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
This Daily Telegraph article About-turn on new variant of carriers’ fighter plane - Telegraph from this morning reads as if some was reading PPRuNe over the last couple of days.
Is this corroboration or just the same information repeated?
Is this corroboration or just the same information repeated?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the PQs above and other stuff re likely reduced purchase of whatever version of Dave is bought, it seems to me that the Government is going to want to see these ships and jets deployed. This raises the question over who will be the Competent Authority to run the "carrier strike capability". I use the term carefully as this will not be about just running the jets, but the whole package. If the buy is small then there will be strong pressure for this capability to be flly worked up at sea and remain so (unlike the way the Harrier was treated in its later years.
So, who will it be - the RAF, with a philosophy of minimal contribution to the wider capability (manning the ship) and a hopon-hop off mentality; or the RN with a deep desire and long developed understanding of operations "from the sea"? The two services are poles apart on this, with little trust now in existence - I can't see Joint Force JSF working somehow.
So, who will it be - the RAF, with a philosophy of minimal contribution to the wider capability (manning the ship) and a hopon-hop off mentality; or the RN with a deep desire and long developed understanding of operations "from the sea"? The two services are poles apart on this, with little trust now in existence - I can't see Joint Force JSF working somehow.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...This raises the question over who will be the Competent Authority to run the "carrier strike capability"...
"Now I like the Royal Navy, but I like the RAF too. But which is better? There's only one way to find out...FIGHT!"
Remember boys, theoretically at least, you are all on the same side.
It all sounds pretty real.
The future of the UK carriers now depends on the Marines' ability to sustain support for the idea that they should get an F-22-priced fighter that is slower, less agile and shorter-legged than an F-16, and that will normally be deployed in six-aircraft units in a combined force with no AEW or AAR. And sustain that support through the next few budget years.
This was also done against US advice, which should probably raise a question or two.
The future of the UK carriers now depends on the Marines' ability to sustain support for the idea that they should get an F-22-priced fighter that is slower, less agile and shorter-legged than an F-16, and that will normally be deployed in six-aircraft units in a combined force with no AEW or AAR. And sustain that support through the next few budget years.
This was also done against US advice, which should probably raise a question or two.
It may also be worth pointing out that any decision will be taken by Cabinet (e.g. our elected representatives) and not the military. I suspect though that whatever decision is taken will lead to angry posts, books, poison pen letters for decades to come.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...This was also done against US advice, which should probably raise a question or two.
Still, if the story is confirmed, which looks 99% certain given the leaks to the press, at some point you just have to knuckle down and get on with it. F35B it will be. Another u-turn or major change is unthinkable.
Well, until 2015 anyway.
F35B v F16
"F-22-priced fighter that is slower, less agile and shorter-legged than an F-16"
where is there info that says this the case.
As I understand it , the B is less useful in Range & load against the A & C.
but I was led to belive that the B would be better than the Harrier GR9 and the F16/F18 in Range and load carried.
is someone telling me porkies
where is there info that says this the case.
As I understand it , the B is less useful in Range & load against the A & C.
but I was led to belive that the B would be better than the Harrier GR9 and the F16/F18 in Range and load carried.
is someone telling me porkies
Porkies! Heaven forfend!
F-35B MMo is 1.6, F-16 is 2.0
Note: it can be argued that the F-35B will reach 1.6 with bombs on board. Flight testing will show whether this can be done practically without burning too much gas in acceleration.
F-35B is 7g, F-16 is 9g
F-35B radius of action is 450 nm, high-med-high with 2x1000 lb bombs and 2xAIM-120, and no gun; F-16 will do similar range without external fuel but has loads of ext fuel options (370 or 600 gal tanks, centerline tank, conformals), which the B does not.
F-35B MMo is 1.6, F-16 is 2.0
Note: it can be argued that the F-35B will reach 1.6 with bombs on board. Flight testing will show whether this can be done practically without burning too much gas in acceleration.
F-35B is 7g, F-16 is 9g
F-35B radius of action is 450 nm, high-med-high with 2x1000 lb bombs and 2xAIM-120, and no gun; F-16 will do similar range without external fuel but has loads of ext fuel options (370 or 600 gal tanks, centerline tank, conformals), which the B does not.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: PAYD land
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please feel free to shoot me down.
This is obviously completely theoretical now, but.......
My understanding is that taking off with a ramp the B will point at the ramp, full throttle and brakes off. I.e the lift fan won't be used. Like a normal takeoff except you leave the ship before your at flying speed.
If this is the case then surely a C could use a ramp also? The Russians seem to have no difficulties.
Logic: The C variant has an issue with it's tail hook. This surely is a relatively simple fix in contrast with the B that just looks a bit too complicated for it's own good (the need for autoeject does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling).
The one advantage the B has over the C is getting back on the carrier. Clearly
the C is the better aircraft for the UK if you have the choice.
I can only assume the costs have gone through the roof because the 'fitted for but not with' was a lie, and what this really meant is that a space was left for some extra cabins, the AAG but NOT space for the catapults. Hence the massive cost has likely come from the expense of redesigning the top third of the ship to fit the catapults and energy storage devices.
Thinking outside the box, just because EMALS is too expensive, does that mean you have to go back to the B? Keep the ramp, install the JBD's that were planned, put the AAG in the space left free for it, make a few adjustments to the left sponson, fit the LSO station and forget about the science fiction catapult. Launch the C off a ramp and accept the lower pay load as it will only matter when there is no tanker, it will make a much better Tornado replacement (which is what the thing really needs to be) and the hawkeye can go off a ramp (apparently) if it's arrested so there is no need for a bodge job AEW solution.
