View Full Version : JSF Update
Flight International:
....The UK is also conducting another analysis of the F-35C carrier variant (CV) for operation from its future aircraft carriers, having previously selected the STOVL variant. New USAF chief of staff Gen Michael Moseley has meanwhile reconfirmed the serviceīs interest in the STOVL JSF as well as the CTOL F-35A.....
For the UK, Lockheed is studying a rolling vertical landing capability that would allow the STOVL aircraft to return with a heavier load. "If we can get 40-50kt lift over the wing, we get more bringback"..... This could also interest the USAF, which, "does not have a vertical landing requirement". The air force also wants to put an internal gun - currently only in the F-35A - back in the F-35B.
The UKīs analysis of the STOVL and CV variants is tied to a decision next year on the size of its future carriers......
Lockheed has just begun laying out the F-35Cīs design and has recently increased wing area by 40 Sq Ft to cut approach speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implications are that the current bringback, even after the weight reduction program, is marginal. The addition of the gun for the USAF CAS role would add back in all the weight taken out - and they will only build one model of each variant. After the Typhoon gun saga I donīt see any weight saving in trying to remove it from the RN aircraft.
A rolling landing would seem to have implications regards carrier design, the CV version major implications. The growth in wing size also impact stowage space etc.
The article also states that Italy has decided to operate a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Cs, buying the As to replace some of their Tornados and increasing their buy from 130 to 200. Thus strengthening their hand in getting a final assembly and checkout line in Italy [as opposed to the UK, the economics not supporting 2 lines]
Further implications. Discuss.
SirToppamHat
22nd Sep 2005, 15:37
Sorry, I just don't buy the UK's requirement for STOVL.
The answer is surely to buy a proper carrier and then have the flexibility to operate a conventional airframe which, IMHO, would not only be less risky as a procurement but probably cheaper in the long run.
I suspect this would be the RN's preferred option ...
STH
ImageGear
22nd Sep 2005, 19:30
Force projection - brilliant, radius of action ?, unfortunately it requires skills and training backed up by operational experience, none of which is in great abundance in the RN of today.
Possibly with a large exchange program with Uncle Sam we might get some experience back but I think it's gone forever.
Imagegear
Feneris
22nd Sep 2005, 19:53
The current CVF plan is for around 60,000 tons, fitted for but not with, an electro-magnetic catapult system. Aircraft will be STOVL JSF. Bringback is definately an issue, but is still way way better than GR7/9. The main layout for of the carrier is already finalised. The problem with changing the variant of aircraft is an automatic 3 year delay in the programme, with associated costs.
southside
22nd Sep 2005, 22:21
Does anyone really believe we will get the new carriers?
Honestly?
I reckon that within 18-24 months the labour party will lose a vote of No confidence, the Tories will win power and the first thing they do is cancel the whole project.
Hmmm.....now, what happened to that Nimrod AEW ?
WE Branch Fanatic
23rd Sep 2005, 20:29
What makes you think that? Both the main political parties are commited to CVF....which should be approaching the main gate stage soon........ish............sometime.........
it requires skills and training backed up by operational experience, none of which is in great abundance in the RN of today.
None of which will be helped by the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier, therefore I think a link to the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152.) to be appropriate.
Incidentally, Rolls Royce are having progress with the JSF propulsion system - see here (http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=40243).
ImageGear
24th Sep 2005, 07:46
Sorry Chaps,
Since when did puffer jets and nozzles = Cat assisted CTO and arrested L operations.
Dons Kevlar, awaits incoming.
Imagegear
Feneris. The variant of F-35 has not been decided upon. The only people who want the STOVL variant are the politicians on behalf of industry. The carrier design has not been finalised, the French will have a big sway on that decision.
The carrier design is not dependant on the choice of F-35 and even the STOVL carrier variant, should that be the way we go, may not need a ramp. There is no direct link to a delay in the new carrier and the F-35 variant choice.
WE Branch Fanatic. There is more operational experience in the RN now than at any other time since the Falklands. Thanks yet again for your being pot half full and not having current knowledge of what our officers and ratings are achieving. And another link to that well flogged dead horse the Sea Jet thread.
