No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe DC's conversation with POTUS was "I'm telling you now. Stick with the B, because I really don't want to be forced to piss off The Corps if they are left as the only creditable buyers. Oh, and thanks for the Harriers. I will be able to get loads more STOVL experienced aviators now."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this story is correct - it seems to have been leaked to The Times too so it's increasingly looking like it is - the only surprise is that it's being presented as the service chiefs making the case for F35B to DC. As the government's primary and over-riding focus is to reduce the deficit, making short-term decisions that reduce costs in the near future are understandable. What I don't understand is the military brass apparently making the case for the lesser military capability, rather than the government imposing it for cost reasons.
Probably doesn't make a jot of difference in the longer term as I expect the carriers to get shelved in SDR 2015, which would decouple the fighter decision from the carrier capability. It would also ease the time pressure on when we had to decide on F35 as we could maintain Typhoon/Tornado until at least 2020 when the SDR that year could review F35 options from a base of much greater knowledge of both capability and cost, as well as other options that might be available within a reasonable time-frame by then too.
It's a moot point whether opting for a fighter that could still get the chop from the US would be an embarrassment or a bonus to the UK government. If it's F35B or nothing, then a US cancellation would take the decision to scrap the carriers out of the government's hands. 'It's not our fault- the Americans made us do it'. Would they get away with that?
With 20/20 hindsight, the decision to go for new carriers and a completely new fighter at the same time was extremely unwise and fraught with risk to one or both components. What a complete and utter shambles. If the UK ends up with an effective military capability from this debacle, it will be despite of and not because of anything either the previous, current and probably the next government, has done or will do.
Probably doesn't make a jot of difference in the longer term as I expect the carriers to get shelved in SDR 2015, which would decouple the fighter decision from the carrier capability. It would also ease the time pressure on when we had to decide on F35 as we could maintain Typhoon/Tornado until at least 2020 when the SDR that year could review F35 options from a base of much greater knowledge of both capability and cost, as well as other options that might be available within a reasonable time-frame by then too.
It's a moot point whether opting for a fighter that could still get the chop from the US would be an embarrassment or a bonus to the UK government. If it's F35B or nothing, then a US cancellation would take the decision to scrap the carriers out of the government's hands. 'It's not our fault- the Americans made us do it'. Would they get away with that?
With 20/20 hindsight, the decision to go for new carriers and a completely new fighter at the same time was extremely unwise and fraught with risk to one or both components. What a complete and utter shambles. If the UK ends up with an effective military capability from this debacle, it will be despite of and not because of anything either the previous, current and probably the next government, has done or will do.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it will be despite of and not because of anything either the previous, current and probably the next government, has done or will do
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just pleased and reassured to know the the SDSR was a thorough and professional piece of work, which was underpinned by decent research and delivered a range of options / scenarios with an accurate assessment of the foreseeable consequences of each decision.
I would have been horrified if it had been a back-of-a-fag-packet job to garner quick PR headlines and demonstrate to the media the incoming government's "resolve to take the tough decisions", and appear statesman-like.
It is even more reassuring to read that it is the uniformed defence chiefs who are advising for the B model.
Who advised for the C? (Or the B before that?).
Still, we should be OK as we are still in the game of having a decent expeditionary & combat proven, maritime STOVL fixed-wing capability to pair with the LRMPA one. It's just a question of updating the equipment.
Has it always been this difficult? Options For Change seems like a Classic of defence literature now.
I would have been horrified if it had been a back-of-a-fag-packet job to garner quick PR headlines and demonstrate to the media the incoming government's "resolve to take the tough decisions", and appear statesman-like.
It is even more reassuring to read that it is the uniformed defence chiefs who are advising for the B model.
Who advised for the C? (Or the B before that?).
Still, we should be OK as we are still in the game of having a decent expeditionary & combat proven, maritime STOVL fixed-wing capability to pair with the LRMPA one. It's just a question of updating the equipment.
Has it always been this difficult? Options For Change seems like a Classic of defence literature now.
And it's looking increasingly like the next government will be a labour one, so I for one, am sceptical towards the 'guaranteed' spending increases post 2015...which may throw another completely avoidable spanner in the works.
FB
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Foxtrot,
Thank you very much for the update so I assume the radome that was removed prior to these tests will be back when she comes out of this latest maintenance period?