If the C does get delayed to a deal to take B's to start and then swap them for C's if you need the capabilty early.
Please point out the flaws in my idea.
And God knows what the spams are thinking, but our reputation with the USN and USMC must be in tatters. Let's hope the sake of the exchange lads the USN doesn't do the same as the USMC and sent them packing. And good luck trying to get some harrier exchanges, although it is ironic that the result of this is we will probably end up with some harrier boys and girls on exchange flying ex UK frames.
With regards to FAA vs RAF control, assuming FAA Fast Jet survives this cluster it will have to be joint, the FAA is not going to quadruple in size during a period when they have no aircraft. Similarly the RAF has no interest in flying off boats, at least not for a career. It will be joint, it will be a mess and it's inevitable (unless as will probably happen the whole thing gets canned and we end up with 105 typhoons and the 2 biggest most expensive helicopter carriers in the world).
This is obviously completely theoretical now, but.......
My understanding is that taking off with a ramp the B will point at the ramp, full throttle and brakes off. I.e the lift fan won't be used. Like a normal takeoff except you leave the ship before your at flying speed.
If this is the case then surely a C could use a ramp also? The Russians seem to have no difficulties.
Logic: The C variant has an issue with it's tail hook. This surely is a relatively simple fix in contrast with the B that just looks a bit too complicated for it's own good (the need for autoeject does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling).
The one advantage the B has over the C is getting back on the carrier. Clearly
the C is the better aircraft for the UK if you have the choice.
I can only assume the costs have gone through the roof because the 'fitted for but not with' was a lie, and what this really meant is that a space was left for some extra cabins, the AAG but NOT space for the catapults. Hence the massive cost has likely come from the expense of redesigning the top third of the ship to fit the catapults and energy storage devices.
Thinking outside the box, just because EMALS is too expensive, does that mean you have to go back to the B? Keep the ramp, install the JBD's that were planned, put the AAG in the space left free for it, make a few adjustments to the left sponson, fit the LSO station and forget about the science fiction catapult. Launch the C off a ramp and accept the lower pay load as it will only matter when there is no tanker, it will make a much better Tornado replacement (which is what the thing really needs to be) and the hawkeye can go off a ramp (apparently) if it's arrested so there is no need for a bodge job AEW solution.
If the C does get delayed to a deal to take B's to start and then swap them for C's if you need the capabilty early.
Please point out the flaws in my idea.
And God knows what the spams are thinking, but our reputation with the USN and USMC must be in tatters. Let's hope the sake of the exchange lads the USN doesn't do the same as the USMC and sent them packing. And good luck trying to get some harrier exchanges, although it is ironic that the result of this is we will probably end up with some harrier boys and girls on exchange flying ex UK frames.
With regards to FAA vs RAF control, assuming FAA Fast Jet survives this cluster it will have to be joint, the FAA is not going to quadruple in size during a period when they have no aircraft. Similarly the RAF has no interest in flying off boats, at least not for a career. It will be joint, it will be a mess and it's inevitable (unless as will probably happen the whole thing gets canned and we end up with 105 typhoons and the 2 biggest most expensive helicopter carriers in the world).
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By contrast, the development of the jump-jet fighter is proceeding more smoothly than expected, meaning the aircraft could be ready to fly from the new carriers as early as 2018.
You can take the Air Force out of the STOVL game, but you can't take the STOVL game out of the Air Force!!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Personally, I think its a sensible and pragmatic move. The uncertainty over the IOC of the C model makes it a very risky proposition. Taking production set 2 of EMALS is certain to be a risk also. Better take the B regardless of its perceived limitations and get Carrier Strike reestablished as soon as. This sensibly means that we can operate/rotate both our new carriers as planned. Agree they should be Navy cabs also.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this mean the 400 million that was going to be used to convert the carriers, will now buy us more jets? Well at least there will be plenty more cockpits...oh wait, that's only going to buy us 2 extra aircraft.
Happy days.
Happy days.
To B or not to B......?
F-35 'facts have changed' since SDSR - Defence Management
For everyone's sake....PLEASE SORT IT OUT!
For everyone's sake....PLEASE SORT IT OUT!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beeb says F35B as well:
BBC News - Government in U-turn over fighter planes
BBC News - Government in U-turn over fighter planes
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And all that expensively purchased (cos it ain't an exchange) F-18 expertise is for .............
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course noone really understands the finances for this but on the assumption that the amount of cash allocated to buy (and maintain) aircraft remains constant, this clearly means that we will get fewer, less capable (ref: dstl) aircraft. This is a big negative.
On the other hand it does mean they can operate off both carriers (assuming the mothballing plan is, err, mothballed). This is a big positive.
Unfortunatley the carriers are now limited to VSTOL/rotary, probably for their entire lives. A big negative.
Although it might appear more attractive now to go for a split buy (A and C) for RAF and RN, especially given the CEPP plan to only have 12 JSF embarked, I think it would be a mistake, denying us the ability to surge in crisis a la Falklands, although it must be a very tempting option for the RAF.
On the other hand it does mean they can operate off both carriers (assuming the mothballing plan is, err, mothballed). This is a big positive.
Unfortunatley the carriers are now limited to VSTOL/rotary, probably for their entire lives. A big negative.
Although it might appear more attractive now to go for a split buy (A and C) for RAF and RN, especially given the CEPP plan to only have 12 JSF embarked, I think it would be a mistake, denying us the ability to surge in crisis a la Falklands, although it must be a very tempting option for the RAF.