to those faced in the past, so the wisdom of trying to resolve them in ways that did not work then is questionable. The point is also made about the contribution of training to operational success - escort crews trained in simulators between convoys, and ships and escort groups put a lot of effort into work ups. He also mentions that commanders had much more freedom of action that they had during the First World War - another lesson perhaps?

To go back further into history, we could even draw lessons from historical commanders such as Nelson. The lessons are knowing your strengths and weaknesses and those of the opponent, understanding your weapon systems and how to use them to best effect, of every ship knowing what they needed to do, and of every man being extensively trained and knowing what to do. Even in Nelson's day most of the work of the Admiral took place before the battle.

[SpazSinbad]

'WEBF' said above:
"...Surely the whole point about deck landing aids is that they are built to exist aboard ship and need to be tested aboard ship? After all, deck landing aids exist to help the pilot land his aircraft at sea, aboard a moving ship that has six axes of freedom - the linear motions of heave, sway, and surge, as well as the rotational ones of pitch, yaw, and roll, as well as intended movement through the sea. Then on top that are issues relating to things like vibration from the ship's powerplant and other machinery as well as EMC issues. It has to exist side by side with other equipment - from things like radars and communications systems to flight deck vehicles and RAS equipment.

Everything intended for naval use (from a new 30mm cannon to a new radar) has have trials aboard ship, surely this applies here too? The system needs to be demonstrated aboard a ship (preferably RN) recovering STOVL aircraft that can simulate a 60 knot approach from astern...."

No argument there - however my response to your entreaty earlier was in relation to there being no CVF for the time being. Certainly when the CVF is available I'll gather the landings aids will be installed (wot? no testing?) having been tested by computer simulation to then be tested in the real world. And please let us not forget the Bedford Array testing on one CVS many moons ago now with the VACC Harrier. I did not forget.

If you require real world real CVF testing you will have to wait eh.
______________

Sadly a lot of URL info about SRVLs from the past goes cold. Some old testing graphics / info has been provided in several threads here to my knowledge. Here is a new tidbit about RVL landings (put them on a ship to become SRVL).

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue
“...F-35B (STOVL) FLIGHT SCIENCES AIRCRAFT
For each variant, Flight Sciences aircraft specifically go after flight test data requirements that would not be available in a production configur-ation. Each aircraft has a unique set of instrumentation that has been incorporated throughout the airframe, making them truly one-of-a kind. They were the first to roll off the production line in Fort Worth, and each one is critical to the completion of the flight test program. The Flight Science jets do not have full sensor suites installed and do not run the block software that provides warfighting capabilities for the jet. Recent lines of testing are defined below for each aircraft. The BF-1 team completed loads testing of the new Auxiliary Air Inlet (AAI) door configuration in January 2012 with positive results. BF-1 has continued loads testing with unflared slow landings in STOVL mode....”
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=670 [small pdf]
________________

Even USMC test pilots have been testing SRVLs in the simulator according to this link:

Aviation Week 28 Jul 2008 http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_USMCsimSRVLavweak28jul2008.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/USMCsimSRVLavweak28jul2008.gif.html) Click thumbnail on left

Aviation Week & Space Technology | Aug-04-08 | Inside | Zinio Digital Magazines (http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=284146988&o=int&prev=sub&p=10)
________________________

As has been mentioned earlier this long informative post is worthwhile scrolling down to read here:

Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up JSF carrier integration effort 11 Dec 2008 International Defence Review

Military Nuts -> The F-35 JSF/Lightning II thread (http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120)
___________________________

Scroll down to Rolling Landings here:
"...Rolling Landings
The Lockheed Martin F-35B JSF has a lower payload "bring back" capability when using a vertical landing than the 2300kg that the RN had hoped for - it may therefore be necessary to jettison some unused weapons before landing and with modern weapons being extremely costly this is a significant issue.

In the summer of 2004 the MOD asked BAE Systems to investigate the possibility of ship borne rolling vertical landings (SRVL) - an SRVL approach would exploit the ability of the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B to use vectored thrust to slow the speed of the aircraft while still gaining the benefit of wing-borne lift. This offers the possibility of significantly increasing "bring-back" payload compared with a vertical recovery, while also reducing stress on the single-engined aircraft's propulsion system. Factors to be taken into consideration is the cost, feasibility and underpinning safety case of conducting shipborne rolling vertical landings aboard a CVF, adoption could also drive changes to the carrier design, pilot training regime and JCA flight control laws.

Following the initial UK studies, the American JSF programme office sponsored a more detailed analysis of the SRVL concept with Lockheed in 2004-5, culminating with a simulator trial at NASA's Ames Research Center in California in late 2005.

It was revealed in April 2007 that Qinetiq's VAAC Harrier testbed will be used to demonstrate flight-control limits for a SRVL mode potentially applicable to the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. The VAAC testbed will perform a series of flight trials, potentially using a large-deck aircraft carrier such as the French navy's FNS Charles de Gaulle, and concluding with a final evaluation of a preferred SRVL approach and landing using a "dummy deck" at Boscombe Down around November 2007. An MOD spokesman said "Consideration of the aerodynamic performance of JSF together with the available deck area of CVF design [same page immediately above this quote: "...In July 2007 it was officially stated that the flight deck area for the UK CVF variant was "nearly 13,000 sq m" (slightly less than previous statements had indicated)...] has shown that significant benefits could be realised by extending the principles of land-based RVL to shipborne operations ... the increasing maturity of this body of analysis and simulation indicates SRVL could be performed safely by JSF on CVF, although the effects of equipment failures and adverse conditions require further investigation".

Using SRVL F-35B aircraft would approach the carrier from astern at about 60 knots indicated air speed, 35 knots relative assuming 25 knots wind over deck (the maximum speed of a CVF will be 25 knots, so 25kts WOD is achievable even in dead calm) on a steep 5-6 degree glide path. Touch down would be about 150 feet from the stern with a stopping distance of 300 to 400 feet depending on conditions (wet flight deck, pitching ships etc). That would leave around 300 feet of flight deck for margin or even "bolters".

The SRVL technique has a significant impact on ship designs and aviation operations, Commander Tony Ray told a conference in February 2008 "We expect to trade some STOVL flexibility for increased bring-back and fuel. We have to .. check for for relevant CV criteria that apply to slower SRVL operations. For example flightpath control will be a far more important flight criteria for SRVL than it has been for STOVL. It is a CV trait creeping in"...."
Navy Matters | Future Aircraft Carrier Part 24 (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

No CVF in service yet, but the CVS provides a better representation of shipborne operation that a shore based test site. A Harrier can simulate an approaching F-35B, either by making an approach at 60 knots, or a normal vertical landing approach.

Presumably Queen Elizabeth will have to embark someone's jets to conduct first of class flying trials?

I still think the issues relating to personnel and skills are causing bigger headaches though.

[SpazSinbad]

A GLOBAL FORCE 2012/13
The Fleet Air Arm Message from Rear Admiral Russ Harding OBE, Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Aviation and Carriers)
"...Looking further out into the future, the FAA is preparing itself for the introduction of the two new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers that will come into service at the end of the decade. Despite the withdrawal of the Harrier and the disbandment of the Naval Strike Wing, there has been no break in fixed-wing pilot recruitment and training. A small number of RN pilots are flying F-18 Hornets operationally with the US Navy. Personnel are also heavily engaged in the F-35B Lightning II programme with RN pilots and maintainers in the first training unit, VMFAT-501, at Eglin Air Force Base. Together, the RN and RAF have developed a comprehensive plan for the introduction of the Lightning II. We are standing up F-35B maintenance units from both the RAF and RN. Some of these men and women have transferred to a US-based training establishment which may be there for up to six years before transferring back to the UK. In addition, we are now in the process of setting up the test and evaluation squadron to be followed by the UK Operational Conversion Unit...."
&
Introducing the Queen Elizabeth class with its Lightning II F-35Bs Martin Temperley
"HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH and her sister ship PRINCE OF WALES are the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy. The first ship, QUEEN ELIZABETH, a 65,000-ton super carrier, is scheduled to enter the water in 2014. Equipped with F-35B Lightning II multi-role jets and Merlin helicopters, the carriers will also be capable of operating British Army Apache and Royal Air force Chinook helicopters. The first ship is scheduled Introducing the Queen Elizabeth class with its Lightning II F-35Bs to be handed over to the Royal Navy in 2016. At sites in the United Kingdom and United States, preparations are well under way for the introduction of the F-35B, while the carrier’s procedures are also being perfected....