I fully understand the reasons for installing test equipment and that coating of heat resistant paint. It can be argued that the paint was part and parcel of regular ship's maintenance and if that is the case then should it have been the normal paint used on all flight decks of STOVL warships otherwise how do we know we can indeed cross deck?
Were heat test conducted prior to embarking these aircraft and if so why the need for special paint? Please note these are questions and not me standing on a soap box stating so called facts. I have read references stating sea sparrow was removed to install so called test equipment, just like I have read posts stating this was not a new heat resistant paint, I have an open mind regarding both these claims and look forward to seeing the Wasp when she rejoins the fleet.
Thank you very much for the update so I assume the radome that was removed prior to these tests will be back when she comes out of this latest maintenance period?
I fully understand the reasons for installing test equipment and that coating of heat resistant paint. It can be argued that the paint was part and parcel of regular ship's maintenance and if that is the case then should it have been the normal paint used on all flight decks of STOVL warships otherwise how do we know we can indeed cross deck?
During Wasp’s four-month maintenance availability conducted earlier this year, major modifications were completed to various elements of the ship including the flight deck and combat systems equipment. These modifications included moving the flight deck’s “Tram Line,” or yellow line, which is used by pilots to guide them when performing short landings, closer to the port side of the ship. Also, the aft NATO Sea sparrow missile launcher mount was removed and replaced with a “dummy” launcher.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The radome and Sparrow launcher removal was "just in case", and since it has been determined from all the heat & airflow sensors that there was nothing that would have damaged them, they will be replaced and left there when F-35B flights begin in earnest.
The re-coating of the aft part of the flight deck was with normal non-skid, and was done in part to examine the effects of the landing exhaust.
There was a small patch of a new non-skid coating (Thermion) applied (in the pics it is a slightly lighter color, with the yellow line being a little lighter as well) in the re-coated section, but this was developed for not only increased heat tolerance (specifically for the MV-22 Osprey, which DOES have a deck-heating problem), but also greatly improved durability... it is supposed to last at least 4 times as long as the current coating.
If it holds up like they expect, it will be used on all USN flight decks... CVNs included.
Here is the url for more info on Thermion: Non Skid Coatings, Aluminum Spray Wires, Non skid Spray Wires - Thermion Inc.
Here is a pic of Wasp's aft deck... you can see the Thermion section pretty clearly (the pic is really big, so here's the url):
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/t...gain_630-1.jpg
The re-coating of the aft part of the flight deck was with normal non-skid, and was done in part to examine the effects of the landing exhaust.
There was a small patch of a new non-skid coating (Thermion) applied (in the pics it is a slightly lighter color, with the yellow line being a little lighter as well) in the re-coated section, but this was developed for not only increased heat tolerance (specifically for the MV-22 Osprey, which DOES have a deck-heating problem), but also greatly improved durability... it is supposed to last at least 4 times as long as the current coating.
If it holds up like they expect, it will be used on all USN flight decks... CVNs included.
Here is the url for more info on Thermion: Non Skid Coatings, Aluminum Spray Wires, Non skid Spray Wires - Thermion Inc.
Here is a pic of Wasp's aft deck... you can see the Thermion section pretty clearly (the pic is really big, so here's the url):
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/t...gain_630-1.jpg
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 17th Apr 2012 at 11:46.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Greenknight far better to be wise before the event, remove items that might be vulnerable, assess and then make decisions once all the necessary information is available.
Hopefully the Sea Sparrow system will be re-installed
Hopefully the Sea Sparrow system will be re-installed
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GK and others,
Some good posts here, with good information, but....
Is it just me, or is there a baseline presumption of trouble/stupidity/omission when it comes to the JSF programme? This is definitely not to be confused with healthy cynicism and free speech, of course.
The F-35B programme has taken particular pains to investigate, measure and model the efflux of the jet operating from a number of surfaces. The result is the best understanding that has ever been achieved of the temperatures, pressures and flow velocities around and under the aircraft, and on the surfaces called out in the specification. This effort was led by the Brits and carried out ion an exemplary manner (according to the US tech specialists who were watching VERY closely).
On top of this, the USN is a knowledgeable and demanding customer that will not do ship trials on any other basis than professionally and carefully.
So, what does all this mean? It means that the team getting the 35B to sea know what they are doing and are not, repeat not, trying to hide any bad news. Were there any, you can bet anyone's bottom dollar that it would have been fully reported, like all the other F-35 issues.