The experience of the current fixed wing FAA pilots who will fill the key positions is at a peak and will remain that way with the development of the Mar Strike role. The demise of Sea Harrier is not going to effect the ability of the UK to operate CVF efficiently unless you are talking about transporting us back in time to the Cold War era with the great blue water battle.
Imagegear. Relax with the kevlar for the moment. I don't understand your point. Are you saying that STOVL is not as capable as the CV variant? Nothing radical about that statement, everyone agrees.
WE Branch Fanatic
24th Sep 2005, 11:58
The demise of Sea Harrier is not going to effect the ability of the UK to operate CVF efficiently unless you are talking about transporting us back in time to the Cold War era with the great blue water battle.
Are you saying that there is no air threat in the littoral? Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
Where on earth did you pull that question from? You took a thread from nowhere and got back to Sea Harrier; while, as always, not acknowledging the points I raise in reply to your previous shot gun blasts.
No. I'm not saying that there is no air threat in the littoral but the F-35 won't be sitting on a CAP in the overhead of the carrier. Just like the air threat in the littoral today is equally unlikely to be countered by a Sea Harrier but PLEASE, go back and read all the Sea Harrier comments I made about capabilities in that thread before making this another hybrid to rant about days gone by.
Are you sure you were in the RN? You are doing a tremendous job for the other two services.
tablet_eraser
24th Sep 2005, 18:45
Sadly I think it's all too easy to see CVF being pulled. We have a govt which is committed to downsizing the military ship by ship, tank by tank, airframe by airframe. At the same time placing massive strains on the standing infrastructure it is reducing our overall capability. Size DOES matter.
For the last few years we've had 2 CVS available for ops at any one time, and one in docks - now we only have 2, since INVINCIBLE has been or will be (update?) paid off. And it's almost certain that before 2012, some pen-pusher will decide to mothball ARK ROYAL or ILLUSTRIOUS too. I still hear ambient rumours from friends in Whitehall about future cuts, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I'm sorry, but CVF is such a massive capability leap away from the battered RN's current abilities that I do not see where we will find the personnel or the justification for manning 2 of them (unless we ditch a couple more T45s to generate the required manpower, that is). I agree that we NEED greater capability, but I simply do not see how we can expect the govt to maintain its current enthusiasm for CVF.
Same applies to the Tories, of course. I think one of the most disingenuous claims they made during the last election campaign was that they would stop the cuts. In fact, Fatty Soames said, "I'll save 3 out of the 6 warships Mr Hoon intends to dispose of". Yeah, REALLY committed to the military, aren't they? :yuk:
The ASTOVL vs CV argument continues to amuse (and sadden) me. I am not an aircraft designer, but can only assume that if you want to carry a lift fan, then you have to trade in some bombs and fuel. This, to my simple mind, means that when viewed against the bloke flying the CV variant you will be riding a less capable strike fighter.
Again I have not read the catalogue but one assumes that the more spinning machinery you put in the thing , the more expensive it gets. I do appreciate that Cat and Trap costs probably more than offset this.
The one thing that is a given for naval air power, and particularly Marstrike, is that if you do it on the cheap then you create compelling arguments for not doing it at all.
If we want a Maritme Strike capability then we should pay the going rate for one, which means affording CV aircraft flying from a CVF. Of course, most people reading this will be in the 'Yes, i agree we would welcome the capability, but there's only so much money in the pot' camp. So for 'we' read our chap Tony, who seems quite keen on having the things.
Whilst i have some sympathy for the 'It's a Harrier replacement so is therefore a success if it carries more than the Harrier' argument - i can't help but think that this would be akin to arriving at the Battersea Dogs' home and whilst being able to take home an Alsatian.....settling for a Poodle on the grounds that you were replacing a gerbil! (All figuratively speaking with no intended slight on drivers of the GR7).
Pierre Argh
26th Sep 2005, 13:37
'It's a Harrier replacement so is therefore a success if it carries more than the Harrier' argument One of the mistakes (IMHO) of procurement is the assumption that a replacement has to be better?