...PREPARING FOR THE CARRIERS
One of the first steps in preparing for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers has been the opening in 2012 of an engineering development facility for the mission system, which is the carrier’s nerve centre. It combines systems for air-traffic control, navigation, tactical picture compilation, communications and mission planning for the F-35 fighters and for the Merlin helicopters. This facility, at shore base HMS COLLINGWOOD in Hampshire, is completing engineering tests and trials using the same equipment that will be fitted to QUEEN ELIZABETH in Rosyth, Scotland. One of the ship’s unique features is two, instead of one, ‘island‘ superstructures on the flight deck, and the mission system will occupy the rearmost island, which is devoted to flying operations.

Being located in HMS COLLINGWOOD, it allows Royal Navy trainees to take part in large-scale trials from the start. The Royal Navy says: “By manning every Operations Room position with Royal Navy personnel ensures the equipment can be tested and loaded to its full capacity – something that has never been done before with previous mission systems.”

The first classes of UK maintenance personnel to work with the F-35B have completed courses at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, and one pilot each from the Royal Navy and RAF started instructor pilot training on the F-35B in late 2012, making them the first international instructors trained on the fighter.

Even after the ending of the Joint Harrier force in January 2011, when the Royal Navy’s 800 Naval Air Squadron disbanded, the Fleet Air Arm kept a core of almost 40 fixed-wing pilots, several of whom have been assigned to training programmes with the US Navy and are keeping their skills sharp by flying the F/A-18C Super Hornet fighter. Some of those pilots will go on to fly the F-35B, and more pilots will be recruited.

Royal Navy maintainers began training on the F-35B at the Academic Training Center at Eglin in July 2012. When the F-35B is operated from the new carrier, Royal Navy personnel in the trade of Air Engineering Technician will be in the ship to look after the aircraft. This trade covers mechanical, electrical, avionics or weapons specialities. Trade courses on the F-35, which are first a matter of ‘instructing the instructors’, are being steadily stepped up during 2013.

The ship’s company has already started to assemble, with a team of eight Royal Navy personnel wearing the cap tally ‘Queen Elizabeth’ working with the Aircraft Carrier Alliance shipbuilders at Rosyth since 2012. They are developing operating procedures and routines in advance of when the ship is handed over, which is scheduled for 2016.

The second ship in class is HMS PRINCE OF WALES, now under construction and scheduled to be commissioned in 2018. Before then, in 2015, further orders for the F-35B are expected to follow the 48 currently in the programme, and the UK’s supercarrier force will rapidly become operational. The F-35B will provide a faster route to carrier operational capability than the conventional take-off and landing F-35C, which was once schemed. These would have required catapults and arrestor wires to be fitted to the carrier, delaying its entry into service."
&
Carrier strike Nick Childs
"...Another significant milestone occurred in October, when the first members of the ship’s company of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH arrived in Rosyth. The eight crew members were led by Captain Simon Petitt. It is expected that, by the end of 2013, that this number will have grown to between 75 and 80 people. It will be the job of Captain Petitt and his growing team to learn about the ship and her technology, and to write the operating policy and procedures that will enable her to come into service in 2020....

...F-35B DELIVERIES BEGIN
Also significant was the delivery of Britain’s first F-35B, in a ceremony in Fort Worth, Texas, in July – an event that was attended attended by Philip Hammond. Despite the U-turn on the F-35 variant, the US Navy has stuck to its offer to provide pilot training and other carrier crew opportunities, so that the British can maintain carrier-operating skills. The French Navy will also offer what assistance it can from its own carrier capability.

Yet, with Britain for the moment still committed to buying only 48 F-35s initially, in a joint project with both the RN and the RAF, debate continued behind the scenes over operational issues. How many jets would normally be based at sea, and in what circumstances? Hammond appeared to settle that argument at the beginning of November. In a speech in London he declared that, “when deployed outside home waters, the new carrier will routinely have Lightning II jets embarked with personnel from both services”. He also confirmed that the normal number of jets would be 12, but with the ability to surge when necessary, and the QE class will be able to accommodate up to 36 F-35s.

Hammond also gave the strongest hint to date that the RN would keep both carriers available for operations. The cost of maintenance and a skeleton crew for the second ship would be, he said, a “modest” £70m. In his opinion, that was “an extremely good investment” to have a continuous carrier capability and the ability, “in extremis”, to surge to two carriers at a time of tension. For the RN, that would clearly be a tantalising prospect. But it is beginning to take on a tangible shape."
&
F-35 Lightning II: plan B up and running Peter Grant
"...Once the first UK pilots have completed their training at Eglin, which began on 19 March 2013, they will be used as instructor pilots to train USMC colleagues, gaining experience and knowledge of the F-35 before undertaking Operational Test on a joint operational unit from mid 2014. Beyond Operational Test, the UK’s first operational squadron will form in the US from 2016 as part of a joint effort with the USMC, transitioning back to the UK in 2018. To be RAF Marham in Morfolk, it will work up as an independent unit aiming to attain a land-based Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by the end of 2018, which matches the arrival of the first of the new aircraft carriers, HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH, when embarked flying trials will get under way. It is planned to reach maritime IOC by 2020.

Speaking to Global Reach, Commodore Rick Thompson RN, head of the JCA Lighting Project Team at the MoD, was enthusiastic over not just the capability that Lightning II will bring to the UK, but also the joint nature in which it has been procured and is being introduced into service thus far. “The success of this small team spread across the US and UK is its truly Joint nature, delivering the OT aircraft on time and within budget,” he said. “It is impressive what can be achieved when you have a single joint vision with Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and US Marine Corps pilots, maintainers and logisticians all working together in a ‘purple’ environment to deliver a common, world-beating capability.”

The F-35, Thompson said, “is capable, survivable and based on commonality across all three variants to ensure affordability. It will contribute to the widest range of operational roles, ashore and afloat, and has been optimised for expeditionary warfare.”
Global Force 2013 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/156586800/Global-Force-2013) (PDF 11Mb)

[WhiteOvies]

Spaz,

Some RN and RAF F-35 maintainers have already been hands-on with the F-35B for nearly 5 years during the build and developmental test process. They are subject matter experts and will be the experienced core of 17(R) Sqn at Edwards.

Our relationship with the US on F-35, Reaper, P-8 Seedcorn and Airseeker, as well as all the usual exchanges means that a tour or two in the US is a real possibility for many personnel. It makes a lot of sense to keep the experience where it's needed.

[SpazSinbad]

'WEBF' asked about 'who's on first'? Answers below on the back of a napkin...

F35 News 28 July 2013 by Think Defence
“Senior British military officials confirmed that the UK will conduct shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) trials on the F-35B version of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II stealth combat jet. The SRVL technique would allow the aircraft to land at higher weights than is currently possible in the VTOL mode. The officials said they are satisfied that the F-35B could bring back the internal weapons load that is initially planned, comprising–in the UK case–two AMRAAM air-air missiles and two Paveway IV smart bombs weighing some 5,000 pounds. But, one added, when high temperature and/or low pressure conditions prevail–such as in the Gulf of Oman–it would be prudent to achieve another 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of bring-back weight, for either fuel or weapons, especially since the F-35 will be able to carry additional weapons on wing pylons, when stealth is not a requirement....”
F35 News | Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/07/f35-news-2/)
OR
UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight 05 Jul 2013 AIN Defense Perspective
"...The UK will formally decide later this year on a further purchase of F-35s, beyond the three already acquired (at a cost of $350 million) for test and evaluation (T&E). The number under consideration is believed to be 15, enough to equip an initial operational squadron. Another 30 are likely to be approved before 2015, when another British defense review will consider how many more F-35s the country can afford. Until then, the officials maintained, the UK “program of record” remains a total of 138 F-35s. Most observers believe that the UK will not acquire more than 100 F-35s, and some suggest the final total might be as low as 70.

