Sharky Watch LIVE

[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