This inevitably equals more expensive, more complex...with the downside of fewer units and more down time, and/or greater maintenance requirements (e.g. Merlin)
The advantage of a more capable item, can easily be offset by the reduction in numbers you can afford. I read somewhere that, in comparitive terms, the cost to the USAF of a single F16 was the same as over fifty P51s... pitch 50 Mustangs against a single F16 in a dog fight and you're going to lose a few, but I think we all know the probable outcome?
(facts not checked... but it makes a good story and illustrates my point perfectly)
Now add in the number of engineers to maintain and pilots to fly them plus fuel etc. Then the difficulty in getting where you want them when you want them, unless you buy a corresponding number of tankers etc.
Pierre Argh
26th Sep 2005, 15:47
ORAC... Do you really think the reason your lords and masters buy fewer toys for the boys is because they'll need less pilots/engineers/tankers etc?... I don't think so? Besides fewer pilots, for example, means less flexibility when they have run out of crew duty time/run-off to join the airlines... and you still need someone for SDO... (same arguement y'see?)
Sure, these factors come into the procurement big picture? My dit was only a illustration...? Please re-read my first two paragraphs to see my point.... what I'm saying is, if you want to replace something replace it, don't upgrade unless you can afford too?
Major cost item is personnel, wages, support, pensions etc. Pays to reduce the maintenance time per flying hour, pays to reduce multicrew to twin, twin to single etc.
Pierre Argh
27th Sep 2005, 14:43
pays to reduce multicrew to twin, twin to single etc Bring on the UAVs...
Agree with your cost arguement... for the right reason. At the end of the day, cutting costs to buy fewer, but more advanced aircraft may mean an overall reduction in capability. One aircraft on a mission might get shot down, two aircraft, with half the number of bombs on each, means one may get through etc, etc? What yardstick for success are you using, ORAC... Cost saving, never won a conflict yet (to my knowledge?)
But neither did the low tech aircraft solution....
soddim
27th Sep 2005, 15:07
Surely the cost argument should be something like cost per target kill. That should give a clear picture of which is the more effective system and it follows that you will get more bang per buck.
The only difficult part is the assumptions made and that's the bit you have to get right.
Yeller_Gait
27th Sep 2005, 18:49
tablet_eraser and ....
Perhaps someone in dark blue may be able to answer, but I am under the impression that although we still have two CV in the RN, we now have only one crew, and they will transfer from one ship to the other as required.
If this is indeed the case, then I too also feel that it is very unlikely that we will end up with two shiny new CV, and the two crews required to man them.
It is also a very sad state of affairs that the RN can sign up to buy two carriers without knowing what top they want on them, or what aircraft they are going to operate from them.
While all the navies of western Europe are bringing new ships into service, the RN seem to be struggling on with ageing T42's, and slowly but surely the government are doing their best to reduce numbers all the time.
And finally, can someone please explain to me why one of the T45's will be called Duncan??
Y_G
Not wanting to disappear down a sifferent track...but i believe another's going to be 'Diamond'.
Yeller_Gait
27th Sep 2005, 19:05
Googling reveals
The first six of potentially twelve Type 45 Destroyers have been ordered by the MoD. The first is due to enter service in 2007 and will be named HMS Daring, the second and third are to be HMS Dauntless and Diamond respectively and these should be in service by 2009. The successor three ships, that will be joining the Fleet at intervals of about six months after HMS Diamond, are to be named HMS Duncan, Dragon and Defender.
As for the remaining 6 names, cannot easily (or quickly) find them, but then they probably will not be required anyway (':O')
So we'll have a Captain Dar[l]ing.....
Black Adder would love it. ;)
Archimedes
27th Sep 2005, 21:36
<Dons anorak>
The names for the Type 45 all have some heritage behind them.
'Duncan' is the seventh to bear the name and there was, IIRC, a 'Duncan' class of battleships from about 1901. The name commemorates Admiral Duncan , who defeated the Dutch fleet off Camperdown in 1797.