The officials revealed that the UK will work closely with the U.S. Marine Corps to bring its F-35Bs into operational service. After it is formed in 2016, the first British squadron will be based at MCAS Yuma and integrated with the co-located USMC F-35B fleet. Pilots of both services will be able to fly the others’ aircraft. The squadron will relocate to RAF Marham in the UK in early 2018 and be ready for combat from land bases by the end of that year.

Meanwhile, the UK’s three T&E jets will embark on the new Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier for trials in the same year."
UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-07-05/uk-will-try-boost-f-35b-landing-weight)

[SpazSinbad]

Just like riding an Ike... Navy News July 2013
"...Thanks to an agreement with Washington - the US-UK Long Lead Specialist Skills Programme - a kernel of around 300 personnel from both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force will be trained aboard American warships until the end of the decade.

Since the beginning of 2013, RN personnel have been serving with the assault ship USS Kearsarge and the Eisenhower. This month an eight-strong group of Brits joins USS Harry S Truman....

..."It is important that we learn about using these large flight decks," he [CPO Gager] added"
201307 Navy News Jul 13 (http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2bff2/201307NavyNewsJul13/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl)= http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_RNdirectorEisenhowerCVN.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/RNdirectorEisenhowerCVN.jpg.html)

[WhiteOvies]

Getting back towards the thread I wonder if Sharky's views would change if he were to visit Eglin or Pax River and see what the UK is up to with regards F-35 first hand?

[lmgaylard]

Hello all.

I think this is the 1st actual post I have made on PPrune, so please be gentle with this little civvie....:)

I would like to say that I am regularly in contact with Cdr Ward and in my dealings with him he has been a delight. Very helpful, polite and informative.
I think you will find that Cdr Ward has indeed visited some of the FAA guys in the US, as some of them served alongside his son Kris.

I recently wrote an article for Airforces Monthly with a lot of the current FAA chaps in the US. To the best of my knowledge there is now around 20 FAA aircrew serving within various USN squadrons and Carrier Air Wings.
There is now, AFAIK, 3 FAA instructors permanently based at NAS Meridian, this where the UK pilots start their conversion to USN carrier-based aircraft.
I believe, from independent sources in the US, that the RAF 'Flyers' are somewhat lagging behind compared to the FAA chaps with regards to carrier-ops. For this I can only assume that the USN are looking towards the RN for their Carrier experience;)

I would like to just add that for anyone thinking that the RAF can easily undertake carrier ops, so negate the need for fixed-wing FAA, then I will say that they had better 'up their game' because if the RAFs performance in last years 'Cougar 12' exercise is a representation of how they will conduct 'Maritime' ops then we are in trouble......

Be gentle.....:):)

Edit; actually this is my 3rd post......but still be gentle...:)

[[email protected]]

Your blatant anti-RAF comments clearly mean you are the man himself because you just couldn't resist taking a swipe.

[Sun Who]

IMGAYLARD said if the RAFs performance in last years 'Cougar 12' exercise is a representation of how they will conduct 'Maritime' ops then we are in trouble......What was the RAF's contribution to Cougar 12?
To the best of my knowledge the only Air contribution was:


4 x Sea King Mk4 helicopters from 845 NAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/845_Naval_Air_Squadron), Joint Helicopter Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Helicopter_Command)
3 x Lynx AH7 helicopters from 847 NAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/847_Naval_Air_Squadron), Joint Helicopter Command
3 x Apache (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_Apache) AH 1 helicopters from 656 Sqn AAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._656_Squadron_AAC), Joint Helicopter Command
2 x Lynx Mk8 helicopters from 815 NAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/815_Naval_Air_Squadron)
2 x Sea King Mk7 ASaC helicopters from 854 NAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/857_Naval_Air_Squadron)

Also, having a view on any RAF contribution to Cougar 12 is, of course, your prerogative, but it would help the readership of this forum assess the value of your contribution, if you said a little about the perspective from which you formed that view, and your provenance for doing so in a credible fashion.


Regards,


Sun.

[alfred_the_great]

And having spoken to a RN FA-18 Pilot, who had experience on the JFH on Ships and in Afg, he expressed a completely different view about his RAF oppo's. I know who I trust....

[Milo Minderbinder]

Sun Who

I think Mr Gaylards point about Cougar 12 is that the RAF weren't there at all.....not even an E3 giving overhead cover


As for asking his provenance, I don't know him, but given that Gaylard is a very old real Somerset name I strongly suspect that he's one of the few posters here who is using his real identity. Should be easy for you to check out given his comments about publishing in Airforces Monthly

[Sun Who]

Milo,

Both fair points, although I don't interpret they had better 'up their game' as simply an observation that the RAF weren't there. I guess the poster has an opportunity to clarify his point.
Wrt the posters identity, I was working on the assumption that their first initial is L. He can deny, confirm or otherwise at his leisure (or possibly her leisure if my assumption is wrong) should they choose to post again and expand their observation.

Yours,

Sun.

[FODPlod]

WYSIWYG. Aviation writer Lewis Gaylard (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Lewis+Gaylard%22) fits the bill.

[MSOCS]

Mr Gaylard,

I understand you are a self-confessed Naval Aviation journalist and therefore you write with bias. This is evident from your last post so I shall refrain from 'biting' too much...

The RN does indeed have a significantly higher footprint in the US currently flying on or training to fly on large decks - if they didn't the FW aspect of the FAA would now certainly be almost gone if not completely gone. I respect the Naval Service's approach to maintaining the history, sacrifice and tradition of the FAA and doing its very utmost to preserve it for the future and for F-35B. You do, however, do yourself a disservice by intimating that the RAF had 'better up their game'. Why? Because it continues to fuel the fire that has plagued Pprune for nearly 200 pages on another thread (F-35...) and, frankly, second hand opinions from single sources don't reflect the complete truth. IF the RAF have a long way to go on developing maritime TTPs then I'm sure it will be done in a collaborative way with the SMEs - I'll tell you as a light blue pilot that yes, we have much fewer SMEs flying from US large decks but they are there as seed corn for F-35. We cannot put more out there as the money doesn't exist to do so but mainly because we have 2 other Front Line types to 'man' until F-35 comes into service; one is engaged on permanent ops and has been since 1991; the other is expanding rapidly as a multi-role force to be reckoned with.

When the time is right you'll find the RAF will expand its experience accordingly, will unlikely try to throw around its weight and will learn to conduct blue water carrier-enabled ops in collaboration with its RN brothers and sisters. Politics aside, I enjoyed my own time aboard immensely and had (and still have) a deep and profound respect for my SHar colleagues at sea and in the desert on GR9 when we were there.

I'll respectfully suggest to you that a few comments based on one particular Ex that you probably didn't observe first-hand is no evidence base to inflame a debate that should just go away.

[Clockwork Mouse]

I cannot see that Mr Gaylard has posted anything particularly inflamatory. It is the acute sensitivity of the boys in light blue to even the slightest hint of criticism that is apparent. And of course any reference to the dreaded bearded ace can be guaranteed to set the wings flapping!

[Sun Who]

I agree. Mr Gaylard, if 'tis indeed he, has done nothing wrong and said nothing inflammatory, it would just be helpful to understand why he thinks the RAF need to 'up their game'.

Sun.

[Navaleye]

According to the Express anyway.

Jet fighter threat to the Falkland Islands | World | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/419522/Jet-fighter-threat-to-the-Falkland-Islands)

Seems a logical extension from their Mirage III experience.

