Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Royal Navy to Buy F18F

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Royal Navy to Buy F18F

Old 28th Sep 2010, 13:13
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
The next question is the feasibility or otherwise of austere-base ops (1) with the F-35B as opposed to the much smaller Harrier and (2) with a changing threat.

Marines and industry say F-35B's ground impact will not cause problems, but the Corps has been seriously wrong in this respect with V-22. USN construction guidance still calls for a 100 x 100 foot VL pad made of heat-resistant, continuously reinforced concrete.

Also, the senior Dept of Navy leadership is worried about the threat to forward arming and refueling points posed by guided rockets and mortars, which they expect to be widely used by the late 2010s.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2010, 19:08
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the heathen lands
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
i'd echo LO's concerns about forward basing and Dave B being the heir to Harrier - nothing whatsoever about any part of the F-35 programme says you'll be able to run this aircraft from a field with a portakabin and a bag of spanners.

my fear is that we'll buy an aircraft that doesn't need the things you can find anywhere or can build easily (great big strips of concrete or pierced steel matting), but does need the things that are like rocking horse **** in these 'austere' locations, namely a surgically clean, sealed environment with enough IT to cater for the porn usage of the entire British Army.

seems a bit 'arse about face' to me...
cokecan is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2010, 19:59
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,722
Received 74 Likes on 37 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Marines and industry say F-35B's ground impact will not cause problems, but the Corps has been seriously wrong in this respect with V-22. USN construction guidance still calls for a 100 x 100 foot VL pad made of heat-resistant, continuously reinforced concrete.
Pardon......

Well, if that's true....this is no Harrier replacement, and will be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Pouring concrete to that spec and to the thickness that would be reqd for 100' x 100' cont is a serious undertaking in a benign home base enviroment.... let alone in a FOB 'field' enviroment
GeeRam is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2010, 23:18
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,779
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
I believe the whole F35B STOVL concept for austere ops is flawed. F35B could not have gone to Kandahar in 2005 as the Harriers did, as its STOVL ops would have destroyed what little surface was actually usable - not to mention wrecking the airframes' stealth characteristics through FOD impacts. If bespoke reinforced concrete mixes are required for pads, what chance would MEXE or a third-world rough strip have? Even using rolling vertical landings would submit the surfaces to extreme treatment.

IMHO the UK's stance on F35B comes down to the following factors:
1) Choosing the same variant as the USMC, as they're the only US service fanatical about actually getting the F35. This increases our chances of eventually receiving some ourselves. The USAF would probably bin F35A for more F22 if they were pushed, and the USN would be happy with a load more F/A18 instead of being sole customers for the F35C (which has a different airframe to the A and B models).
2) Lots of lovely workshare and technology showcasing in the lift fan
3) Lots of Harrier pilots involved in the project who already know that STOVL is the answer, and offers a perfect chance to get bums-on-seats for their mates (having noticed with envy how the Jag force managed to 'own' the Typhoon stand-up).
Easy Street is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 10:43
  #305 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 90
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Operating site flexibility B versus C

Chaps

I did not mean to stir up the whole austere site B/Harrier thing.

I suggested – and I stand by it – that the B has more operating site flexibility than the C. At sea it can be flown from smaller and simpler ships and ashore it needs less space to operate. Given the way the future never works out as the planners would wish I think those are useful characteristics for the UK.

My term ‘operating site flexibility’ should not be taken as code for something else or as jargon implying the flexibility of past Harrier ops.
John Farley is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 12:00
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Thanks, JF - I would not want to be on the other side of a STOVL debate with you.

I believe that it would have been better to focus on a real "Harrier replacement" oriented towards CAS, battlefield interdiction and air defense. (A STOVL equivalent of Gripen.) But back in the early 1990s, Lockheed sold the Marines and the Pentagon on the idea that they could get that, plus stealth, in an F-18C-sized package for less money, by combining it with the AF and Navy programs. Everyone bought into the deal and here we are...
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 12:05
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 47
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If going down the JSF purchase route, why not split the purchase 50/50 B & C, you then get the best of both worlds and added flexibility for when either V/stol or long leg missions are required.
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 12:17
  #308 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,155
Received 1,461 Likes on 660 Posts
For all the original talk, commonality of parts between the B and C models is down to 10-20%. With a total buy of around 69 aircraft it's just not logistically or fiscally feasible.
ORAC is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 12:56
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 47
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So the compromise is flexibility vs capability.

What's more important?

