UK JSF. Why?

[HaveQuick2]

What is the rationale behind the UK buying JSF?

What relevant capabilities does it bring to the table that are not already available using other platforms. I'm not convinced that the carrier argument is fully valid. (We are getting JSF so we need carriers, OR we are getting carriers so we'd better get some JSF).

Britain is not the major world player that it once was (should still be?) or thinks it is. CVF and JSF is a MASSIVE amount of money, surely better spent on helos and transports.

It may be OK for the Dutch/Israelis etc who need to replace their knackered old F-16As (MLU or otherwise), but the RAF is getting a fairly decent fast jet in Typhoon, and along with Tornado upgrade, UCAVs etc should be reasonably equipped for the future. I just think JSF/CVF is yet another "shiny toy" that is going to be another big money pit.

[Rakshasa]

Well for starters, it's not 20+ years old (AV8B/GR5+), has a radar (GR7/9 do not), and comes in CATOBAR and STOVL varieties that the Typhoon cannot and almost certainly never will.

I'll leave the technical reasons to the many experts around here. ;)

[Tightflester]

Ah, good old CDD (Clue Deficiency Disorder).
You may be able to treat some of the symptoms with this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm)
If the symptoms get any worse, try a couple of doses of this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/man-ac-jsf-010117a.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/man-ac-jsf-010117a.htm)
But ultimately the long term prognosis doesn’t look very good.

[abbotyobs]

I think you will find the Israelis and Dutch F16s are far more advanced and unknackered than you think. They certainly have the advantage of being a proven legacy multi-role ac that work, as opposed to some jets I could think of.
If you looked into JSF(post above!) you would find that it is a different league to our current legacy platforms.

[Tourist]

havequick.
Thank goodness you posted!
I was just thinking we needed another thread about carriers so that the same old arguments for and against can be dusted off again from the usual suspects with no side giving an inch till it all grinds to an acrimonious halt.
Cheers!:hmm:

[maxburner]

I'm bracing myself for someone to say 'its beter to stop then land than land and stop.' Haven't heard that in weeks.

[ORAC]

before it gets into carriers, lets be clear that the major influence behind the JSF is/was the RAF Harrier Mafia intent on replacing the RAF Harrier force. Which was designed and procured well before the advent of the RN "through-deck" carrier force and the SHAR.

For the raison d'etre and origins of the Harrier see here (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav81.html).

[Jetex Jim]

Isn't a better question why buy the STOVL version JSF? When with brand new, large tonnage carriers on the way - if the JSF is a must have - it would be far cheaper to just buy the capatapult capable version. (or a Rafael, or marianate the Typhoon)

It's all curiously reminiscent of the Spey F4 debacle, where someone was able to generate an argument to justify re-engining the F4, on the grounds that the carriers Ark Royal and Eagle were a bit short of deck length for safe go around performance with the standard GE engines. No matter that plain vanilla USN F4 had flown on/off the Ark.

The answer to the JSF/STOVL question, is the same as the answer to the Spey engined Phantom one - to generate jobs in the UK - and to heck with whats best for the Navy and Air Force.

In the end, of course the Spey F4 were slower than the standard fit. None of the promised Spey engined Phantom exports were sold and they cost more than twice as much per copy, which by the time the entire fleet of RN and RAF F4s were re-engined would have paid for -just the extra cost over the standard model that is- two brand new carriers - and as an added bonus probably have prevented the Falklands War.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Britain is not the major world player that it once was (should still be?) or thinks it is. CVF and JSF is a MASSIVE amount of money, surely better spent on helos and transports.

As long as we only fight wars in landlocked (or nearly landlocked) places where the opposition has neither an air force or a navy.

I refer the reader to the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) and Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) threads.

The calamity that comes is never the one we had prepared for - Mark Twain.

[althenick]

No input from Jacko yet? ;)

[davejb]

At the risk of being tarred with whatever brush is doing the rounds from the other 20 CVF threads, I agree with the thread opener to a fair degree.

To operate carriers you have to be able to protect them - and that isn't just a case of having 2 fighters on CAP and a helo hoping he's in the right sector to contain the submarine threat. Carriers NEED supporting frigates/destroyers/SSN/MPA, and unless we're talking about invading Luxembourg they survive a damn sight longer if they're outside enemy landbased air threats, and inside friendly air cover.