Luckily our new carriers are over 70,000 tons

Progress being made but uncertainties remain (http://www.rina.org.uk/article1258.html)

[lmgaylard]

Dear all.

I am indeed Lewis Gaylard, middle initial M for Mark. Don't worry, I have had others ask if 'Gaylard' is a real name....:D

I certainly don't think I was inflammatory in the comments I made, I certainly did not intend to offend anyone.

My remarks concerning 'Cougar 12' was based on info I had been given, but not allowed to use, for a different magazine article.

When 'Cougar 12' was in the 'Work-up' phase off Plymouth Sound RAF Chinooks turned up 2 days late citing 'Bad Weather'.....later during the 'Corsican Lion' and 'Albanian Lion' phases the same RAF Chinooks refused to embark to HMS Illustrious or HMS Bulwark, again citing bad weather. I understand that an order from above was given so the said Chinooks eventually embarked. Bare in mind that while the Chinooks were not present the combined helicopters of the FAA and AAC were all operating as normal.
So this is where I based my 'Up their game' comment.
And before you ask, the info I received came from within the RAF not from a biased naval/army source.

I hope this clarifies things....:ok:

[Sun Who]

Thanks Lewis (feels wrong using a 'real' name on the Prune).

Interesting. This is one of those situations when only having all the info will do.

What was the weather between the departure point of the Chinooks, and the fleet? Was it the same as the weather between the RN helos and the fleet?

What was the experience level of the RAF crews? Just because the crews in question may not have had the necessary SQEP to 'make it through the murk' doesn't mean the entire Chinook force can't.

I'm sure there are reasons, related to weather and experience, that might have precluded the Chinooks embarking/playing but I think just these few suggest that, without all the info, opinions are just hearsay.

Having been involved with RAF embarked helo ops, as aircrew, I find it unlikely (although not impossible) that skills have degraded so significantly, and even more unlikely, that the Chinook force (in particular) would 'roll over' because of a bit of clag.

Yours in aviation:)

Sun.

[Not_a_boffin]

What was the experience level of the RAF crews? Just because the crews in question may not have had the necessary SQEP to 'make it through the murk' doesn't mean the entire Chinook force can't.

No it doesn't. However, one might have thought that sufficiently qualified crews would be tagged for that high-profile deployment - it's not like it suddenly popped up demanding bodies unexpectedly - in which case pre-deployment planning should have included a deck qual phase in all weathers up to the limits allowed in BR766 and the AP and if that got scrubbed, then a plan B put in place, prior to trying to deploy cabs/crews to theatre.

As you rightly suggest this is a case of hearsay - we do not know all the facts. It does however, illustrate the potential limitations of a "part-time" capability - even allowing for the Chinook commitment to Herrick - that makes retention of a naval air arm essential. A few years ago I was at SHFHQ for a meeting on embarking cabs aboard ships and was a little surprised to hear the guys with embarked experience professing absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what BR766 was or what it contained. Given that it is the basic handbook for embarked ops and has contained specific annexes on operating Chinook aboard ship since at least 2000, I was a tad concerned.

[Sun Who]

Not a Boffin said:
However, one might have thought that sufficiently qualified crews would be tagged for that high-profile deployment - it's not like it suddenly popped up demanding bodies unexpectedly - in which case pre-deployment planning should have included a deck qual phase in all weathers up to the limits allowed in BR766 and the AP and if that got scrubbed, then a plan B put in place, prior to trying to deploy cabs/crews to theatre.

You make a fair point sir. If the Chinook Force had the time and capacity to conduct an appropriate work up for Cougar 12, and yet failed to do so, then that would be disappointing. I for one will never know if that was the case, or whether there was another reason for their reported failure to embark.

Sun.

[MG]

You're assuming that Odiham actually planned anything! A big assumption!

[Marcantilan]

According to the Express anyway.

Jet fighter threat to the Falkland Islands | World | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/419522/Jet-fighter-threat-to-the-Falkland-Islands)

Seems a logical extension from their Mirage III experience.

Luckily our new carriers are over 70,000 tons

Progress being made but uncertainties remain (http://www.rina.org.uk/article1258.html)

Yep, a big threat. We are worried that some airman could cut himself with the rusty airframes and end with tetanus.

[Martin the Martian]

Great reporting by the Express. Only two RAF Typhoons in the Falklands, apparently.

[Milo Minderbinder]

A couple of papers have said that recently......Mail yesterday and one other

[Coochycool]

Sadly sometimes true. Other members will know better than me that on at least one occasion a brace of FI Typhoons has scrambled with the tanker in tow, only to find MPA below minimums for a return. Leaving them forced to ask would the Argies mind very much if we overflew to land somewhere more friendly! Nothing like advertising the fact. Argie SF on standby for just such a recurrence one might imagine, scratch the remaining 2 Typhoons, game over. Feel free to point out any glaring anomolies/ paranoia/ painful truth in this statement

[orca]

So, paraphrasing a little bit, what we have in the Falkland Islands can guard against Argentine conquest, but were we to remove a pair of aircraft from the orbat they would waltz on in?

Golly this Typhoon thing must be good.

[orca]

Incidentally, I am not sure what the actual upshot of Mr Gaylard's point is. The very existence within JHC of CHF is somewhat fundamental proof that the powers that be accept that aviation in the maritime is an area which requires its own experts. Any suggestion that a RAF crew, collection of crews or hierarchy felt the same is laudable.

As MSOCS points out the RAF JFH chaps did admirably when 'plugged into' the supervisory 'socket' that a career in the maritime provides.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

One of the problem is that the commitments of the last decade have reduced the familiarity of Junglies to the shipborne environment, and many younger Royal Marines see their Corps as a light brigade instead of a specialist amphibious force.

Since we are talking about aircraft/ship operations, we should focus not just on those who operate the aircraft but also those aboard the ship. Part time aviation means they may well lose those skills. Ships also lose familiarity with aircraft.

It seems odd that many have gone from training and preparing to fight at sea, or from the sea, to forgetting about the sea...

Twenty years ago the RN was heavily committed to operations in the Adriatic. For several years we had a CVS deployed, placing huge strains on the ships' crews, and the various FAA squadrons. It looked like post Cold War the carrier would be more in demand - which was the case throughout the 90s (and into 2000/2001) (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-10.html#post6145055). This was later recognised by SDR 98.

Ignoring exercises, show the flag activities, and SAR operations.....

For a large part of the 1990s, the main UK military effort was in Bosnia. A carrier was deployed continuously in the Adriatic for those years, with both Sea Harriers and Sea Kings doing all sorts of stuff, including enforcing the no fly zone over Bosnia, doing reece, and ground attack - the Sea Harrier participated in NATO air attacks against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. On here, many have been dismissive of the small number of aircraft (six Sea Jets) embarked, but turn a blind eye to the fact that the RAF contributions ashore had similar numbers of aircaft, but without the mobility or swing role. The embarked ASW and AEW Sea Kings also contributed to operations. Remember, Yugoslavia did have an air force and a navy.

In the late 90s carriers took part in various other activities, including helping police the no fly zone over Southern Iraq and at least a couple of stand offs with Saddam Hussein. I think that RAF Harrier GR7s were embarked for the first time during one of these crises, hence the inclusion of the Joint Force Harrier concept in the 1998 SDR. After Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, HMS Invincible was sent to the Arabian Gulf as (so the media said) there was a missile threat to the RAF base in Kuwait and the UK wanted another option. On her way back to the UK, Invincible got diverted to the Adriatic to participate in the Kosovo operations.

In 2000, the UK intervention in Sierra Leone involved HMS Illustrious with both types of Harrier embarked, a fact that may not have registered with the UK commander ashore, Brigadier David Richards (now a Knight, a General, and CDS). The political and psychological messages sent by deploying large warships close to land should also be remembered, as well as constant presence, large numbers of helicopters, command and control facilities, medical facilities, and others. I seem to remember that Illustrious made a high speed dash across the Atlantic, but had to wait for the slower Ocean to catch up.