I doubt that future strike ucavs are going to be v/stol capable, will this influence carrier design and therefore jsf type?
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 14:02
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I doubt that future strike ucavs are going to be v/stol capable, will this influence carrier design and therefore jsf type?
To quote Barry Norman, "And Why Not?" Maybe not a Taranis or X-47B Pegasus-sized UCAV, and I guess it depends on US DoD funding or whether LockMart plans to fund it itself, but this beast might be ideal for the CVFs if they remain as they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=vUpMG-KN7Pg#!
mick2088 is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 16:21
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the heathen lands
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
PP - 'Flexibility vs Capability'.

how much more - in real world terms - flexible do we think Dave B is really going to be than Dave C, or Dave A, or F/A-18, Tornado or F-16?

if, as is suggested further up the thread, Dave B could not have operated from Kandahar when GR9 first did, why are we buying this version?

does 'austere' in LM parlance actually mean RAF Lossiemouth?
cokecan is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 16:37
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
There's a long list of pros and cons in making the choice between STOVL and cat and trap. It's not just a question of austere basing, but (as I understand it) a shedload of other factors like sortie rates and the sea states you can operate in. I suspect it was also felt that continuing with STOVL operations would be more straightforward and lower risk than getting back into the cat and trap game from scratch.

Then again there's a downside in terms of cost and other aspects of performance such as range.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages and how you view it depends on which factors you see as most important.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2010, 22:22
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OOP's

F-35 alternate engine damaged after high-speed anomaly

single seat, single engine bla bla bla.
glad rag is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 04:11
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So a new engine on a test bed has had a hiccup; what's the big deal ?!
Double Zero is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2010, 08:18
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SDSR – ‘Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends
September 25, 2010
by Alexander Clarke

Contributing Author: Dr Duncan Redford
Introduction

‘Many of our allies still consider Britain to be a maritime power – even if we don’t’

The Strategic Defence and Security Review will ensure that Britain’s Armed Forces end up looking very different from today. Getting the balance right between short, medium and long-term threats, commitments, orders of battle, procurement plans and the desires of each of the three Services will be difficult. One issue that encapsulates the hard decisions that will be taken is debate over whether Britain should keep the two aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.

The carriers are a key component of a vital aspect of maritime strategy – the balanced fleet. A balanced fleet combines different capabilities rather than concentrate on one. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, able to deal with a very wide range of threats and tasks, from high-intensity war-fighting to disaster relief or anti-piracy operations – and everything in between.
A Balanced Fleet

As a result a balanced fleet is not irrelevant today, nor will it be in the future; it has a structural agility that allows it to meet a wide range of strategic scenarios. The flexibility of a balanced fleet – and the new aircraft carriers – allows Britain to insure against strategic shocks.

The Royal Navy has been accused of living in the past, or pursuing an “exorbitant quest” for these two new ships. So why are these two ships so important to the Navy? What can aircraft carriers do that makes them so important to Britain? In one sentence: almost everything a government could desire from its armed forces.
Military Role of the Carrier

The carriers will be able to play a major part in defending Britain’s global maritime and national interests, be they oil rigs, energy supplies, merchant ships, or the massive amount of British trade moved by sea. These carriers will support British diplomacy and deter aggressors, as well as protecting the other ships of the Navy from attack by submarines, surface ships and aircraft.

They will be the main means of attacking enemy naval, land and air forces in support of our government’s security objectives – “power projection”. They can support land forces carrying out counter-insurgency operations – as aircraft from American carriers in the Indian Ocean are doing over Afghanistan – or high-intensity operations if required. These ships will act as the command and control centres not just for naval forces, but also for operations involving all three Services.

The carriers can, in conjunction with the Navy’s amphibious ships and the Royal Marines, act as a mobile base from which land forces can operate against an enemy – terrorist or state – without the political, financial, diplomatic and military cost of basing troops on land, where they are constantly exposed to every means of attack. More importantly, the threat of being able to do all these things – especially when backed up by a “balanced” fleet, gives a prime minister a great deal of political choice about how Britain’s interests are to be protected.
Further Roles

But the fighting aspects of the aircraft carriers are only one part of the naval power that they represent. There are also the “softer” functions, which are just as vital as the high-intensity war-fighting. From disaster relief, anti-piracy, counter-narcotics, helping to implement UN sanctions, or evacuating stranded British civilians from war zones and natural disasters, to naval diplomacy, these ships – and the wider Navy they are a part of – will be able to provide massive support to British interests around the globe – sometimes through just being there; showing that Britain is interested in events in that region, or that we support a particular country.
Political Power

Using aircraft carriers means that the UK doesn’t have to worry about basing rights, over-flight agreements, or other states allowing us access across their territory. Carriers and the Navy give Britain independence of action if needed, and also make her a valuable ally. This isn’t about old-fashioned “gunboat diplomacy” – it is far more subtle; about the unspoken messages that navies, especially aircraft carriers as the pinnacle of maritime power, can send.