We could also get a 'Diana' (presumably HMS Saint Diana to move with the times....) 'Dainty' and a 'Decoy'. Which would be a 'Delight' (again, all 'D' Class ships)....
<Anorak off>
Toxteth O'Grady
27th Sep 2005, 22:24
So if we buy fewer than originally planned the last of class should be HMS Dwindling.
:cool:
TOG
The intention is to only buy eight now, but they still haven't ordered the last two. Do you ever get the feeling the MoD don't understand the principle of economies of scale?
Yeller_Gait,
There are 2 crews for the remaining CVS, not one bouncing between the two.
Nothing sad about waiting as long as possible to decide what is actually a relatively minor procurement issue, the configuration of the deck and aircraft type. (The deck options are spring loaded and ready to go and both types of aircraft will be produced for the USN and USMC which ever one we decide upon). If you rush into things you end up with platforms that end up not being used for what they were designed for. Such as Nimrod MRA4. Or Typhoon. Or Merlin. I can go on if you like.
Feel free to edit your post from "sad state of affairs" to "aren't those Navy types really quite smart".
Partly agree with your comment about T42 (old, tired weapon system) and gaps in our capability. First T45 hull will float in January 06, into service 07. Lets hope that we don't need that kind of serious air defence capability until then. It's all about balancing risk vs our chequebook balance. I'm not saying we have it right but history will be the judge of that.
Pierre Argh
One aircraft on a mission might get shot down, two aircraft, with half the number of bombs on each, means one may get through etc, etc?
The one aircraft (F-35) is, in theory, more than twice as survivable as the two cheap and cheerful ones with half the weapons. Cost saving has never been the primary thought in winning battles, it's just a reality of an environment where the military isn't fighting wars of national survival and, to the tax paying public, reducing hospital waiting lists is more important than stocking our ships/aircraft/tanks with the best gear in the quantities we want. Don't fight the white.
Soddim
Surely the cost argument should be something like cost per target kill. That should give a clear picture of which is the more effective system and it follows that you will get more bang per buck.
What happens if the "thing" you're buying doesn't deliver a weapon, like ASTOR for instance? As every day goes by, military personnel (and the kit they use) are less likely to be dropping weapons and more likely to be finding insurgents hideouts or drug production facilities for the indigenous police forces to deal with them. Cost per target kill would make a C130 or an OSKOSH refueller quite expensive compared to an F-35 or even, heaven forbid, a Typhoon. Actually, I'm going mad. Nothing is as expensive per unit cost as Typhoon. (No cheap shots about CVF or JSF, they don't exist yet).
Yeller_Gait
27th Sep 2005, 23:22
FB11,
The truth is out there somewhere .........
Time will tell when we see both CV out on ops at the same time.
Question ?
Is it usual in the RN for an officer to be in command of a ship for 4-5-6 years or more? Looking at the fleet bridge card from Mar 05, it appears that some captains have been in post since 1999, or even earlier. The average tour for a station commander in the RAF is in the region of 3 years.
Still, it must feel good to be captain of the Enterprise
Fleet Bridge Card (http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/rr/bridgecard.pdf)
Between 2 and 2.5 years is normal for ship drives, maybe less as we reduce hulls to allow as many as possible to take command.
baffy boy
28th Sep 2005, 02:01
Just a guess but it's probably something to do with this chap.
"Admiral Lord Viscount Duncan of Camperdown was born in Dundee on 1st July 1731. In a naval career spanning fifty-four years, he saw early service in the search for Prince Charles Edward Stuart off the West coast of Scotland, and afterwards with the British Navy in the Mediterranean, America, West Africa and Cuba. In his later years he earned wide respect for his handling of the serious naval mutiny of 1797, but achieved his greatest fame through his remarkable defeat of the Dutch fleet under Admiral de Winter off Camperdown on the 11th October 1797, thus thwarting a possible invasion by French and Dutch troops. He was made a Viscount on 17th October 1797 and died on 4 August 1804. In the words of Admiral Lord Nelson, 'the name of Duncan will never be forgot by Britain and in particular by its Navy'."