In 2001, Illustrious once again deployed with both Harrier types embarked, for the SAIF SARREA II exercise in Oman. Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, she was retasked to act as a helicopter carrier (Ocean needed to return to the UK for maintenance) and disembarked her fixed wing aircraft (and grey Sea Kings?). No land based UK fast jets took part in the initial strikes against the Taliban either, although submarines did.

In 2003, Ark Royal acted as a LPH for the invasion of Iraq. The Iraqi air force was mostly dead and burried after over a decade of sanctions and a no fly zone, and Kuwaiti/Bahraini/Qatari airbses were used by the US/UK/Australians. Not that that stopped the US Navy from deploying FIVE carriers.

Since then, our main military involvement has been Iraq and Afghanistan. Apart from the lack of an opponent with an air force or navy, they both lack any length of coastline, Afghanistan being land locked, Iraq having only a tiny coastline - not that this prevents carrier based aircraft operating in both places. Yet we seem to have fallen into a trap, with many believing that:

a)All future operations will be in land locked places.
b)There will never be an enemy navy or air force to worry about.

So what went wrong? Was it that the assets were placed under the control of people who were not committed to naval operations, who turned he capability into a part time one?

[orca]

Don't tell anyone old chap but we're getting two massive carriers and an aircraft specifically bought for Maritime Strike.

The RAF is down to two fast jet types, of which one is going, it's handing its Merlin's to the RN. The RN are also getting Wildcat and are somewhere in amongst a ASW Merlin upgrade.

Best keep it all a secret for now, but at some point we might have to re-role the Fleet Air Arm from 'eternally put upon under dog' to 'not actually badly off considering'.

Mum's the word eh?

[MSOCS]

Again, the RN continues to hold my admiration for looking at the generation of big deck experience now; not in a few years, but right now. Their approach is consistent and the concept has thought and rigour attached to it - tip top! I'm not saying that the RAF isn't planning for F-35 btw (quite the opposite!) however, the preparation for maritime F-35 operations is quite rightly being led and owned by the FAA because the light blue doesn't have the capacity or expertise to do this right now imho.

Instead, it's much better to 'plug' into the 'socket' of maritime once we've:

a) produced the F-35 super base (Marham) and,
b) sorted out all the niggles associated with introducing a new type and generation of combat aircraft into service.

By that I mean training, equipping and forming a Squadron; transitioning that Squadron to the UK; proving that we can sustain it at range from the Prime (LM) and, finally, operating efficiently and effectively as a Combat Ready Lightning force.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

orca

Actually I was thinking of one of your posts (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-3.html#post7906107):

Let's have flexible forces? Couldn't agree more. Joint forces? Don't believe in them anymore myself. So which would you rather have and which is safer to assure? Maritime specialists who occasionally turn the anti skid on and operate from land or land based chaps who occasionally go to the boat? Why not copy JHC exactly and have the FAA FW as a self governing entity?

[orca]

Thank you for finding that and bringing it back to everyone's attention old scout. Truly I possess a dizzying intellect.;)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

MSOCS

Is the key thing that the (US) decks are big, or the fact that they actually have fixed wing aircraft embarked? Did pre SDSR plans involve sending aircraft handlers on exchange?

[AndyPandy068]

WEB you're academic. You have no real world experience.

[Sun Who]

Andy P,

Your point is ad hominem:

"an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument."

Play the ball, not the man. You're only one step up from name calling (according to the academics);).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg.png

[AutoBit]

Long Lead Specialist Skills involves everyone associated with the ship. Deck hands, engineers, ATC, Ships Command team (CO, XO, Navs etc).

Those of us that do this game know that the aircrew are only a very small part of the big picture. It's a team effort that requires practice and skill from all involved.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

AutoBit

Exactly! The problem is integration.

AndyP

Sadly I am not bright enough to be an academic! I think the people quoted below have plenty of real world experience!

WhiteOvies (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7909736):

The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC.

orca (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7910075):

All we need to see is a signed document from CAS saying that he will embark his jets as soon as the CO indicates his ship is ready in all respects to conduct aviation.

The second sentence will indicate that he will disembark them only when the Air Management Organisation is fully up to speed, the Air Group is fulfilling ATO tasking, the Air Weapon supply team have produced weapons to surge capacity and these have been loaded on jets and dropped, the Yellow Coats can marshal, chain and chock a fourship in all weathers, whilst another fourship is taxying for take off. The jets will remain embarked until every Fighter Controller in the fleet has worked a fourship through Red Crown procedures and the JFACCHQ have established resilient comms for a week or two and Flyco have exercised being b#ggered about from dawn to dusk. Repeat all for night ops. When all this is crimped the TG in its entirety will take part in a COMAO based exercise of Neptune Warrior type scope and we'll call it good.

The third sentence will indicate that the jets will be back as soon as any of the above notice any degree of skill fade and the process will start again.

Bismark (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6022717):

As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).

Bismark (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-2.html#post6024550):

But what is missing in 2020 is the crews on the ships with any experience of aviation - from the CO downwards....I am sure the MAA will have something to say about that, indeed I wonder whether they are doing anything about it at the moment?

Not a boffin (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-4.html#post6029196):

I'd put a fair bit of money that the guys who've done exchange tours have not done time in CATCC, Wings / Little F (Air & mini-boss in USN), handlers office or the squadron engineering and logs posts.

While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.


As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!

From my first post on the Harrier thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131), I have been worried by the lack of systems thinking, and the number of people who forget that the problem is not really individual skills, or groups of individuals, it is how all these efforts are integrated.

How will we maintain the skills of flight deck crews, planners, met types, FC and ATC types, and so on? What about the teamwork needed throughout the ship, from the bridge to the Operations Room to the Ship Control Centre?

Prior to SDSR, the plan was to embark more Harriers aboard the CVS, for longer periods, and more often. This was intended to recover from skill fade during the period the Harriers were committed to Afghanistan, and to prepare for CVF. The fact that a CVS deck ws/is that much smaller than the CVF one will be was neither here nor there - and one could argue that operating the same number of aircraft from a smaller deck demands more skill.

Sending people on exchange is good, but when they return from exchange, how will they practise those skills? Will the entire flight deck party have spent time on exchange? Will the entire range of personnel involved, a future OOW for instance, have had the opportunity to practise working with embarked fixed wing aircraft? How do you provide the ship's company with basic things like awareness of FOD (more of a problem with fixed wing aircraft), jet blast (F-35B will produce more than Harrier), or perhaps Flyco and the OOW working together to ensure that the ship is on the right bearing at the right speed to recover the jets?

[alfred_the_great]

WEBF - you seem to think we've stopped doing flying full-stop. I've been an OOW for a FW Flying (F/A-2 natch), and it's not that different to getting the wind in the SHOL for a helicopter.

As for discrete individuals, they're all on LLSS time, and will come together to learn as a team in QNLZ, trained by a whole variety of organisations.

Whilst I am not necessarily the greatest fan of the RN's processes, the amount of credible effort that is being put into making this a success is re-assuring.

as an NB, there are some poor Pilot Officers who are learning to become Fish-heads; bet they didn't expect that when they walked into the Career's Office.....

[SpazSinbad]

A bit of nostalgia for 'WEBF'. I recall reading about RN pilots in this era carrying out their first deck landings after flying some distance (to Far East for example) to join their carrier and carry on from there.

[RN] NAVY NEWS August 2013 page 27
"Carrier crossings
READING my copy of the 'Dockyard Dandy' dated July 2013 gave me cause to recall my days in the Fleet Air Arm (1957-67).

I read with great interest, 'Just like riding an Ike'. It may well be the first time 'Jack' has performed as an aircraft director on a super carrier, but not the first time on any carrier.

While in both Hermes and Victorious we cross-operated with the Forrestal and Saratoga (US Sixth Fleet) off Naples. The squadron spent a week on board the American carriers which were the super carriers of their day (60,000 tons).

I presume the cats and traps are what we would have known as catapults and arrester gear.