Here's the bottom line as I understand it. The F-35B efflux is different to the Av-8B's, and the aft nozzle is certainly hot and energetic. However, existing deck coatings can stand quite a bit of exposure to it, and predicted coating lives were not much worse than those for Harrier. There are ways to mitigate the effects, the best being to do a 'creeping' landing with a knot or two forward speed. This 'smears' out the hot exhaust footprint and greatly reduces deck wear. This technique was developed in the 60s for 'Mexepad' operations by the Kestrel joint test squadron.
Cross decking to unmodified decks should be wholly practicable, in my view.
I know that these facts are less entertaining than the stories we get about 'deck steel melting' and 'ship trials being rigged for PR purposes'. Sorry about that. However, just occasionally, I'd like to see the teams doing the hard work getting a little credit.
Best Regards As Ever
Engines
Some good posts here, with good information, but....
Is it just me, or is there a baseline presumption of trouble/stupidity/omission when it comes to the JSF programme? This is definitely not to be confused with healthy cynicism and free speech, of course.
The F-35B programme has taken particular pains to investigate, measure and model the efflux of the jet operating from a number of surfaces. The result is the best understanding that has ever been achieved of the temperatures, pressures and flow velocities around and under the aircraft, and on the surfaces called out in the specification. This effort was led by the Brits and carried out ion an exemplary manner (according to the US tech specialists who were watching VERY closely).
On top of this, the USN is a knowledgeable and demanding customer that will not do ship trials on any other basis than professionally and carefully.
So, what does all this mean? It means that the team getting the 35B to sea know what they are doing and are not, repeat not, trying to hide any bad news. Were there any, you can bet anyone's bottom dollar that it would have been fully reported, like all the other F-35 issues.
Here's the bottom line as I understand it. The F-35B efflux is different to the Av-8B's, and the aft nozzle is certainly hot and energetic. However, existing deck coatings can stand quite a bit of exposure to it, and predicted coating lives were not much worse than those for Harrier. There are ways to mitigate the effects, the best being to do a 'creeping' landing with a knot or two forward speed. This 'smears' out the hot exhaust footprint and greatly reduces deck wear. This technique was developed in the 60s for 'Mexepad' operations by the Kestrel joint test squadron.
Cross decking to unmodified decks should be wholly practicable, in my view.
I know that these facts are less entertaining than the stories we get about 'deck steel melting' and 'ship trials being rigged for PR purposes'. Sorry about that. However, just occasionally, I'd like to see the teams doing the hard work getting a little credit.
Best Regards As Ever
Engines
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines
Is it just me, or is there a baseline presumption of trouble/stupidity/omission when it comes to the JSF programme?
You are so right - but many people here like to write just because they can - rather than because they have any real understanding of the subject.
JF
Engines,
perhaps the assumption of Trouble/Stupidity/Ommission about the whole project is the natural scepticism you said it wasn't.
after all, JSF is looking like it will be entering service 10 years later than was advertised, and at twice the price.
if thats a 'good', well-managed project, i'd hate to see a bad one...
perhaps the assumption of Trouble/Stupidity/Ommission about the whole project is the natural scepticism you said it wasn't.
after all, JSF is looking like it will be entering service 10 years later than was advertised, and at twice the price.
if thats a 'good', well-managed project, i'd hate to see a bad one...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britain faces £50bn more spending cuts and tax rises to cover elderly care, warns IMF
Nicely timed before the PM makes a decision on carriers and F35. I bet he's wondering if we can afford any of them let alone all of the hidden additional support and operating costs!
To bring public debt down from 82.5pc to 60pc of GDP and pay for rising health and pension costs, the UK will need "a fiscal adjustment strategy" over the next 18 years equivalent to 11.3pc of national output, or roughly £170bn, according to IMF estimates. By comparison, the existing £123bn austerity programme is equivalent to 7.5pc of GDP.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to respond to the most recent posts, please.
Yes, the programme has had big problems. It's late and over budget. But, it's not '10 years later than advertised' - ISD has slipped from 2012/3 (and I attended the first programme briefs) to around 16/17. Yes, that's bad - but let's take a hard look at F-22 and Typhoon before we single out F-35 for the brickbats. Cost is up by around 50%, not 'twice the price'. Bad? Yes. But not as bad as Typhoon's cost increases.