Either that or it's named after a gay bar on Old Compton street that was blown up in '99.................perhaps not.
Toxteth O'Grady
28th Sep 2005, 05:40
Y_G
it appears that some captains have been in post since 1999
They're seniority dates.
:cool:
TOG
Pierre Argh
28th Sep 2005, 09:54
... back to the aircraft arguement, Twice as effective, half a many airframes, expensive to buy but cheaper running costs,... it'd work providing the new aircraft is at least twice as serviceable as its replacement.... to be effective it needs to be able to get out of the hangar?
southside
28th Sep 2005, 11:02
Either that or it's named after a gay bar on Old Compton street that was blown up in '99
Bit like the Griffin then which is named after a strip bar in Soho.
Pierre Argh,
Aircraft are procured on requirement to generate X sorties per day in surge and Y sorties per day in sustained ops.
But your blinding glimpse of the obvious is indeed valid, an aircraft does need to be in the air to have a kinetic effect. (Unlike a B2 or F117 for example which, after it's proved itself as capable once, has an aura about it which may negate a reason for it flying. I believe they call it a deterrent.)
Good job we have Tornado as a baseline to work against, I could design an aircraft more serviceable than that old girl.
Anyway, I believe the Spifire production line is now closed and it would take as much to make the tooling again as buying F-35 so let's ride with it.
AWST - 31 Oct:
Pentagon leaders are considering the fate of the JSF... in the Quadrennial Defence Review. Under the then Chief of Staff Gen John Jumper's watch, the Air Force was considering the idea of buying the STOVL variant and diminishing its buy of CTOL F-35s. Only weeks after succeeding Jumper, however, Gen T Michael Moseley is mulling a an all-CTOL buy. In the meantime, observers say acting Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England may be looking to kill one JSF variant as a way to curb the increasing cost of procurement effort....
With the USN and USAF and overseas orders for the A and C, and the adding complexity and differences, the B is the logical model to go. The USMC can just go back to using the main USN carriers.
What, however, does it say about the UK $2 Bn investment and Rolls-Royce involvement?
Not a lot back for our money....
BossEyed
3rd Nov 2005, 21:22
Not necessarily so, ORAC. The RN CVF design has always had the option to fit catapults and arrester gear, so the C is not ruled out as an option for the RN if this was to happen.
ISD might be affected a tad, of course, but then again maybe not since development of the STOVL variant was always likely to be the trickiest of all options. The CV variant may well have a reduced development period c.f. the B, I'd guess.
I was thinking on manufacture. Out goes the lift engine and a some airframe manufacture work. I know we contribute towards the A and C. Just not sure how much me lose if the B is cancelled.
As numbers reduce the chances of a second production line outside the USA are shrinking, and if there is one it is likely to be in Italy, who have increased their order above ours to get it. Even support and maintenance is looking dodgy.
Many of you will have been following the ITAR saga. We wish to be able to maintain and modify our own jets. That means access to source code etc. The promise was that ITAR would be changed and that BAe would do it. It is looking increasingly like it will never happen and contingency work is in hand to look at fallback options. The following is a revealing extract from the latest AWST where Cmdre Henley, the JSF IPT lead, was addressing the defence committee.
"Operational sovreignity is the key", says Henley. "We have defined the capability that we will require in the UK - and maintenance, repair and upgrade is but one of those - and we understande the technologies that will be needed to underpin that capability. We need to have those under sovereign control. They could either be in government or in the hands of US industry under direct contract with us, or they could be in the UK industrial base. We are working with the US goverbment to understand exactly where that will lie".
Henley says the process of "identifying stoppers and finding workarounds" on technology access and support issues is ongoing. He recognises that "we havenīt removed all [of these] to date".
Committee members repeatedly raised the issue of technology access and the UKīs ability to support the aircraft independently. Of these negotiations, Henley says: "We have set ourselves some milestones in the future, points at which we measure that achievement and take a judgement. Right now we are making progress and we have made some progress in the last few months"
He did not elelaborate on the nature of the "judgements", nor what the options were if achievements fell well short of the desired milestones.......