A navy capable of operating at a global level with carriers at its core will be a powerful “naval diplomacy” tool. It can move at 500 miles a day between trouble spots and loiter out of sight until needed. It can deploy for months without the need for land-based support. It can operate overtly in sight of a coast line to reassure the friendly or deter an aggressor; the strategic flexibility and mobility inherent in maritime forces gives politicians options, not dead ends. It can visit ports and countries to show support for British interests, to build good will and understanding, or to aid the civil authorities. It can be used to promote alliances by working with friendly navies; it can build trust with former enemies by allowing ships to exercise together without the potential political problems of land-based operations.

The carriers are also a symbolic commitment by Britain that says it values maritime issues and the Royal Navy in particular. It is a commitment to a very public form of international prestige and national power – carriers divide nations into those that have them and those who will end up wishing they did. After all, when Tony Blair was prime minister it is said that his first question regarding the British response to an international incident or crisis was always “Where is our aircraft carrier?”
Cost-effectiveness

Critics of the new carriers are quick to point at the cost. However, to get out of the contract will cost £2.3 billion which, as these ships will only cost £44 million a year to operate, is more than will be spent on them in their entire working lives. It has been suggested that money could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft or making them less capable. Having fewer aircraft actually wastes the investment in the carriers – it’s like buying a tank but never buying shells for the gun. As to having less capable aircraft, that is already happening. The version of the Joint Strike Fighter we are buying, the F35B vertical/short take-off and landing model which is slated for the carriers, has less range and a smaller payload than the conventional naval “C” variant the Americans are buying; the “C” variant is also about £25 million cheaper per aircraft.

If Britain wants to save money in the carrier programme, fit them with catapults, arrester gear and buy the F35C, not vertical/short take-off version. These carriers represent excellent value for money – probably more so than many other British or European defence projects in the past 20 years. The commitment Britain shows to its maritime position through the carriers and the concept of having a balanced Navy is valuable. In an age where Britain will need the support of allies to further its foreign and security policy, it makes sense to contribute to such alliances as Nato or the EU in the most effective manner to ensure our voice is heard.
European and World Standing

Many of our allies still consider Britain to be a maritime power – even if we don’t – and given the contribution Britain makes to maritime forces available to the European members of Nato, it is easy to see why they think we are. Britain is ranked first in its contribution of nuclear powered hunter-killer attack submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and at-sea replenishment vessels to keep the fleet supplied wherever it is in the world; it ranks second in terms of helicopter assault ships – “commando carriers” and air-defence destroyers; third in anti-submarine or general purpose frigates; and fourth in mine-sweeping and mine-hunting ships – which does not reflect the qualitative and quantitative superiority over many ships in other EU and Nato navies. Importantly, given the small numbers of ships involved, scrapping one or two ships could have a massive impact not only on Britain’s capabilities, our international credibility and the value of our support to our allies, but also that of Nato and the EU.
Way Ahead

If Britain wants to sit back and let the world come to us, inflexible and immobile, chained to our island, then cancel the carriers and continue decimating the Royal Navy. On the other hand, if Britain wants to be a part of the global community, it will need a capable Navy to promote and defend its interests around the world – and that means it will need aircraft carriers. For hundreds of years and until quite recently almost the entire country believed that “It is upon the Navy… that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly depend”; there is still a great deal of truth in that statement today.

SDSR – ‘Carriers give politicians options ? not dead ends’ The Phoenix Think Tank
oldnotbold is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2010, 01:38
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
F-35 grounded to fix new software problem
"All flights in short take-off and vertical landing mode are also suspended after a post-flight inspection on the BF-1 flight test aircraft detected an "issue" with the auxiliary inlet door hinge located immediately aft of the lift fan.

Lockheed is still working to identify the root cause of the auxiliary inlet door hinge issue that has stopped all STOVL-mode tests.

The STOVL-capable F-35B has to complete at least 50 vertical landings to clear the flight envelope to launch a series of shipboard tests scheduled in March 2011. Completing shipboard testing is critical to meeting the US Marine Corp's plan to enter service with the F-35B in December 2012.

The software-based grounding and the STOVL restrictions mean the F-35B could fall further behind schedule with two years left to stand up the first operational unit for the USMC."

F-35 grounded to fix new software problem
oldnotbold is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.