It is interesting to note the exam and qualification required for such duties, something far removed from my day. When you joined a ship you were thrown into the deep end with dummy runs, using Lansing Bagnalls and Tugmasters to simulate aircraft movements.

The first time we got involved on a live deck was when the aircraft flew on, and the experience was carried through to night flying.

All of this will no doubt appear primitive in comparison with this day and age, however it is well documented that we were the world leaders in operating the deck of a light fleet carrier.

In all my experience of cross-operating we always achieved a greater number of launches and recoveries than other navies including the Yanks, and always had a higher serviceability record.

I wonder if today an EMA would be allowed to operate the crane (jumbo) when duty crash crew?
- Jim 'Paddy' Stroud"
201308 Navy News Aug 13 (http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2dq2s/201308NavyNewsAug13/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl)=

[WE Branch Fanatic]

a_t_g

But if the glass is half full, it is also half empty. As you know I have quite a few reasons for being a member of the glass half empty school of thought. If it is half empty, where did the missing half go?

Anyway, I think that we have been around this buoy before. In fact quite a few times. See this thread from back in 2006, not long after SHAR was retired:

Harrier Carrier Currency (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/226444-harrier-carrier-currency.html)

... if we want to tell MPs that we have a carrier ready to go that means getting the whole ship working to recover and throw off jets. That means the MCO getting the ATO, the stokers getting the donks up to ramming speed, the briefo's being ready on time, the tractor drivers getting the strike ready at the back having seen them all taxy into the grave yard......

It is not just about being a monkey on a stick, it is about the whole ship's team also training and getting used to handling sometimes up to 17 jets in a limited space without killing anyone or damaging anything. It takes at least 10 days to build up the trust between crew and aircrew so that when the s**t hits the fan, you know that you can rely on the guy/girl on the deck or that voice on the radio.Those who fly from ships, RN, Marine, Army or RAF have my utmost respect gained from watching many of them over the last 20 years, put their faith in the equipment and team around them.

I wholeheartedly agree with both you and Orca though, that it takes a lot of work to get the boys and girls who operate the ship, from the stokers to the deck handlers, up to speed and working as a fully integrated team. So I would suggest that the RN requirement is somewhat driven from that side of things rather than what the pilot has to do/practise.

I think that if the guys quoted here and in my previous post think there are unresolved issues, I believe them. Hopefully these issues are being gripped, maybe behind the scenes....?

[Courtney Mil]

Half-full is about standard for a lot of military capabilities these days. Doesn't sound like there is too much to complain about, especially as there clearly is a plan: do nothing until the hardware is about to be delivered (really delivered, not just promised) and then start to worry about all the skills and personnel that they should have thought of years earlier; rapid work-up and training programme; delay to declaring IOC because of that (and numerous other issues); eventually someone posts some video on PPRuNe of the new jet doing a couple of launches from and recoveries to the new deck; everything declared OK. :D

You can stop fussing now.

[alfred_the_great]

WEBF - some (most?) of those skills are flying skills, regardless of RW or FW. We are continuing 'big deck' flying through to the introduction of QE, so there will be a core of people who know how to strip an ATO etc etc. In some ways (from my small big deck experience) getting lots of RW off the deck is harder than FW flying; the latter is all about getting it into 1 SHOL, the former can involve juggling lots of SHOLs.

Will it be easy and painless - of course not. Will there some lessons to (re)learn - of course. Can we do it - I think so.

[glojo]

I’m afraid I am someone that does not suffer fools gladly and would it be fair to suggest this might be the case with Commander Ward? My thoughts are did this man set the bar at a very high standard both for himself and those that served alongside him.
I keep hearing how this person has a hatred for those of a light blue persuasion but is that a fair observation? My old boss was disliked by the great majority of senior officers or those who we call flag rank and why was this? Simply because he called a spade a spade and never beat about the bush and when trying to get his point across he never pulled his punches. Sadly that meant he never reached the heights he so rightly deserved but those that served under him would go to hell and back for this man.
Was Douglas Bader a person held in the highest of regard by his senior officers, or is it a case of perhaps cometh the hour, cometh the man
Getting back to Commander Ward, if he disliked RAF pilots as much as some folks allege, then can they explain why he had an RAF pilot as his squadron’s QFI? My own thoughts are that he decided this was the best pilot for the job and never gave it a second thought regarding cut of the cloth. He simply wanted the best person for the job, but never let common sense get in the way of a good old fashioned rant.
If we were in charge of deciding what is the better type aircraft for purely land based operations and the choice was between the Tornado or Harrier, then what aircraft would we choose?
Who decided to give the RAF the ownership of the Harrier force? Had a number of commanding officers that lost their ships during the Falklands campaign become flag officers by the time this decision was made?
If the answer is yes then what did these admirals do to keep their fast jets? If they felt so passionately about this issue then should they have made a stance? Is it fair to put all the blame into the laps of the light blue?
I would have expected the First Sea Lord to have dug his heels in regarding marine strike capability, we are a small island dependant on keeping the sea lanes open come hell or high water. In this modern age is a Navy without top cover simply a bunch of floating targets waiting to be sunk?
Only a fool would believe any claim that land based aircraft would always be available to protect the fleet. That type of claim is best left to the gin and tonic brigade that like to talk a good fight as opposed to fight the good fight.
Do we pick the location of the fight or do we deploy to where we need to fight? To believe a land based force would choose to keep the harrier instead of a better type of aircraft is possibly bad judgemment and to cry foul after the expected happened could be seen as sour grapes? (question)
Just me asking a few questions and is this a better tempered thread than most that talk about this retired senior Naval officer?

Best wishes one and all
John

[AutoBit]

Glojo,

Interesting post and you raise some good points, but its worth considering why these Admirals didn't dig their heels in. Pull up a sandbag...dit on.

Late 90's RAF GR7's and FAA FA2's in the gulf flying Northern Watch missions. AMRAAM FA2 providing escort for LGB equipped GR's. Quite a nice little package and also fits the RN's desire to move the CVS away from ASW and more towards a 'Strike Carrier'. Some bright spark says 'Why dont we combine the two fleets into a single force?' Enter the birth of JF2000. Only problem here we are told is that you cant really have two separate C2 organisations, so why dont we txfer control of the Force to the RAF.

Few raised eyebrows from the RN, but dont worry, we'll make a dedicated Maritime Group (3 Gp) that, although part of Strike, will be commanded by an RN 2* who will also have control of all maritime air assists i.e. Nimrod and SAR as well. Sounds reasonable?

3Gp formed and all is looking rosey, but now we're told that there isn't enough money to keep the FA2 going and the GR. Lets scrap the FA2 but use the money saved to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 with 107 engines (ideal for hot weather CVS Ops). Again a few raised eyebrows but OK. It makes sense. Now the only problem here is that, having retired the FA2, 3 Gp is now not big enough to justify Gp status, and so it is disbanded and moved entirely to RAF control in 1 Gp, but with JAMO over site (of note about the same size that 1Gp is now).

RN getting very uncomfortable by now, but we're in it and so have to make do. Added to this GR9's with 107 engines are the best solution for delivering Carrier Strike.

Herrick kicks off and GR7/9 is deployed. Unfortunately the commitment is such that we're going to have to sacrifice some Carrier Strike skills to keep the Force going on Herrick. Cant really argue with that, although again its deeply concerning for the RN. But not to worry, when the Force returns from Ops Carrier Strike will be the No1 priority. The rest, as they say, is history.

Now this is only one side of the story, but for the likes of Sharkey and his allies the whole JF2000/JFH episode shows that the RAF will always drop the Carrier capability at the first sign of difficulty.

So where the Admirals naive? Possibly, but it was death by a thousand cuts, rather then a sweeping blow. I think this episode goes some way to explain the RNs current attitude.

[dat581]

A quick question from a non mil pilot. Has inter service rivalry done any good for the RN and the RAF? Is anything beyond normal squadron banter just harmful to both services?

