F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Engines]

FB and others,

Perhaps I can help a little here, as there seems to be a bit of confusion over how the UK got the B variant.

In the first place, the original UK requirement for a Harrier replacement was a Naval Staff Target (NST) in the 80s for a Sea Harrier replacement, later called Future carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). It certainly wasn't envisaged as a battlefield support aircraft. The RAF weren't remotely interested at the time as they were concentrating on Eurofighter and a long range stealthy Tornado replacement. FCBA was required to provide fleet defence, reconnaissance and strike capability from small decks (invincible class) and the driving requirement was supersonic dash to intercept incoming targets. That ruled out a Harrier type solution with a single centrally mounted engine.

In the late 80s, after the end of a long running UK/US collaborative programme, the US had continued work (in some cases via black programmes) on advanced STOVL (ASTOVL) concepts. As a number of costly tactical aircraft programmes faltered and died, the DoD (not the services) launched the JAST programme to get a better handle on what a single seat, single engined ASTOVL combat aircraft could do with future propulsion technology. That led to JSF, and some smart footwork by some excellent people gave the UK a chance to join the programme, with the aim of meeting the FCBA requirement. The UK joined as (to this date the only) Tier 1 participant, via a separate document called the 'STOVL MoU'. The whole point was that the UK could bring decades of STOVL design, manufacture and operating expertise to the JSF programme that the US lacked.

Key point - the only reason the UK is in JSF (now F-35) is because of STOVL.

The JSF programme included years of requirement development - trading off various attributes against literally hundreds of operational scenarios. The B model design is driven by one clear and simple requirement -to be launch from and recover to small decks (USN LHAs and LHDs and UK Invincible class). The penalties in performance and capability were understood from day one - that's why the B's performance and payload requirements were, from the outset, lower than for the A or the C.

In the UK, a couple of years afterwards, 'Joint' became the name of the game, and FCBA became Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA). By this time (around 2000) the RAF had realised that the only affordable way to replace Tornado was to use JSF. Joint Force Harrier was to be the 'hothouse' where future STOVL combat concepts and organisations were to be developed. Unfortunately, in the 'noughties' the UK end of things became seriously unravelled. Firstly, forced retirement of the Sea Harrier (the younger half of the Joint Force) undermined any serious ideas of joint force doctrine development. Meanwhile, the MoD was unable to decide whether it wanted the new carriers to actually be STOVL ships. It had already been hard to explain to our US partners on JSF that, yes, we were in JSF to get the STOVL aircraft but, no, we might actually want the C model. Or the F/A-18. Or the Rafale. Or even, the Good Lord help us all, a navalised Typhoon. But then it got worse.

The 2010 SDSR, which has to be one go the most incompetent bits of work ever carried out by a UK Government (sorry, my opinion there) decided that the UK would, after 15 years of working on JSF to get a STOVL aircraft, switch course to cats and traps. Not that the Defence Secretary's 'experts' had actually asked the Carrier Team how much it would cost to convert the carriers before making their amazing decision. (Seriously, they hadn't been asked). Come 2012, and it was 'off the train, on the train' and back to STOVL and the F-35B. And that's where we are today. We've got an aircraft that meets the KPPs set at the outset of the programme, which the UK signed up to in detail. We will have ski jumps and are working towards SRVLs, which will allow us to wring more capability out of the B.

In one important area, I fully agree with FB and others - the A model would be a better bet for the RAF's requirements (possibly the C model if range is the driving requirement). I don't think a buy of 138 Bs is the right option for the UK - I'd go for something like 55 Bs to be operated at sea by the RN and 85 As (or Cs) for the RAF to fly from land bases. But hey, what do I know. A split fleet need not be the cost disaster some describe - the avionics (big cost driver) are common, there's commonality within the engine and the aircraft systems as well. A common training and support system could deliver both STOVL and CTOL capability.

Hope this helps guide the discussion here - but let's keep the opinions and ideas coming - that's what PPrune is about.

Best Regards as ever to all those working d**n hard to bring the Lightning II into service,

Engines