Look, the thing is that the US have 'gone for it' in a big way. After three or four failed programmes (ATF, NATF, A-12, F-22) , they took a pretty big leap and decided to go for a single engined single seat common solution to a range of requirements. And they're doing it in a free country, so it's in full view of anyone who wants to scrutinise it. (Unlike, say, the UK, where the problems of the Typhoon programme were nicely hidden for around 10 years - so were the costs).
It's a free forum, so anyone can have a pop at the project, and they should do so. But, every so often, I'd like to suggest that we could just pause and pay the US team a bit of credit for thinking big and aiming high, and sticking to their guns. And, by the way, giving the Brits who are playing a crucial role the credit they are due.
And to respond to FB - exactly what purpose do performance comparisons between the variants serve? These are three different aircraft, meeting three different sets of requirements, but built around a common core. Their performance will differ - the key is how well they meet the KPPs and other requirements that the customers and the design teams have set. They won't meet them all, but that's real life.
Designing and building something like the F-35 is a bit like trying to devise a Formula 1 car, getting it to fly, getting it to hover, then making it last for 30 years or more, flown by 'Joe pilot' instead of Lewis Hamilton and maintained by 'Joe maintainer' instead of hand picked teams. It's really, really hard to do. Sometimes, I really feel that this basic fact is not sufficiently understood.
Last time - the F-35 team are not numpties. They have made errors, but that's what humans do. And like all humans, they learn and adapt and improve.
A bit of a rant. for which I apologise. I suppose all I ask is that people give the project a fighting chance and realise that, for the West, this IS the next generation combat aircraft, and will be the mainstay of all their Air Forces for 30 years or more. It will have problems, but it's my bet that it will carry through to deliver aircraft to service.
And, as ever, my best regards to all those who fly and fix aircraft now and in the future.
Engines
Yes, the programme has had big problems. It's late and over budget. But, it's not '10 years later than advertised' - ISD has slipped from 2012/3 (and I attended the first programme briefs) to around 16/17. Yes, that's bad - but let's take a hard look at F-22 and Typhoon before we single out F-35 for the brickbats. Cost is up by around 50%, not 'twice the price'. Bad? Yes. But not as bad as Typhoon's cost increases.
Look, the thing is that the US have 'gone for it' in a big way. After three or four failed programmes (ATF, NATF, A-12, F-22) , they took a pretty big leap and decided to go for a single engined single seat common solution to a range of requirements. And they're doing it in a free country, so it's in full view of anyone who wants to scrutinise it. (Unlike, say, the UK, where the problems of the Typhoon programme were nicely hidden for around 10 years - so were the costs).
It's a free forum, so anyone can have a pop at the project, and they should do so. But, every so often, I'd like to suggest that we could just pause and pay the US team a bit of credit for thinking big and aiming high, and sticking to their guns. And, by the way, giving the Brits who are playing a crucial role the credit they are due.
And to respond to FB - exactly what purpose do performance comparisons between the variants serve? These are three different aircraft, meeting three different sets of requirements, but built around a common core. Their performance will differ - the key is how well they meet the KPPs and other requirements that the customers and the design teams have set. They won't meet them all, but that's real life.
Designing and building something like the F-35 is a bit like trying to devise a Formula 1 car, getting it to fly, getting it to hover, then making it last for 30 years or more, flown by 'Joe pilot' instead of Lewis Hamilton and maintained by 'Joe maintainer' instead of hand picked teams. It's really, really hard to do. Sometimes, I really feel that this basic fact is not sufficiently understood.
Last time - the F-35 team are not numpties. They have made errors, but that's what humans do. And like all humans, they learn and adapt and improve.
A bit of a rant. for which I apologise. I suppose all I ask is that people give the project a fighting chance and realise that, for the West, this IS the next generation combat aircraft, and will be the mainstay of all their Air Forces for 30 years or more. It will have problems, but it's my bet that it will carry through to deliver aircraft to service.
And, as ever, my best regards to all those who fly and fix aircraft now and in the future.
Engines
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and another viewpoint!
Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence
Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence
Comment The Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010 was, overall, a total c0ckup: but there was one major decision in it which made good sense for British servicemen and taxpayers. It now seems more and more likely that Prime Minister David Cameron, prompted by arms mammoth BAE Systems and by the RAF, intends to reverse that move and continue the destruction of British combat power which has been underway now for more than a decade.