[Sun Who]

Autobit,

Not being a FJ mate, I found your post very helpful in understanding how we came to be where we are. The idea that carrier strike capability fell as a victim to a series of logical decisions that didn't match the emerging circumstances, is a better fit with my world view, than that the RAF had some grand Machiavellian plan to undermine the RN.

Sun.

[idle bystander]

The idea that carrier strike capability fell as a victim to a series of logical decisions that didn't match the emerging circumstances, is a better fit with my world view, than that the RAF had some grand Machiavellian plan to undermine the RN.

As usual, cock-up (by both shades of blue) trumps conspiracy.

But you can't blame some for seeing it all both as part of a grand plan by the light blue to rule the military world, and a total inability by their Airships to understand maritime operations. It goes back 80 years. A few examples:

1. Between the end of WW1 and 1938 almost total starvation of the air resources of the RN, a situation barely recovered in time for WW2.
2. In 1940, the RAF had to be persuaded to release ship sightings from maritime patrol aircraft to the naval intelligence centre (quoted in Alan Turing's biography).
3. Near starvation of Coastal Command until the middle of WW2 - priority being, of course, given to bomber command (and don't get me started on that!).
4. Failure to provide any serious air resources to support the Mediterranean Fleet throughout 1940 and 41 - resulting in appalling loss of men and ships on Malta convoys from the East and during the evacuation of Crete.
It goes on ...
5. "Moving" Australia in the run-up to Denis Healey's cancellation of the carrier programme, to give a false impression that the RAF could provide world-wide fighter cover for the Fleet.

and then, cancellation of the Harrier.
Like many on this thread, I am amazed and disappointed that the then 1SL did not resign over the issue. Peace time admiral, I guess.

[glojo]

Hi Autobit and thank you for the reply and I just feel the Navy was at the very least naive regarding this issue, to me the outcome was as predictable as night following day but once politicians become involved we have more dusks and dawns as opposed to black or white.

We are extremely lucky in having some highly qualified folks on this forum whose opinions I value and whilst I am asking questions regarding the conduct of the most senior Naval officers I will now drift slightly :sad:;) off topic and point my finger in a different direction.

I think it fair to suggest I hold the Navy responsible for the loss of our marine strike capability but what about our Marine Long Reconnaissance capability? Again we are a small island dependant on keeping our sea lanes open and in this regard we had a highly professional dedicated service that was second to none in carrying out this role.

I accept we have a shortage of funds but we need to look after our own before we look after others and should this type of aircraft be a requirement to the defence of our sea lanes? What resource do we now have to carry out this role? Do our senior officers not believe in standing up for what is right? we can talk about a lack of funding until the cows come home and if our senior officers allow these cuts they will happen but let us not forget we give in excess of £480m to Syria each year in aid and is the total yearly budget approximately £9billion per year? Lunatics, aslums and ruling come to mind but no doubt the whole World appreciates our generosity.

Meanwhile back to Commander Ward

[John Farley]

Dat581

In my experience interservice rivalry in the UK - the only place I have experience of - is the most terrible waste of intellectual horsepower, money and time. It has contributed to many delays and costs.

An example was the lobbying of the PM (the weekend before the PM's SDR statement) by a few very senior officers who had their own personal agenda. This resulted in the PM going against the MOD properly staffed decision to acquire the F-35B and change the buy to the F-35C. It took nearly two years and a lot of money we could not afford for the MOD to re-justify and implement the original plan.

The problem any PM has in such a situation is that he cannot be an expert in most topics, plus we can bet the impressive senior individuals involved gave him one of the most exceptional briefs of his career.

In general it is my experience that world class professional liars (whoever they work for and whatever their aims) are very impressive people unless you really know the subject they are talking about.

[JFZ90]

Interesting anecdote John, first time I've seen it portrayed in such terms.

This resulted in the PM going against the MOD properly staffed decision to acquire the F-35B and change the buy to the F-35C.

This is potentially a massive story if it could be verified - it would be interesting to see what advice he was given, and if indeed the PM knew that the wider MOD advice differed etc.

It certainly appears that the decision was taken without appropriate diligence - I would hope that the risks and uncertainties were laid out for the politicians at the time. Most such brave* decisions carry such caveats.

*brave = ill informed wild ar*e guess without supporting evidence or analysis.

[Hangarshuffle]

Entirely agree with Glojo. Some of the spiteful comments on here about one (retired) Naval man do some people no favours.
Close the thread, I think.

[cuefaye]

I tend to agree. It serves no purpose anymore.

[stilton]

How looney is it to buy a big deck carrier then operate compromised performance VSTOL F35's off it ?


Nuts..

[orca]

I'm sure all this is not news to the majority but you might want to ponder the following. (Aimed at the CV has to be better than STOVL because it must be types - or the closely allied 'I've never done it but...' brigade).

Both a STOVL and CV operator spend a maritime mission trying to use their fuel at a rate which gets them to the correct amount at the back end of the sortie. Statement of the obvious.

In the STOVL game this is a little bit below hover weight as you come along side the boat. Less adds risk, more makes the whole thing totally impossible.

In the CV game it's far more restrictive because there's a bigger chance of you missing the wires so you carry a number of missed passes as well - whilst having to be below maximum trap weight.

Both jets will carry fuel for the approach they intend to do, i.e. instrument or visual - but the CV then has to carry more fuel in the instrument case because a run around the IMC bolter/wave-off pattern costs you more than a visual pattern.

But in summary you carry fuel for more 'goes' in the CV environment than you do in the STOVL.

Then there's timing.

Traditionally in the STOVL game you get airborne knowing when you'll arrive at the deck, in the CV game you know when you have to be overhead to watch the launch - prior to making your approach - or when to be in marshal, so the feast is more flexible and the only way you have of making it work is by carrying (and probably jettisoning) more fuel.

Now - I am not for one second saying you can get more out of the F-35B than you can the C, but I am saying that the true 'useable mission fuel' is actually a country mile closer than the sales docs suggest - which is of course what the arm chair quarterbacks read.

Last point. I have no idea what he USMC do pre-embarkation but JFH did a pre-embarkation sim and a couple of VLs in the week prior. The Sea Harrier force did....errr, nothing laid down.

A USN CVW will probably be mandated by CAG to do as many as eight or even ten FCLP sorties prior to embarkation, which these days might take most of a month. The LSO types will also ensure (quite rightly) that these are dedicated sorties.

That's ten sorties where you do nothing tactical and simply (simply) fly the ball.

This extends into the deck environment. JFH day deck qual was five trips of which the last two were tactical. F-18 CQ is ten day and six night traps - none of which are tactical.

So if you have a month to spare from your training to 'train to land', CV is great. Well - not great - but 'better' than STOVL by a margin which is actually far smaller than most assume.

[Easy Street]

orca,

In view of the recent success with X-47, has there ever been a serious push towards making automatic landings the mandatory / only option for recovering to a CV, even for manned aircraft? If suitable levels of redundancy could be built in at both ends, presumably the training and fuel margins for CV ops could be reduced. I'm sure it's been considered, but interested to know why it doesn't seem to be on the table for F-35C.

[SpazSinbad]

'Easy Street' F-35 pilots will be on easy street once JPALS is installed/certified everywhere or places where it counts the most initially. The X-47B used a special interim JPALS installation to do its thing automatically in the BUSH - that thread has details. Otherwise go here to read the long article:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-162.html#post8035197

Read about JPALS on this forum and the X-47B thread to see how auto-landings for the Super Hornet and F-35C on CVNs may become the norm in some future time according to LSOs.

[orca]

The F-18 is capable of landing in an automatic mode at the moment. It is one of the modes available in the ACLS - which can give you HUD symbology or can be 'coupled up' to fly the aeroplane for you. It requires the system to essentially self-BIT (make sure boat is talking to jet) and the pilot to QA that the commands are being followed. It can do it all the way to the wires. It isn't 100% reliable - I've only seen one done in anger (well - anxiety/ fog) although that worked. You aren't even allowed to attempt them if you aren't current landing manually. A Mode 1A is the same but you de-couple as you call the ball at 0.7nm.