I think we should have carriers, but only if we can afford to provide the rest of the TG and have a good array of aircraft onboard* - otherwise what purpose is served by having a single unit that will constitute a devastating loss if anything leaks through? We don't 'project power' worldwide any more - we do still need to be able to protect the sealanes to the UK, we're an island and still need to ship material in and out, and we need to be able to perform anti druggy/anti terorist stuff... we buy shiny toys at the expense of the workhorses of our defence capability.

No 'anti Navy' stance intended here, in an ideal world we'd have a suitable balance of forces - it's a fallacy to say that we have to plan for all eventualities, unless we can afford to cover them all.... if we don't have the money to conduct all the ops, cover all the roles we ought to, then we have got to concentrate on the areas that most directly impinge on national security - and that isn't 'being able to refight 1982 properly'. Unfortunately we've had a succession of governments who have funded a national, coastal defence capability, then started wars a third of the globe away.

Dave

*Which is a nice way of saying 'we can't afford it' of course.

[hulahoop7]

Lets not forget the money either. For British industry it is a huge huge winner. Getting 20%? of a project this big is going to keep money rolling in for many years to come. Probably far out stripping the outlay on the jets themselves. ... plus we get to peak inside too unlike the other partners. Its such a great deal.. if its decided we don't need them, it would be better to buy them and crush them than loose out on the work share!!

[gar170]

I'm with brown on with this one we don't need carriers and if supermarkets don't do voluntary the we need legislation.

[glad rag]

... plus we get to peak inside too unlike the other partners.....

I still remain to be convinced that the USA will export A/C that match their own 100% in EVERY aspect......

[Al R]

An interesting piece from last week's ft.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3df99a6c-f9f8-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html

[Lytham Lifeboat]

It's all explained here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A

[Bob Viking]

Honestly. How many more times must I say this?!
It's RAFALE not bl00dy RAFAEL!!!
Basics man, basics!
BV:*

[Occasional Aviator]

Interesting.

Doesn't look like there have really been any actual answers to the thread starter's quuestion.

Rakshasa said:

Well for starters, it's not 20+ years old (AV8B/GR5+), has a radar (GR7/9 do not), and comes in CATOBAR and STOVL varieties that the Typhoon cannot and almost certainly never will.

but that really only makes the case for a (any) carrier-borne AD-capable aircraft. I don't intend to start a debate about whether we need one of those - UK defence policy is that we're going to have one. But why JSF?

Tightflester's (outdated) links mention UK/US cooperation and say that JSF will be shiny and capable, and ORAC (predictably) blames the RAF for choosing JSF for the RN (?), but I am still a bit confused as to how we got to where we are.

Is it stealth? If so, I'm unconvinced that the small range/weaponload when stealthy is cost effective when compared to the cheap & cheerful TLAM or the more-capable Storm Shadow. Is it the STOVL capability? Nice to have when you're operating from small strips (as JFH have demonstrated) but is this an articulated capability requirement, perhaps as part of the FRES rapid intervention concept?

Yes, we will need SOMETHING to put on our carriers (providing the Defence Select Committee can be convinced we have the ability to operate them), but why JSF? Why not SuperHornet or Rafale?

What hole does this capability really fill?

[Tightflester]

Tightflester's (outdated) links mention UK/US cooperation and say that JSF will be shiny and capable

I was, on the same day I read the links I posted, reading a link about England winning the World Cup in 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3228728.stm
As it was an outdated link it probably isn't true. England rugby fans please STFU.... It never happened.

[Jackonicko]

The training requirements for catapault launch/arrested recovery ops are such that the aircraft procured would not be available to do anything else. They would be an asset which would effectively be tied to the carriers.

The theory is that a STOVL type will be able to conduct both carrier ops and land based, and will thus be more flexible and more useful, more often.

The implications of command over carrier-capable assets was discussed recently on another thread.

So in answer to the original question, the answer is B) we are getting carriers so we'd better get some JSF.

As to what relevant capabilities we will get that are not already available using other platforms, there are very few.

Like the OP I'm not convinced that the carrier argument is fully valid. I can see that there are theoretical scenarios in which carriers would be the only option (you only have to look back 26 years to see the last example.....:rolleyes:).

Unfortunately, though, there are equally compelling scenarios that could be used to support the acquisition of similarly high-cost and seldom-needed capabilities - from the ability to air-drop paras in brigade strength, through the ability to mount another Desert Storm/Granby scale effort, to the ability to mount a large scale armoured offensive, or even the use of strategic heavy bombers.

We can't afford any of these - nor, according to the defence assumptions, can we afford to do the kind of large scale autonomous ops to which many of us would aspire. In that strategic and budgetary context, CVF is not affordable, and should not be acquired. We are not the major world player that we once were (and should still be). CVF and JSF together do represent a MASSIVE amount of money, that would be better spent on the capabilities we actually need every time out - not just helos and transports, but tankers, SEAD, recce and land based FJs as well.

[lightningmate]

Jacko

Cannot see the cat launch as a big training issue, thumbs up, whoosh and you are airborne. Trapped landing will require training but USN exchange tours etc will quickly re-build an experienced cadre. Frankly, the demands of regularly flying SRVLs plus the associated operating limits is likely to be much more of an issue.

lm

[LowObservable]

About 22 years ago...

The starting point for what became JSF, the first snowflake in today's mighty avalanche, was a US-UK agreement to work on a STOVL fighter to replace the Harrier, which was then reaching the end of its development potential. So part 1 of the answer to the first poster is "to replace the Harrier, particularly in its shipborne role."

In the US, STOVL became wedded to CV and CTOL requirements in 1993-96, to save money. This also meant that the jet would be stealthy, which was a non-negotiable US Navy/USAF requirement. The UK (BAE and RR) parlayed their STOVL experience into a large role in the program, teaming with LockMart, who won the competition.

Meanwhile, the 1998 Strategic Defence Review reaffirmed the need for two new aircraft carriers. This was made possible by the existence of JSF, which was then well under way, because at the time nobody was thinking seriously of a cat-trap solution.

The Harrier force also became "jointed", leading to the dumping of the SHAR. This results in an institutional base for a joint JSF force, which could in theory operate off ships or from short runways.

The F-35B has been the default choice for the new carriers (which are still regarded as necessary under UK defense policy) even though they have grown to the point where they could easily operate cat-trap fighters. Nobody ever stopped and examined that question.

So "why JSF"? 1. It's the chosen aircraft for the carriers and as time goes on it's increasingly expensive to change that choice. 2. It provides a true LO capability to the UK. 3. If all goes to plan :} it provides lots of lovely lolly to UK industry because the UK buys 85-130 of the jets but gets almost 20 per cent of the program, when you count BAE's EW system.

If all goes to plan of course, which is when we refer you to other threads

[NoHoverstop]

Cannot see the cat launch as a big training issue, thumbs up, whoosh and you are airborne. Trapped landing will require training but USN exchange tours etc will quickly re-build an experienced cadre. Frankly, the demands of regularly flying SRVLs plus the associated operating limits is likely to be much more of an issue.

Alright then, in my opinion, built up over many years of avoiding an honest living...

Fitting a catapult to CVF 30 years in the future is deemed easy enough and cheap enough that it's sensible to leave space in the ship design. Basically because by then it will be someone else's problem. Doing it now would be problematic. Trapped landings do require more training compared to slowing down to a gentlemanly pace first. Fair enough, if push came to shove then of course UK pilots could do it but at the cost of vastly reduced aircrew availability and horrendously inefficient recovery rates when the deck starts moving a bit (no dedicated recovery tanker in the overhead. How much fuel do you want them to bring back to make sure they get on, eventually?). I'm not sure where you get your info on SRVLs from. Presumably you weren't on PA CDG last year comparing the success rates of the Rafale and SEMs with the electric nozzly jet.

So, why F-35B? Because it's invisible* and it can operate from the UK's planned cheap** carriers and from less-than-perfect*** runways.

*If you know how this works, you know the caveats.
**because the UK couldn't afford a pair of full-scale carriers in the 60s and certainly can't afford them now. Don't let the size of the things lead you astray, these are 40,000 tonne boats that have been allowed to grow so that breathing space is built-in, not 100,000 tonne boats that have been starved.
***as in: "Schtop! Thish runway ish not ready. Look at thisch schubschidensche! We can't bring our F-16s here. You Harrier guys will have to schtay."

[Not_a_boffin]

Some of which is true, apart from :

1. CV requires organic tankers, STOVL (or SRVL) do not. More to do with the size of gaggle rather than mode of recovery above a certain point. Oh and don't think that deck movement does't affect SRVL (see below.....)

2. IIRC, CdG and the VAAC SRVL were undertaken in near perfect weather conditions and (for VAAC obviously) as single-ship.

3. CVF is not a 40000 te ship with some through-life growth - nor is it a constrained 100000 tonner. The 40000 te ship was the original concept study before a sortie gen requirement (and hence flypro or deck management studies) even existed. It's a 60000 te ship with upwards of 10000 te growth potential (and that is really giving some issues, though not the ones you might expect) built in.

[AliasBoris]

There's this 'important' woman in Argentina who very recently claimed she 'want's' the Falkland Islands under Argy control..

Will she delay until we get our new carriers and a/c, so as to ensure a fair fight ?

[althenick]

There's this 'important' woman in Argentina who very recently claimed she 'want's' the Falkland Islands under Argy control..

Will she delay until we get our new carriers and a/c, so as to ensure a fair fight ?

ARGHHHH AliasBoris! You mentioned the F******* I****'* and A********* - How Passe - Don't you know that unlike the BOB and the Uk's more recent adventures that this must not be mentioned. You are however allowed to extoll the virtues of Typhoon, Tankers, and Helicopters. :rolleyes:

[green granite]

There's this 'important' woman in Argentina who very recently claimed she 'want's' the Falkland Islands under Argy control..

Will she delay until we get our new carriers and a/c, so as to ensure a fair fight ?

Probably someone at the MOD bunged her a few hundred quid to say that so as to justify getting the carriers. :E

[GPMG]

Pah, a women? How on earth would a women be able to take the Falklands?


Anyway.
Just make it well known that a couple of SSN's are patrolling the FI's and will sink on site any incoming ships, also have Rapier ready to drop any troop carriers inbound.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Just make it well known that a couple of SSN's are patrolling the FI's and will sink on site any incoming ships....

If only SSN numbers hadn't been cut by a third since 1998, at the same time as they are commited to operations more and more....

The above posts regarding tankers make me think of Osprey with a limited AAR fit.

What hole does this capability really fill?

How about fleet air defence, a rather serious capability gap post Sea Harrier?

[Fire 'n' Forget]

How about fleet air defence


You need to have a fleet to defend :}

[Jetex Jim]

You need to have a fleet to defend

It quite simple, as soon as you get a carrier, you have to have a fleet to defend it...

[Occasional Aviator]

But we're not buying the JSF for 'fleet air defence'. Leaving aside the issue that if the claims for T45 are to be believed, the fleet is already better defended than any other element of UK forces, according to SRO(C) the whole point of the carrier is to have a stand-alone MarStrike asset, not a flagship that needs the rest of the navy to defend it.

The question stands - why JSF, rather than Rafale of F18?

[hulahoop7]

I think Jacko answered that one. Don't underestimate the cost of keeping CTOL pilots current - its significant. A huge amount of training and effort is required. Note how French jets and pilots have needed the USN to help them out while CdG is getting an MOT, and I think I am right in remembering that French pilots do a hell of alot of training in the US too.
The F18s and RifRafs are one trick ponys. When they're not doing CV CTOL ops they practising CV CTOL ops.

The UK doesn't want the cost of a dedicated carrier group, and Dave B allows that flexibility. As is the case now with the Harriers, the B's might be busy tasked on land based operations, but in an emergency all those jets and pilots could be switched back to the CV without a huge amount of training.

The B also allows initial operations from the CV to be followed by FOB operations from a rough strip or matting - cutting response times.

We can argue till we are blue in the face about whether CVF is necessary or not. But if you do conclude the answer to that is yes I think, as long as the B model does what it is supposed to do, it is a very good fit to UK requirements.

Add in the economic benefits, and it's a no brainer.

[Occasional Aviator]

Hulahoop, thanks, that's probably the clearest post yet on this thread!

I do wonder though whether we are getting ourselves unneccesarily wound around the axle about how difficult carrier ops are. I know very little about what makes a ship tick and how much skill goes into running the decks etc, but I am surprised that we can't look forward to a time when the actual flying on to and off a ship can be partially or completely automated. How old is ACLS?

Surely technology can make lots of these things easier for us - I know SRO(C) is presenting the picture of a JSF pilot pressing the 'autoland' button before she gets out of the jet and goes to the same debrief facility she'd have on land - is he aiming for the right thing or is he deluded?

[LowObservable]

Good points neatly summed up, Hulahoop.

You could also add that all that cat and trap work eats into lifetime. There are a lot of 20-year-old-plus landbased fighters around, but few if any in the USN. The USN is projecting a 2030 out-of-service date for the E/F, corresponding to a service life around 18 years.

One thing could make a huge difference: the successful demo of a carrier-based UCAS. But that's a few years down the line.

I'm also dubious about Dave Bs operating off mats and roads. A Harrier it ain't. But we'll see.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Occasional Aviator

But we're not buying the JSF for 'fleet air defence'.

No, we're buying it as a multirole aircraft. With a powerful radar with air to air modes, both Sidewinder and AMRAAM, data links, a reduced RCS and maybe even a gun(?) it will be capable of air defence, far more so that the Harrier GR9 that it will replace in UK service.

JJ

It quite simple, as soon as you get a carrier, you have to have a fleet to defend it...

Err, sometimes the opposite is true. Believe it or not, the Navy does do things other than support carrier operations, some of which mean exposing ships and helicopters to enemy airpower, for example amphibious operations, naval gunfire support, dealing with enemy submarines, or missile boats, or clearing mines. Carrier based fighters are likely to be rather useful then.

[Occasional Aviator]

WEBF,

I don't dispute that - but you do yourself, the RN and the carrier project no favours by going on about 'fleet air defence' - this will be, at best, a minor role for JSF. If you are trying to justify carriers on this basis you give the naysayers an easy route to the 'self-licking lollipop' argument.

[davejb]

Having a carrier taken out leaves your aircraft nowhere to land, a couple of thousand people in the water, a huge loss on the balance sheet that everyone now realises could have paid for several smaller ships/subs, a massive PR/morale issue, and a fatal reduction in the ability to project power.

Fleet air defence is provided by organic AAW assets, and - self licking lollipop it may be - you (almost) only need it if you want to deploy AAW assets with the fleet....

You ALSO get a carrier based strike package, but you only need that if you want to project power beyond the range of landbased aircraft.... It isn't the aircraft choice that's the problem, it's the decision to have carriers.

Dave

[Occasional Aviator]

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear - I wasn't for a moment suggesting the carrier wouldn't need air defence - merely that this is a minor role. (nominally only 4 ac on board assigned to it according to SRO(C)?)

[davejb]

That's the point though - it's 'a minor role' only if the air threat is itself minor.

[Not_a_boffin]

Dave will provide some level of OCA and DCA in addition to the strike role. Some people throughout MOD appear to be unaware that there are other high-value units in the Fleet besides the carrier (LPD, LPH, LSD(A), the RFA store ships, the Ro-Ro shipping). All of these require some form of AD while operating or transiting in a high-threat area and the best way of doing that is using manned a/c - particularly where RoE may be constrained - so Fleet AD is far from a self-licking lollipop.

No-one suggests that Typhoon only does AD, why should Dave only do strike? As for the SRO comments - that's more likely to be 4 postured for DCA on an alert basis at any one time. You can veer and haul around that number depending on threat and/or phase of campaign. Whether Dave is the optimum balance of capability between air to air and air to mud is a different question. However, it is the only aircraft in development that will do both to a degree and not be twenty years old on service entry.........

[Occasional Aviator]

Can't disagree with any of that.

[Modern Elmo]

Iraq has changed the moral playground to such an extent that that the UK and France know that that an EU with strike capability is the only future.



Says a Frenchperson.