The issue comes when it doesn't work. At this point the pilot flies the jet as normal. So he has to be trained to the same high standard. And CAG can't believe in it 100% so has to call for the same fuel plan.

I don't know what the state of play is with F-35C...it ceased to affect me a little time ago!;) I assume as we go on and these new systems mature one could start relying on them, rather than cater for their short comings.

[Easy Street]

SpazSinbad - thanks for the pointers - interesting stuff.

To this layman's eye, the technical challenges involved in creating a triple-redundant failsafe automatic landing system seem at first sight to be somewhat simpler than those which have already been overcome to produce the F-35B's amazing STOVL system. Just saying!

[SpazSinbad]

The work on the control laws/incepts for the F-35B via the VAAC (Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control) Harrier has been going on for a decade plus. John Farley has written about it on this forum in various places and also for a PDF publication from the RAF. I'll search the link. Also there is an Aviation Mag'n artickle wot I'll link soonish like.

Work on JPALS has been ongoing for probably a decade (depending on when one wants to pedanticly start). Yes LSOs think in the future a normal carrier landing will be automatic whilst a semi-manual or forgorsake a complete manual will be some kind of emergency thingo. :eek: But only with suitably equipped aircraft such as the Supers and F-35s, the ordinary Hornets will not be upgraded with this JPALS tech AFAIK.

Single Minded by John Farley, Flight International 17 Aug 1999:

british aerospace | lockheed martin | 1999 | 2360 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1999/1999%20-%202360.html)
&
A V/STOL FLIGHT CONTROL JOURNEY ENABLED BY RAE SCIENTISTS by John Farley

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-35A-Seminar-the-RAF-Harrier-Story.pdf
&
VAAC Harrier Story:

The full story of the Harrier "Jump-Jet" Part Four - the "Second Generation" Harriers - The BAe / MDD AV-8B Harrier II, GR.5, GR.7, GR.9 & T.10 Harriers (http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Harrier_VTOL_Jump-Jet_part4.html)
&
THE HAWKER ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER | NUMBER 24 | SUMMER 2009

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassociation/hanewsletters/hanewsletterpdf/hanewsletter024.pdf

[alfred_the_great]

809 NAS will be the new F-35 Sqn for the RN. That'll please the SHAR boys no end.

[CoffmanStarter]

ATG ... MOD Press Release ...

Royal Navy 809 Squadron (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-air-squadron-reformed-to-fly-new-jets)

[WhiteOvies]

A Phoenix from the flames seems appropriate for the regeneration of the fixed wing FAA. Given it's motto, badge and history though I hope 892 NAS gets a look at in the future.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

809 NAS was temporarily reformed during the Falklands conflict with Sea Harrier. Not sure what exactly that proves....

With reference to my posts here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-12.html#post7988455) and here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-12.html#post8029286) (and elsewhere - like from the start of the discussion about the Harrier decision (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131)!) about the issue of preserving and developing skills etc for the future, I am simply pointing out concerns expressed by others, including others I have met in real life, who might reasonably be described as naval aviation subject matter experts.

Will it be easy and painless - of course not. Will there some lessons to (re)learn - of course. Can we do it - I think so.

I agree. But we do have a chance of doing things to make it easier. Work in progress......perhaps? Would it not have been easier to take the path of least resistance all along?

Interesting post and you raise some good points, but its worth considering why these Admirals didn't dig their heels in. Pull up a sandbag...dit on.

Late 90's RAF GR7's and FAA FA2's in the gulf flying Northern Watch missions. AMRAAM FA2 providing escort for LGB equipped GR's. Quite a nice little package and also fits the RN's desire to move the CVS away from ASW and more towards a 'Strike Carrier'. Some bright spark says 'Why dont we combine the two fleets into a single force?' Enter the birth of JF2000. Only problem here we are told is that you cant really have two separate C2 organisations, so why dont we txfer control of the Force to the RAF.

Few raised eyebrows from the RN, but dont worry, we'll make a dedicated Maritime Group (3 Gp) that, although part of Strike, will be commanded by an RN 2* who will also have control of all maritime air assists i.e. Nimrod and SAR as well. Sounds reasonable?

3Gp formed and all is looking rosey, but now we're told that there isn't enough money to keep the FA2 going and the GR. Lets scrap the FA2 but use the money saved to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 with 107 engines (ideal for hot weather CVS Ops). Again a few raised eyebrows but OK. It makes sense. Now the only problem here is that, having retired the FA2, 3 Gp is now not big enough to justify Gp status, and so it is disbanded and moved entirely to RAF control in 1 Gp, but with JAMO over site (of note about the same size that 1Gp is now).

RN getting very uncomfortable by now, but we're in it and so have to make do. Added to this GR9's with 107 engines are the best solution for delivering Carrier Strike.

Herrick kicks off and GR7/9 is deployed. Unfortunately the commitment is such that we're going to have to sacrifice some Carrier Strike skills to keep the Force going on Herrick. Cant really argue with that, although again its deeply concerning for the RN. But not to worry, when the Force returns from Ops Carrier Strike will be the No1 priority. The rest, as they say, is history.

Now this is only one side of the story, but for the likes of Sharkey and his allies the whole JF2000/JFH episode shows that the RAF will always drop the Carrier capability at the first sign of difficulty.

So where the Admirals naive? Possibly, but it was death by a thousand cuts, rather then a sweeping blow. I think this episode goes some way to explain the RNs current attitude.

Well written.

[engineer(retard)]

Originally Posted by AutoBit
Interesting post and you raise some good points, but its worth considering why these Admirals didn't dig their heels in. Pull up a sandbag...dit on.

Late 90's RAF GR7's and FAA FA2's in the gulf flying Northern Watch missions. AMRAAM FA2 providing escort for LGB equipped GR's. Quite a nice little package and also fits the RN's desire to move the CVS away from ASW and more towards a 'Strike Carrier'. Some bright spark says 'Why dont we combine the two fleets into a single force?' Enter the birth of JF2000. Only problem here we are told is that you cant really have two separate C2 organisations, so why dont we txfer control of the Force to the RAF.

Few raised eyebrows from the RN, but dont worry, we'll make a dedicated Maritime Group (3 Gp) that, although part of Strike, will be commanded by an RN 2* who will also have control of all maritime air assists i.e. Nimrod and SAR as well. Sounds reasonable?

3Gp formed and all is looking rosey, but now we're told that there isn't enough money to keep the FA2 going and the GR. Lets scrap the FA2 but use the money saved to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 with 107 engines (ideal for hot weather CVS Ops). Again a few raised eyebrows but OK. It makes sense. Now the only problem here is that, having retired the FA2, 3 Gp is now not big enough to justify Gp status, and so it is disbanded and moved entirely to RAF control in 1 Gp, but with JAMO over site (of note about the same size that 1Gp is now).

RN getting very uncomfortable by now, but we're in it and so have to make do. Added to this GR9's with 107 engines are the best solution for delivering Carrier Strike.

Herrick kicks off and GR7/9 is deployed. Unfortunately the commitment is such that we're going to have to sacrifice some Carrier Strike skills to keep the Force going on Herrick. Cant really argue with that, although again its deeply concerning for the RN. But not to worry, when the Force returns from Ops Carrier Strike will be the No1 priority. The rest, as they say, is history.

Now this is only one side of the story, but for the likes of Sharkey and his allies the whole JF2000/JFH episode shows that the RAF will always drop the Carrier capability at the first sign of difficulty.

So where the Admirals naive? Possibly, but it was death by a thousand cuts, rather then a sweeping blow. I think this episode goes some way to explain the RNs current attitude.

An alternative interpretation is that the RN cared more about ships than aircraft at that point in time :hmm:

[teeteringhead]

RN cared more about ships than aircraft at that point in time .... and when (fiscal) push comes to (financial) shove - they always will.....:ugh: