More delays for the F-35

[glojo]

Gosh, shock, surprise horror...

Rumour has it there will probably be further delays with the F-35 program and we may not get the aircraft we ordered when we wanted them!!

WASHINGTON — British Defence Minister Philip Hammond has voiced concern about possible cuts or delays in the US F-35 fighter program as London plans to equip a future aircraft carrier with the stealthy aircraft.
In a visit to the US capital, Hammond said he wanted to hear from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the potential effect of a new US military strategy and budget plan on the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
"One of the things I hope to understand in the meetings I am to have later today is what, if any, impact the announcements being made today will have on the Joint Strike Fighter program," Hammond told an audience at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.
Hammond's Thursday visit coincided with the unveiling of a revised American military strategy that calls for a "leaner" force as the Pentagon plans for $487 billion in cuts over the next decade.
At the Pentagon's presentation on Thursday, officials gave no details as to possible changes to the F-35 program, which has been plagued by cost overruns and delays due to a spate of technical problems. US officials have acknowledged that the pace of production will likely be scaled back but have yet to offer specifics.
After Hammond's meeting with his American counterpart, the Pentagon issued a statement confirming the two discussed the US strategic review but made no mention of the F-35 jet.
The Pentagon said the two defense chiefs signed an agreement on "carrier cooperation" that will allow the United States to help Britain train crews and pilots as the country's new aircraft carrier will not be ready for years.
"Since the British currently are regenerating their carrier capability, it also provides a framework for the US to assist our close ally in developing a robust and modern carrier force," press secretary George Little told AFP in an email.
Britain, one of a group of countries supporting the F-35 program, is counting on the Joint Strike Fighter to fly from its future aircraft carrier, the Prince of Wales.
The Pentagon has commissioned the construction of three versions of the plane, including one designed to land on an aircraft carrier.
"We are committed to purchasing the carrier variant," Hammond said at the Atlantic Council event.
"But of course, if there is any slippage in the program, any reduction in the US numbers required could have impacts on availability and on unit costs," said Hammond, citing pressures on Britain's defense budget.
"As you may know we are already under some pressure from public opinion in the UK over the fact that we are going to build and launch carriers some years before we have any aircraft to fly off with," he said.
"Really, it's a caricaturist's dream -- a carrier with no jets to fly on them. So the prospect of any further delays to the carrier variant would be of concern to us."
At an estimated $385 billion, the F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program ever.
The program calls for building 2,443 of the fighters, with each plane costing $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars.
Manufactured by defense giant Lockheed Martin, there are plans for three models: a standard variant of the aircraft, an F-35A, a short take-off version, the F-35B, and a fighter designed to fly from aircraft carriers.
Britain has scrapped plans to buy the short take-off F-35B and reportedly plans to buy 138 F-35 fighters.
Lucky we kept our harrier fleet to tide us over. I feel sorry for the Americans because their AV8B's are getting well past there sell by date and they might land up with carriers but no aircraft to man them!

How silly will they look if that were to happen... Aircraft carriers and no aircraft what type of idiot country would get into that situation?

WEBF where are you? :)

[Courtney Mil]

It was bound to happen. I always used to admire the way that the US defence (sorry, defense) industry used to design and build aircraft that worked and with few delays, roughly on budget (someone will be along citing numerous examples where they didn't, I know). But then things started getting more and more complicated, which made prices rise exponentially and made the whole R&D process too complex. So now, even Lockheed are having the same problems as everyone else. Don't mention Eurofighter.

I now wonder if seriously complex is what we all need today. What about (this is only an example) an F-18 redesign or something like that? Something we know will work and that we could stick on our shining new aircraft carrier.

[glojo]

I have always preferred the idea of a tried and trusted aircraft that we could purchase at an attractive price. The 18 may well tick all the right boxes especially if new electronics might make this aircraft able to possibly detect some types of stealth technology. Would this option ensure we get the best possible deal and if we had folks that really knew what they were doing, could we negotiate to get the best of deals. We might make noises about buying a European aircraft just to let manufacturers realise we are out to get the most bang for the buck..

F-18
Air to Air
Air to Ground
EW =Growler
Tanker

The point about purchasing the 18 has been discussed elsewhere but as time ticks by it looks like those who poo hooed that idea may well be regretting it. Unfortunately as per other threads we all realise that those who make these decisions are never in office to be held accountable for their poor judgements.

I dare not mention the decision that was Really bonkers but now that the Americans are having to make severe cut backs with their own military do we need our carriers sooner rather than later and when will these F-35's be completed.... IF EVER?? Will they be an Obama defence cut.

[Courtney Mil]

And will they still want our cast off Harriers? A good rumour to start for WEBFoot. :E

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Shouldn't this thread be called "Even More Delays..."?:{

[LowObservable]

The mechanism at work here is production - taking 120 aircraft out of 2013-17 buys (2015-2019 deliveries). A US buy of 30-some per year only includes a handful of Cs, and although the rate goes up after the 2015 buy year, the Navy may not have enough jets for a sustainable squadron and training unit until 2019, regardless of how well or otherwise testing goes.

And pre-2019 deliveries will be off a low-rate line and eyewateringly expensive.

Not to mention the fact that the blighters are having trouble making that hook at the back catch the piece of string across the deck, which for some reason they consider frightfully important.

[Courtney Mil]

having trouble making that hook at the back catch the piece of string across the deck, which for some reason they consider frightfully important

It's a BOAT thing, LO. :cool:

[Just This Once...]

Nothing to do with the boat, it's the water stuff at the end of the moving runway that they are trying to miss.

Or something like that.

[glojo]

The string across the deck is for the Brylcreem boys to fly their kites and put on a wizzo show to entertain those that defends our shores :ooh::)

With Obama now making significant cutbacks will we see the numbers of these aircraft drastically reduced?

Has Israel stated they will not wait indefinitely for this aircraft and was 2015 mentioned as a cut-off date to then consider the latest F-15? How many other countries might follow suit and if number of the F-35 are significantly reduced we then get into a situation where our Defence Minister has stated:

"But of course, if there is any slippage in the program, any reduction in the US numbers required could have impacts on availability and on unit costs," said Hammond, citing pressures on Britain's defense budget.It looks like there may well be a significant reductions in numbers and that is before we look at the large order placed by the US Marines. Will the fast jet capability of that force survive or will it be suggested that the US Navy could provide this? What a pot mess with no definite idea of delivery date, no idea of final costs and is there a possibility that the US might scrap the whole thing because of the spiralling costs? Are we happy to wait in the hope the F-35 will be completed and will be supplied at an affordable price. Have we a plan 'B' and I do not mean the F-35B :ok:. Why get involved with a new project with an undefined final price, an unknown availability date and now sadly do doubts surround this aircraft about whether it will ever be completed?

I have always been a huge fan of the F-35 but having aircraft carriers with no aircraft is a situation that no sane government would ever allow. It is something I would have thought funny if it were not so serious.

Fingers crossed that all these issues are quickly resolved and our 35's will be delivered on time.

[GreenKnight121]

Not to mention the fact that the blighters are having trouble making that hook at the back catch the piece of string across the deck, which for some reason they consider frightfully important.

You don't have to worry about this with the F-35B... they've already taken off & landed several times on a large flat patch of rusty iron moving across the water... and they didn't even need a ski-jump or wires to do it!
:ok:

Maybe you should switch back?

:E

[Andu]

What are the chances that the Obama administration will pull the plug on the whole programme in an attempt to balance the books? Of course there'd be huge resistance from the US Defence Industry lobby in Washington, but... I suppose the big word is "but..." The US is to all intents and purposes bankrupt, if trying to pretend it can maintain the façade that it's not, but - (there's that word again) - there appear to be major, (really MAJOR) shortcomings to the F35. So will the hardheads prevail and say "this is one that's not delivering and one we can't afford it?"

I think most of the goodies contained within the F35 airframe could be fitted to existing, proven airframes, so the programme wouldn't be a total loss. The Australian Air Force is pretty deeply committed to the F35, but the comments of Australian Ambassador to the US (and respected ex Defence Minister), Kim Beazley, only yesterday, when stripped of 'diplospeak', (which was far thinner than usual in such comments from an ambassador), were not much short of "if it doesn't deliver, and soon, we'll be dredging up penalty clauses and will need to look elsewhere".

[Seanthebrave]

Am I the only one missing the point, when I say it now makes strategic, political and financial sense to wait until the mid 2020s to buy it? The first USAF squadron isn't going to go operational until 2018 (assuming the flight test programme is flawless from now on, which it definitely wont be).

Why can't we just buy some F18s and a few more Typhoons at a much lower cost and guarantee ourselves a capability for 2020 rather than sacrificing everything for what will, let's face it, be a display jet in 2018?

Purchase the F35 when it's in full rate production, some capabilities on it actually work and the airframe snags have been overcome... is this sensible, or just lunacy?

[LowObservable]

What you'd save at this point by buying Super Hornets would pay for a few more Typhoons and a lot of improvements to the Typhoon - conformals and vectored thrust &c.

The US is in a fix. It would make sense at this point to defer production of the B and C and focus on the A - because with three versions, the sheer number of engineering change requests is going to overwhelm the system, because the Navy has a Plan B, and because Marine STOVL jets are not as strategically important as the Marines think they are.

But if you do that, the C will eventually die as the USN keeps buying more F-18s, at which point the B becomes a really silly allocation of Navy resources - a vast procurement program to put six jets on nine or ten ships.

And everyone would rather not tackle the Marines head-on, or kick the Brits out of the program, not because the US does not want to hurt the Brits' feelings but because that could trigger the partner landslide.

[Seanthebrave]

To me, the B looks like it's a dead man anyway... and the recent slew of bad news being leaked, makes me think that delays are imminent (USAF/USN IOC 2020?).

US decisions don't bother me as long as they don't heave the price skyward, F18/Typhoon for the next 13 years seems like an absolute no-brainer to me, especially if it means ploughing money into the Typhoon programme for a few years...

[glojo]

By buying the Hornet you are possibly by de facto not buying the F-35. There is surely no way we would buy the Hornet just to tide us over for the few possible years of delays to the program.

I thought the RAF were also getting the F-35C although I am definitely in confused mode.

[fallmonk]

Maybe with the US cut backs a option of a few
Squadron's of Second hand F18 Rhinos is a possibility???
They keep a ally happy(still buying yank) and wee get some aircraft to put on the nice new shinny carriers. Till the F35 finally shows up ?

[Seanthebrave]

Even if they postponed the F35 order until it was living up to (some of) its specification?... I reckon that'll be 5 or 6 years after its IOC, if the Typhoon is anything to go by; that would give the super hornet a good 10 - 12 years of service time... potentially.

[Arcanum]

There are UK jobs in more Typhoons.

There are UK job in the F35.

There are no UK jobs in the F18.

So I'd be surprised if F18 would ever be a real candidate to fill any F35 delay/cancellation. Either a longer "capability holiday" or more Typhoons.

[cokecan]

i'm going to shout 'F/A-18E' here - given how long its going to be before we've got say 25 Daves and enough carrier qual'd pilots to make actually owning a carrier worthwhile, we'd just be better off going for a 'bridge' SuperHornet programe. if we bought now, in 2012, we could spend the 7 years until PoW enters service learning to fly it, fight it, maintain it and use it on a carrier, then as soon as PoW comes on scene we'd be ready to rock, rather than waiting yet another 4 years or so until RN/RAF pilots are sufficiently trained on the beast to be able to use the carrier effectively.

from what is written here it looks like it will be 2025 before the carrier, aircraft and crews are ready to operate ogether. by buying SuperHornet we'd have that operating capability in 2019/20 - and we'd have a proven multi-role aircraft able to take over Tornado's role well before that.

[Courtney Mil]

FA 18 E (or F, if we can find some old navs somewhere) ticks all the boxes. Not a stop-gap buy, the jet could fill ALL our current fast jet roles well into the future. Stealth is expensive and sits on an exponential expense scale - diminishing returns and all that. The cutting edge technology, the same.

ALL our newest generation aircraft are well below FOC, IOC in some cases. Proven technology, new build, is what our armed forces need. Some commie bloke once said - quantity has a quality all of it's own. I know someone will quote me and correct me here, but if we want to cut costs and still maintain any sort of capability and equip our fantasy carrier, find something reliable and cost-effective.

But then, will our government buy what we need at a good price or what will look better in the UK plc balance sheet?

Standing by for a rash of static...

[Justanopinion]

FA 18 E (or F, if we can find some old navs somewhere) ticks all the boxes. Not a stop-gap buy, the jet could fill ALL our current fast jet roles well into the future. Stealth is expensive and sits on an exponential expense scale - diminishing returns and all that. The cutting edge technology, the same.

Completely agree Courtney. The SuperHornet with AESA provides everything we need minus the "first day of the war" capability, is well proven,can operate at sea and still has growth potential. A reason the USN are not in a rush for JSF.

We already have a cadre of pilots becoming qualified on it also.

[Always a Sapper]

With the proposed US cut backs and our own carriers not coming on line for at least 7 years why not just go the whole hog and either buy or borrow a s/h carrier complete with an airwing to 'tide' us over until the F35 is in full production and our own super doper flat tops have been launched, gone through their workup and had all the niggly bits fixed.

Cull a few more Admirals and their hangers on and we may even be able to afford two.

Tis only a thought...

[Courtney Mil]

everything we need minus the "first day of the war" capability

Even that's OK. The French seem happy to get stuck in these days. We'll just turn up a day late with our gleaming F18s.

The Americans send appologies for being late for the last two world wars, but promise to make up by being really early for the next one!!! :ok:

[Mach Two]

Oh, YES!!! I could handle flying that.

Dear Mr Cameron,

Please save a fortune on the defence budget by consolidating all our fast jet operations into one type that really can do everything you will require of us. Think of the benefits. The MoD would only need one FJ logistics stream, you could finally pull out of the Eurofighter millstone, people would stop complaining about you thowing away our carrier air and we could buy shares in Boeing.

The GR4s will easily see you though untill we can take delivery of F18Fs and you would be able to move your Tornado crews (that you value so dearly) directly across to this type. We could then do it all for you. Probably even more than you know.

I'd be very happy to advise you further on this matter. Please feel free to contact me.

Yours as always,

Mach Two.

[cokecan]

is Rafale that much better at 'first day of war' than SuperHornet?

SH isn't Dave C, but SH with Sky Shadow ALCM, ALARM and the door kicked-in with a stealthy Tommahawk barrage is, imv, going to cope with any ADE that the UK is going to have to cope with that the US's B-2/F-35/F-22's haven't already done the dirty deed on. more importantly, its actually available and the price difference means that we'd be able to get a decent weapons package fitted - Meteor, ALARM, SS ALCM, Harpoon(?), EPW IV, Brimstone.

imagine a single platform FJ fleet, all multi-role, full A2A and A2G capability, and all carrier capable....

[Justanopinion]

Not sure that we would need WSOs unless we get some Growlers, the E will do just fine..........

[Seanthebrave]

I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that the Super Hornet is the solution to our requirements beyond the mid 2020s but I certainly think it will be easily the best aircraft for the carrier strike role until then!

[Easy Street]

Single-seat for A-A, two-seat for A-G: there's a reason the fleet of F15E derivatives around the world is still growing!

The UK's move to single-seat A-G is largely based on 2 assumptions:

A) A trend away from "man-in-the-loop" weapons: e.g. the gradual replacement of laser-guided weapons with GPS-guided ones

B) Succesful development of sensor fusion: the idea that multiple inputs, (e.g. datalink, radar, targeting pod, helmet-mounted cueing system) can all be brought together to produce one easily-assimilated picture for a heavily-tasked solo pilot

Unfortunately A) does not apply in all instances - witness the heavy use of the laser-guided DMS Brimstone during both HERRICK and ELLAMY. This is a weapon that needs aiming to within a couple of feet accuracy, which against moving targets takes 100% of the sensor operator's capacity - not ideal for a solo pilot. GPS jamming and moving targets mean that there will always be a need for designation into the future. As for B) - we'll see. To my understanding, it has not yet developed anywhere near as far as hoped. I think the UK has taken quite a risk by going single-seat only post-GR4 (although all will be aware that there are quite enough pilots around to fill back seats once the last WSOs have gone!)

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, the single seat vs two seat debate again. This could run and run. Most of the single seat guys will vote for, well yo guess, and vice versa. Flown both, loved both, in a shooting war give me the second brain and kit operator any day. Just saying.

No responses accepted from anyone that's only ever flown single seat.

:cool:

[Justanopinion]

The E and the F are exactly the same aircraft in terms of sensors, kit etc and the F can be operated by pilot only ( although never is operationally). The biggest advantage the F has is in FAC A and that is about all. Theoretically 2 heads should be better than one but I think you'll find E squadrons disputing that

[Easy Street]

Courtney - Bullseye! Single-seat is fantastic for chest-puffing in peacetime, but when the sh*t starts flying, the more brains, eyes and ears the merrier!

[Courtney Mil]

Theoretically 2 heads should be better than one but I think you'll find E squadrons disputing that

I think that was one of my points.

[Seanthebrave]

Is the option of pilot and co-pilot available vs Pilot and WSO? The rear cockpit has all the same systems as the front, does it not?

[Easy Street]

Yes indeed, and that is exactly how the UK would have to man it once the last WSOs have moved on.... we have now closed our WSO training system! Nowt wrong with putting 2 pilots in together; in fact you could argue it would make for better co-operation as each would instinctively know what the other was supposed to be doing and when, helping each to know when to talk and when to shut up.... this can be a problem with some of the chopped-early-in-flying-training WSO brethren... :E

[Justanopinion]

Theoretically 2 heads should be better than one but I think you'll find E squadrons disputing that
I think that was one of my points.

The Superhornet is a great platform to compare the wonderful single seat vs two seat debate as it performs exactly the same role single and two seat. There is no discernible advantage to the two seat squadron apart from FAC A. That was my point.

[Easy Street]

I'm fully prepared to admit that the single-seat aircraft can perform as well as the two-seat aircraft in Iraq- or Afghan-style scenarios where threat avoidance is a simple matter of staying above the MANPAD envelope. The point is how well do the 2 aircraft perform under "full war" conditions? Since there hasn't been a proper "full war" scenario since either variant of the Super Hornet entered service we can't know - unless anyone has observed them on RED FLAG? I would still rather go up against the massed hordes with someone thinking about the target whilst I'm concentrating on missile-dodging :ok:

[Not_a_boffin]

Yes indeed, and that is exactly how the UK would have to man it once the last WSOs have moved on.... we have now closed our WSO training system!

Reasonably sure that the Observer pipeline is still there......

[Finnpog]

And perhaps the Observer pathway could be augmented by buying places on the USN NFO classes for the relevant aircraft type ( or types - if we eventually found a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow and went down the Growler and Hawkeye routes as well).

[Flying Lawyer]

F35B STOVL ship suitabilty testing aboard USS Wasp


Ki86x1WKPmE

[Seanthebrave]

Was the re-paved part of the flight deck, special heat protection? Seems like an eye-watering amount of money to service a capability that has only ever been used in combat once and would have been better filled by conventional carrier aircraft...

The US marines have never used that capability in combat...

[LowObservable]

BGG - "we could even afford to get it refitted with UK engines and avionics too"

Thanks for the :E after that comment, because I would otherwise have had to respond as mildly as humanly possible:

NO NO DAGNABBIT TO HELLZ NO*

As for the 1-v-2-seat argument: Which is better?

Answer: Both.

Single seat costs less, carries a half-ton more gas. Nice for CAP, air policing, tanking, fixed-target strike, cruise missile platform &c.

The USN has a lot of two-seaters (at one point they were going to be the majority of Block 2 aircraft). Good for FAC-A, anything that involves using multiple AESA modes, the targeting pod and ESM at the same time, while talking/datalinking, without sending the pilot into one-armed-paperhanger-on-a-unicycle mode.

For the dubious front-seater: Dual HMDs are supposed to make a big difference to the comms link between the front and back seats.

* I would make an exception for the Selex IRST. That's it.

[LowObservable]

Now, Sean, don't malign the brave, manly Marines.

They have used all the unique capabilities of STOVL (reconfiguring the amphib to all-STOVL, moving to austere bases that can't handle CTOL &c).

They have even used some of them more than once, which is pretty amazing in almost 40 years. :E

[Courtney Mil]

LO, I follow your drift on 1v2 seat. If we could pick our future fights and had some spare cash then we could have a mix of Es and Fs. If we can only afford one and the crystal ball can't see what conflicts are coming, buy the one that can do everything we need.

F35B, again I say, too many moving parts. Take off, do a wizard combat mission, kill the enemy, return to carrier to find one microswitch fails and the whole VL thing is locked up. So, just throw the whole jet away for one little switch. Harrier just a bike chain, not much to go wrong.

Before you say it, YES I KNOW, I'm just making a point.

[Seanthebrave]

LO, you're right, they sure showed all the doubters that STOVL is a capability NATO simply cannot do without; better yet, I'm now convinced that we should buy the ultra-technical, ultra-expensive jet to keep that great capacity alive. Most of the potential adversaries will be flying jets so old that their serviceability will be terrible too, happy days:ok:

[Mach Two]

I'm sure you'll be able to put me right here, but if we have runways and proper carriers, why do we need a more complicated jet just to give us STOVL? Why not use the space in the jet for fuel and the available weight for stores? F36C, I can still see an argument for, but I'm starting to lean towards F18 or something simpler, cheaper and proven, no matter how many seats.

[cokecan]

i'm bemused by the 'STO/VL' concept - except for mini-carriers - thats a selling point for the 'B'. this is supposed to an aircraft that you can use from an austere, short strip - yet is there anything about the F-35 that suggests to anyone that it will be able to be based a thousand miles from an air-conditioned, hermetically-sealed hanger?

can anyone anyone imagine this aircraft operating from Kandahar airfield in December 2001?

no, me neither...

[Just This Once...]

Even if the stealth features prove to be robust I do wonder about the tactical longevity of the LO capabilities. Technology is moving a pace and I am not convinced that the 20 to 30 yr lifespan of this fleet will see the F-35 LO capability remain valid or totally effective.

Without stealth we will have a 7G, non-vectoring, non-supercruise, shortish range, average payload, single engine Mach 1.6 aircraft. The avionics will be replicated in other aircraft so that will not be a defining capability.

Of course, at the moment the F-35 is a Mach 1.6 but blistering the back end so best not, unproven LO with an achilles IPP with hook vs wire system 'under development' aircraft. The avionics, including the semi-blind DAS that has the pilots wishing for NVGs and a HUD, have yet to live up to their promise. I am sure these issues will be ironed out but will the LO capability stand the test of time?

[Seanthebrave]

Other than the stealth, the big thing that's sold me on getting it, eventually, is its supposed ability to hoover up a vast amount of information and distribute that to all its friendly assets....like a longbow radar on the world's greatest steroids; the way the programme is going at the moment though, I would imagine integration of these systems isn't the most pressing issue. Probably best to wait until they've actually finished writing the other 50% of the block 5 software before speculating how long the it will take reality to catch up with the specification.

[fallmonk]

Nice video , altho I was really surprised at the cover for the lift fan just behind the cockpit having to be extended on take off, it is just acting like a big air brake is it not ? , ESP when you want as much forward airspeed to get of the deck
Is this the norm ? Or just for STVOL ?

[Not_a_boffin]

Couldn't see any repave on the deck, looked to me like normal camrex.

If my maths is right, that's three (four or five if you count the different flavours of Kestrel/Harrier) jets that have actually done proper STOVL launch / recoveries off a ship. Whatever you think about Dave B, still an achievement.

[ORAC]

If my maths is right, that's three (four or five if you count the different flavours of Kestrel/Harrier) jets that have actually done proper launch / recoveries off a ship. If you're not limiting that to VSTOL, the list is quite a bit longer...... :cool:

[Not_a_boffin]

Obvious omission spotted, well done!

[Seanthebrave]

Boffin, I guess it's a good thing, for the purposes of this video, that it wasn't carrying any weapons :E...

[ORAC]

Sniff. Anyway, that's not a VTOL, it's a horizontal landing at zero ground speed (picky, I know). This is a VTOl aeroplane...... :p

cT6CM4vU-GA

[LowObservable]

ORAC - Or, as John Fozard described the pilot's attitude in that scenario: "A good position, but not for flying."

NaB - I think there was a patch of experimental anti-skid on there somewhere, but the potential issue with F-35B on ships is fatigue. I believe Wasp was instrumented for heat and vibration.

Sean - There are some outright hucksters talking about the F-35 as a networked platform. (1) It is not at all unique, since all it has - other than a datalink that connects a flight of F-35s - is plain vanilla Link 16 and (2) stealth aircraft are not easy to network, since all antennas have to be LO-compatible.

And if they are on any mission where stealth is important they will transmit as little as possible (mostly on their private link). The reason is that if an ESM system like the Russian and Chinese analogs of the Czech Vera-E detects and locates the ping-blorp-blorp-ping from a datalink, but air-defense radar can't see anything there, the defenders now know not only where you are, but what you are.

[Not_a_boffin]

As indeed was this..

Convair XFY Pogo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY-1)

Whoever the Ryan TP was, that was a serious pair of cojones transitioning into the vertical with no forward visibility! Makes the periscope for Naval Typhoon carrier approach look almost sane.

Sean - I assume you refer to bringback?

[TBM-Legend]

U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy F-35 Unable to Get Aboard Ship


(Source: F16.net; posted Jan. 8, 2012)


(by Eric L. Palmer)



The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier. This also poses a risk to the U.K. aircraft carrier program which is supposed to use the F-35C at the end of the decade.

Back in 2007, a Lockheed Martin year in review video stated that the F-35C carrier variant (CV) JSF had passed critical design review (CDR). The video and similar public statements said, "2007 saw the completion of the critical design review for the F-35C. The completion of CDR is a sign that each F-35 variant is mature and ready for production."

Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.

The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as “an outlier”.


An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."

He also points to well-known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.

(update: the first one should read MIL-A-18717C not MIL-A-81717C as first reported)

When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren’t, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.

He said this should come as no surprise, given the level of stove-piping that had been applied to the F-35 program's engineer community and the dominance of “form over substance” and “a total indifference to what is real” being hallmarks of the program – “Affordability is the cornerstone of the JSF Program” being but one example. (end of excerpt)

[John Farley]

Never forget that the B spec says it has to carry 3500lb of weapons internally. So WE can't tell what it was carrying in the vid. However I would be the first to chastise the test team if they did not start at light weight and build up the stores load later.

[Seanthebrave]

You're right, we can't visually tell if it's carrying anything, but it's a foregone conclusion that Dave B, the 70 stone man of the fighter community, wasn't carrying a single round of ammunition in those demonstrations and won't be for a long time (unless they have fixed the weight issues once and for all?).

[glojo]

I'm hoping our First Sea Lord might have seen the light on his visit to the Stennis Battle Group and with that in mind, is a Hornet in the hand worth a 'C' in the bush?

Was that ride in an F-18 just a 'tick in the box' or was there more to it?

If our first carrier were to be built with the cats and traps, then would we already be thinking about having to cancel this order and opt for the tried and tested F-18?

Is the F-35B still on probation and will this happen to the F-35C?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken...to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed


If we bolt the POW and the QE together end-to-end, maybe the JSF can land without needing to catch a wire...

[LowObservable]

I should think that spreadsheets are running hot, to determine whether the price difference between SH and Dave-C would pay for a second set of cats and arrester wires.

[Willard Whyte]

I'm hoping our First Sea Lord might have seen the light on his visit to the Stennis Battle Group and with that in mind, is a Hornet in the hand worth a 'C' in the bush?

Shame he wasn't able to visit CVN-77

[Courtney Mil]

Glojo,

"is a Hornet in the hand worth a 'C' in the bush?"

Indeed it is. Actually a F35C may be worth several F18s. I'm sure someone here can tell us how many. You know what I mean.

In my view, F35B = too many moving parts, too many potential points of failure. F35C = wonderful if you REALLY need all that stealth, etc, but no good if it can't catch a wire.

Super Hornet appeals to me more and more every day. I might even rejoin to fly it!!!!:ok:


Torque, Nice one!

[Squirrel 41]

I've been out of the loop for a while on this one, but with the US defence cuts being implemented, does anyone know if Dave-B will survive? I've never understood the operational point of it, other than to keep the USMC happy.

And however problematic the tailhook saga (no, not *that* Tailhook Saga) is with Dave-C, I'm sure the USN will get it fixed because they're not going to want to run about in the Western Pacific without LO technology - and for them (at least in the manned world) Dave-C is the only game in town.

S41

[Justanopinion]

And however problematic the tailhook saga (no, not *that* Tailhook Saga) is with Dave-C, I'm sure the USN will get it fixed because they're not going to want to run about in the Western Pacific without LO technology - and for them (at least in the manned world) Dave-C is the only game in town.

The USN are in no great rush to get F35 at all. The SuperHornet E/F/G will provide all they need for some time.

[BEagle]

Out of curiosity, is the tailhook / undercarriage distance significantly shorter than it was on the F-7U Cutlass:

R8dCjWUeVSg

or F-4D Skyray:

VW1JN-qnEHI

both of which, particularly the Cutlass, had similarly short-couped configurations to the F-35C?

[ORAC]

Battleland: Vertically Challenged: Marine F-35 Engines’ Long Lead, Much Higher Cost (http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/01/09/vertically-challenged-marine-f-35-engines-long-lead-higher-cost/)

You may recall a couple of weeks ago when we reported (http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/12/29/marines-f-35-engines-costing-way-more-than-other-services/), based on our own crude analysis of a Pentagon contract announcement, that the latest batch of engines for the Marine’s F-35 fighter would cost $129 million apiece, five times the $25 million sticker on the Air Force F-35 motor. The Marines’ higher cost is because its airplane is going to be able to make short take offs and land vertically. The Marine F-35 needs to be able to do this because its amphib aircraft carriers are smaller than the Navy’s (why the U.S. military needs the world’s two largest carrier fleets is a topic for another day).

Unfortunately, that amazing vertical jump in the Marine price tag doesn’t look like an aberration. On Friday, the Pentagon announced (http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4700) how much it is spending to buy so-called “long-lead items” for another batch of F-35 power plants (it’s the first contract in the list). This is stuff that takes awhile to make, so it’s ordered in advance of the actual engine contract:

Air Force: $3.1 million per engine

Navy: $5.3 million per engine

Marines: $14.1 million per engine

Mind you: this is not the cost per airplane, nor the cost per engine. It is only the cost per engine of these ordered-in-advance items. Good to know that when it comes time to land in the poorhouse, we’ll be able to do so vertically.

[Courtney Mil]

BEags,

I wonder if it has more to do with TIME between main gear trampling the cable and the hook trying to catch it. Your vids show the very low approach speeds of the F-7U and the F-4D. So even with a relatively short gear-to-hook-shoe distance, the time is obviously significantly greater.

It also looks like the hooks hang very low on those two types - probably isn't room to put a longer hook on F35C. Some of the traps in those vids may even have been with the jet still airborne, so gear hadn't trampled the wire.

Just a couple of theories. Someone here will probably know better.

Courtney

[BEagle]

You're very probably right, Courtney. I understand that it is indeed the effect of the main gear trampling the wire first which has caused the problem, because the cable dynamics are such that it isn't back at the correct deck height before the hook reaches it. As for approach speeds, the F-7U videoclip starts with a number of slow motion clips - see the guy 'running' in the background.

Presumably the F-35C needs a 'stealthy' hook fitting as well - so modification would cost $LOTS?

Yes, the UK will probably be far better off with an F-18E/F/G fleet if F-35C costs and delays keep increasing.

And isn't the F-35 a butt-ugly looking thing? It it looks good..... As witness the unsurpassed F-15C!

[Courtney Mil]

Further to my last, I've just found this on the "F-35 Cancelled, Then What?" thread. Posted by Engines on 17 Dec 11:

This is a complex one to fix and test, as the time between the main wheels hitting the wires and the hook engaging them is not fixed and the dynamic behaviour of the wire is complex, depending whether you engage in mid span or off centre.

Engines gave a very comprehensive post about the whole hook issue and the problems with repositioning it, etc.

And YES, it's so ugly. Who'd want to be seen flying that?! :rolleyes:

Courtney

[Not_a_boffin]

You'd hope that the LM design office had access to and NAVAIR read their own publication (Aircraft Carrier Reference Data Manual). Basic rules for hook/wire geometry are in there IIRC....

[BUCC09]

Out of curiosity, is the tailhook / undercarriage distance significantly shorter than it was on the F-7U Cutlass: or F-4D Skyray:


Judge for yourself. The red line is painted to represent approximate hook geometry (because actual photos of an F-35C
in hook down configuration, are hard to find). As for the Crusader. They certainly ironed out the snags with that one.:E

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy258/BUCC09/t22-1.jpg

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy258/BUCC09/t21.jpg

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy258/BUCC09/t800.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Bucc,

Good answer. Nice pictures!

Courtney

[Engines]

Guys,

Further to my last on 17 Dec (Thanks Courtney!),

Having quickly looked at the arresting gear Mil Spec, I can't find a specific gear/hook distance requirement. There are a zillion other parameters there for various angles, clearances, etc., and the F-35C hook, as far as I remember, meets those.

I can confirm that the team designing the hook (which is LO - it retracts under a complex set of covers) were certainly fully aware of all the various specs. They had a couple of goes at getting a hook that did that, and one of the redesigns addressed a problem you can see on the Crusader picture (nice pic) which shows an effect called 'wheelbarrowing', where the hook is too low down on the aircraft. When it engages the wire, the effect is to pull up on the fuselage, lifting the mains off the deck, and leaving the aircraft sitting unstably on its front leg. The first hook design sat it too low, so a redesigned mounting yoke system was then used.

The hook system design was also exhaustively checked by the US Navy NAVAIR engineering and flying specialists before it was approved for manufacture.

THe USN specs are largely empirical and actually reflect the experience gained on aircraft like the F-7U and F-8U. By the way, the Cutlass landings were on a straight deck, and they had up to 12 wires at one stage to make sure they caught a wire - the options weren't too goog if they didn't.

The lesson here (sorry if I sound a bit schoolmasterish) is that getting 'cat and trap' to work with large high performance combat aircraft is really, really difficult. The USN make it look easy because they are damned good at it. It's also risky and takes a high degree of skill to do even when you get the kit right. I wonder whether our lords and masters really understood all that when they went for the C. (John Farley would have plenty to say on this, I'm sure). I'm not saying it's a wrong decision, we just need to get our heads around the reality of it. This thread is really helping to do that.

Best Regards as ever to all those on land and sea and air who are doing the job for real,

Engines

[Tashengurt]

Courtney,
And YES, it's so ugly. Who'd want to be seen flying that?! :rolleyes:


That from someone who flew Phantoms?!

[Courtney Mil]

Ouch. I walked right into that!

[glojo]

Engines,
Thank you for that post which makes a number of excellent points.

How sad that we have gone from a World leading nation regarding conventional aircraft carriers to a nation that has now lost all that type of experience**.

**Ark Royal de-commissioned in 1978 which was the last conventional carrier.
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/photos/aircraft_carriers/ark_royal_r09/unk_d.jpg

[kbrockman]

About the pictures;

That's not a Cutlass but a Skyray in photo number 2.
The Cutlass had also some tailhook problems but because it had a massively
high frontgear and a high AoA when landing combined with a redesigned hook that was considerably further away from the rear LG compared with the F35C
it eventually was able to land on the Carriers.

The F35C's hook is indeed too close to the rear gear, even closer than the
unmanned X-47, but it is not a showstopper in the longrun, a redesigned hook
(the actual catching part) is already being manufactured giving it a higher probability of trapping the wire, also a hook that pivots the other way around
is possible giving automatically a much greater distance without needing a major strenghtening of the frame while making it possible to make it fully covered by RAM plating better integrating it into the plane improving its Stealth characteristics also.

All this will still leave you with a weighty 7.5G plane that is very complicated
to maintain, won't have a lot of the promised features (Helmet, etc...) that made it so much better on paper, with reduced visibility from the cockpit (compared with all of its predecessors like the F16,F15,F18, AMX) which is worse in real dogfights, has a weaker cannon (vs 30mm on the EF) with a longer startup time, a big thirsty 43000lbs engine which is also very loud BTW

I sincerely hope that some of the customers come to their senses, certainly
the British who seem to be too willing to just give up on their ability to design a complete fighter from the ground up themselves.
The EF, contrary to what many people seem to believe, was and still is a very
good fighter which has its fundamentals right, their is also a lot of potential to improve upon it.
Stronger engines (up until 40% more power) and TVC, a potentially top of the line Radar (CAESAR) with a wide field of view, something missing on other AESA'S, and the continuing implementation of new and better systems.

Even the NaVAL Typhoon could have been a good thing, as it is it is already
very resistant against the saline environment and has a very strong frame needing only limited strenghtening (340kg latest assesments) in the frame, the landing gear and the arrestor hook and another 70kg if they would opt for the TVC on the engines.
It wouldn't need catapults to lift of at MTOW, only the originally designed ramp and the arrestor hooks, further decreasing costs for the new CVF's, while having a very high commonality with an already existing fleet of RAF Typhoons.
This would also mean that it can get airborne much faster while at the same time being the absolute top dog in A2A close combat with its TVC engines.

I just cannot understand you guys, have some proud in what you can achieve, don't just buy into the fairytale that LM advocates.
They have a questionable reputation anyway.
Originally the 5th generation(a term invented by their PR department btw) ATF they said the F22 would be
-1)easy to maintain by 1 mechanic and 2 enlisted men (like the SaaB philosophy)
-2)Have a high degree of reliability.
-3)would be fully integrated with all other systems in the USAF (link16 and such)
-4)could supercruise
-5)have a wide field AESA (with sidelobes)
-6)have all round LO layout.
-7)could use the latest weapons at full potential

It failed miserably on the first 3 and is left with an AESA with a narrow field of view while being unable to launch HOBS missiles and with an antiquated processor making future upgrades a challenge to say the least.

They royally F$%""#d us with the F104 and as things stand today, the same is gonna happen with the F35.

By their own admission (original standards of a 5th gen fighter) the F-35 is anything but a 5th generation fighter.
It won't be easy to maintain, it won't supercruise, it will only have limited LO characteristics mainly front views, it will not have the wunderhelmet but just a regular of the shelf model instead.
To top it all of, future upgrades and new weapon integration can only be done by the grace of LM (source code issues for anybody except the British I believe) for what will undoubtedly be a "nice" price.

All things suggest that the original fighter maffia was right all along, not surprising if you realize that they actually had hands on experiece.

[Engines]

Kbrock,

You are spot on that the Cutlass had severe problems - the extended nose gear was added to achieve reliable launch, the cockpit then had to be raised, and its controllability on approach was always marginal at best. I understand it was called the 'Ensign Killer' due to its poor safety record.

Your comments on the F-35C hook are spot on too - they will fix this, but they are running risks until the optimised hook shape and damper setup are proved.

On the other points you made:

1. The F-35 will get its new helmet, as it has to. With no HUD, the HMD has to work. They have just launched a parallel effort to look at a varient of the UK Typhoon helmet, which is a world beater.
2. Visibility from the cockpit on the A and C is actually extremely good. B only marginally less good.
3. F-35's cannon is a 25mm Gatling vs EF 27mm Mauser revolver with very similar muzzle velocity. The Mauser is the slightly better cannon (it was the original choice but removed after pressure from US companies) but the 25mm is not one I'd call 'weak'.
4. Longer startup time - the aircraft meets its startup time requirements. Yes, big engines take a longer time to get going, though.
5. I agree that it's a real shame that the Uk no longer has the cojones to go on and develop its own fighter aircraft, but proposing the Sea Typhoon as a replacement is not, in my view, an option. Here's why.
6. The 'Naval Typhoon' (not that it actually exists) is not resistant to saline environments. It has strong frame sure enough - for air to air combat, though, as that is what it was designed for. Not deck operations. The EF had a very aggressive weight reduction programme of its own in the late 90s and there is not a spare ounce left over.
7. Because of this, talk of 'only limited strengthening being needed' is about as credible as the LM claims you mentioned. 370kg is a dream, and doesn't match the actual results of doing the same exercise on T-45 or F-35. The problem is that for cat and trap ops, there are all new load paths that just don't exist on a land based aircraft. You need new metal in new places, not beefed up existing.
8. It can not (and I know what I'm talking about here) get off the deck at MTOW without a catapult, unless the definition of MTOW is changed. TVC won't help, and no one answered the question of how the flight controls would work at low launch speeds. (I saw one proposal for a rection control system like the Harrier, but no explanation of where the additional engine thrust was coming from to power it). Adding catapult capability would mean an all new front leg and tons (and I do mean tons) of extra structure to handle the loads.
9. Finally, and here's the crunch, the UK do not want the world's best A2A close combat aircraft (which, by the way, I agree that the EF very probably is) flying off the ships. They want a fully capable strike aircraft with 'day one' signature. That's why the USN are going for F-35C, and that's why we are too.

Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the job

Engines

[kbrockman]

4. Longer startup time - the aircraft meets its startup time requirements. Yes, big engines take a longer time to get going, though.

Sorry for the confusion but I was talking about the cannon start up time, the need for a stealth-door increases response time considerably, you're right about the weaker cannon remark though, that was maybe an unsubstantiated remark.

The 'Naval Typhoon' (not that it actually exists) is not resistant to saline environments.
I somehow don't think that the "hypothetical" SEAPHOON would have too many issues in a saline environment seeing all the materials they used to begin with.

7. Because of this, talk of 'only limited strengthening being needed' is about as credible as the LM claims you mentioned. 370kg is a dream, and doesn't match the actual results of doing the same exercise on T-45 or F-35. The problem is that for cat and trap ops, there are all new load paths that just don't exist on a land based aircraft. You need new metal in new places, not beefed up existing.


Granted I'm basing my assumptions on a presentation given by EF some time ago about building the Navalized Typhoon, weights, power, TVC and MTOW take off abilities where all based on a skyjump equipped carrier, all rather one sided sources ,I fully admit, but they must have at least some idea what they're talking about, its not as if we've got other reliable sources to base these assumptions on.
At least we should give the EF consortium the same benefit of the doubt like we're giving the likes of LM (not that any of them really seem to desreve it).

9. Finally, and here's the crunch, the UK do not want the world's best A2A close combat aircraft (which, by the way, I agree that the EF very probably is) flying off the ships. They want a fully capable strike aircraft with 'day one' signature. That's why the USN are going for F-35C, and that's why we are too.

I sincerely hope that's what you guys get in the end but I remain sceptical, as it is the F35 is still horribly overweight, Stealth technology is a longtime Catch22 anyway not unlike the eternal competition between bullets and armor, in the end it will always be cheaper and quicker to build better radars or alternative sensors iso having to compromise an entire aircraft just to achieve something as tricky as stealth.

The F35 is on the verge of being your biggest enemies best allie, it will deplete funds so much that you have to cancel other necessary assets just to fund this one weapon which makes the dubious claim to be a one size fitts all, something promised before by other 'miracle' weapon systems but never delivered upon.

I just cannot forget a discussion I had with a US Army captain UH60 pilot who said that it seemed to him that the public are vastly overestimating the technological capabilities the US DoD really has while at the same time underestimating the level of training put into many of its soldiers.
The USAF (or NAVY, RAF, RAAF, .....) are not superior just because they have better weapons but also, mainly because we have better training and education methodology.
This blind willingness to poor vast amounts of resources into something like the F35 (and before the F22) which promises to rule from its technological level of supremacy is a potential disaster waiting to happen, it severely undermines other important parts of the military such as its ability to buy, train and maintain sufficient numbers of planes and people.
Like N Shwarzkopff (spelling?) once said "there's no quality like quantity".

Also what's gonna happen when one day we really get involved in a full scale conflict and the adversary has somebody with half a decent brain (think general Paul K. Van Riper-type )on him and decides to play not with the same rules like we do, just look at what happened the first days of exercise
Millennium Challenge 2002 and see how far the reliance on technology brought the blue forces.

¨[RANT OFF]¨

[Not_a_boffin]

Even if NF2000 was capable of ramp t/o (and as Engines suggests it's some way off that), the STOBAR method is an incredibly inefficient way of operating a deck. It's the worst of both worlds - large launch area (cf catapult) and large recovery area (cf STOVL). You end up with the lowest safe parking area for a given size of ship compared to the alternatives.

On a more ironic note, have just dug out the Aircraft Carrier Reference Data Manual and although the specific geometries are not included, it does cover all the considerations and references the relevant MIL std (18717C if you must know). Interestingly, two specific technical references to work on both arrester cable depression by wheel impact and hook bounce are included, both from RAE Farnborough and dating from the early 50's!

[glojo]

What an excellent debate and every single piece of footage I have seen of the SU-33 taking off on the ski slope of the Russian carrier gives the impression that its take off weight is severely restricting the amount of ordinance it can carry. Reading literature is one thing but reality may well be something completely different.

Talking about Naval versions of Air Force aircraft
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcFlA1hqPB97g__fCLuyu8k9_2yauasEdDN5-YSgJ8TPsVx2iW0k6JGNuOSg
(I'm guessing Photoshopped) :)

the British who seem to be too willing to just give up on their ability to design a complete fighter from the ground up themselves.I have no idea where all our money has gone but after the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer did we then start looking across the ocean instead of designing our own aircraft? (thinking F-4 Phantom) Sea Harrier was an excellent example of what we could achieve but we are talking aircraft for conventional or proper aircraft carriers.

I still keep asking myself 'Was it just a joy ride when our First Sea Lord was granted the opportunity of going up in an F-18?'

Is there a chance that the F-35 might be the equivalent of our Nimrod modernization program? (question and NOT a sarcastic quip)

[ORAC]

Stealth door on the gun?

I thought the gun was only internal on the A and was a centreline pod on the C? The space being used for the refuelling probe?

[glojo]

Have we seen this image? Not the best of shots because of angles which can be very misleading

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35cgetsdirtyscreenshot_246.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

A good link Glojo. Actually the most useful thing there is the link that says This graphic (which I cannot link to - sorry - just scroll down from the following link) on the page http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html as it very clearly shows the MLG to Hook show distances. Even the T-45 (a Hawk) has twice the distance of F-35C.

Mrs C has just remarked that surely the designers should have known about that. I can't help agreeing with her. Would I dare not?

Courtney

[kbrockman]

Stealth door on the gun?

I thought the gun was only internal on the A and was a centreline pod on the C? The space being used for the refuelling probe?
Is that so?
I was assuming ,with commonality in mind, that they all had the same gun in
the same place.

I assumed similar layout than F35B for the probe.
7xR_3H0qaTE

[glojo]

Found a few more

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/f35c%20hook.jpg?w=80347991
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/f35tc.jpg?w=a452bbd8

[glojo]

This is an image of the file Courtney very kindly located.. Typing with both dinner on chest AND the keyboard is quite a challenge.. who knows?? I will have to try and resolve this problem next... Signed Captain Hook :)

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/hooklocationC.jpg?w=49353793




This image is extracted from a file that is not classified

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/35C%20drawing.jpg?w=95968375

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting. The refuelling vid looks like the probe is very close to the fuselage (and on the wrong side AGAIN) so the drogue gets a fairly big push from the airflow around the nose.

Main debrief point: he's sitting too low in contact. Sort it out next time.

C

[ORAC]

Is that so? I was assuming ,with commonality in mind, that they all had the same gun in the same place.

Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Armament) The F-35A includes a GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm cannon.[140] The cannon is mounted internally with 182 rounds for the F-35A or in an external pod with 220 rounds for the F-35B and F-35C.[141][142]

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35_JSF_Variants_lg.jpg

[kbrockman]

Thx for the explanation ORAC, learned something new today.
I fail to see however why the Gun isn't integrated in the C version like in the A,
the Refuelling probe obviously isn't the problem, maybe something wrt weight ?

So when on CAP with a Stealth need, it will only carry 4 AAM's internally and no gun (probably not stealthy this gunpod ??) , seems very meager to say the least.



edit;spelling, spelling , spelling

[Engines]

Guys,

The gun did not get integrated into the B for weight and fuel space reasons. On the C, simpler reason - just no requirement - USN have carried guns around for years on the Hornet and apparently hardly ever used.

Kbrock, your point on the gun is well made - my fault for misunderstanding you. Yes, the revolver Mauser cannon has its full rate of fire from trigger press, while the Gatling takes around .75 seconds to spool up. That is actually an issue with all gatlings, and usually coped with by simply opening fire early and 'swiping' the gun aiming point across the target. However, not an efficient use of bullets.

F-35C (and A) can carry 6 AAM internally not 4.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Engines,

As ever, a concise and well made point. Question though about the Gatling. I don't recall the Vulcan cannon taking that long to fire. Of course, I now recall that the flywheel was spun up electrically as soon as we put power on the station. F-15 was the same. I am getting to the point slowly, I promise. Is this installation a 'fire from cold' gun? That would take some spinning up, but I don't know how it works in F35.

[kbrockman]

F-35C (and A) can carry 6 AAM internally not 4.

Could this maybe be the block5 you're talking about?
If so, I'm not entirely certain that the extra iternal hard point is also meant to carry an extra AAM, it was originally meant for extra A2G weaponry, I believe.


Also as an aside,
There are rumours flying around that the B has some serious weight and GoG issues (too far forward) preventing it from being able to lift up from the deck of the smaller carriers, certainly those without skijump (eg, Japanese and Korean)
with its full weaponsload (MTOW).

Anything other than the big US LHD's, the Cavour maybe and the new CVF's won't
be able to use it with sufficient weapons and fuel, that must be a concern to all those nations that dreamed of performing fixed wing ops from their small carriers.

[Squirrel 41]

Anything other than the big US LHD's, the Cavour maybe and the new CVF's won't be able to use it with sufficient weapons and fuel, that must be a concern to all those nations that dreamed of performing fixed wing ops from their small carriers.

Presumably the bigger concern for all of those looking to replace various breeds of Harrier is that Dave-B has to be an early candidate for chopping in the DC defense cuts to be revealed at the end next month. (Too expensive, no requirement for STOVL-and-stealth on the same platform, gives away too much in payload/range because of the STOVL thing. Sorry USMC!)

S41

[TBM-Legend]

Would it not be smart to Fit the A model with a probe fuel system as well as the boom? The F-105 had both. ++

In these coalition war days having access to both types of tankers would be advantageous methinks...

*The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe.

++This aircraft is a 21st Century F-105 if you compare the basic specs..

[Engines]

Courtney,

My apologies for not being clearer. Right, guns stuff...

A Gatling fires almost right away, flywheels or not. But it starts at a low rate of fire. The flywheel was there because the motor has to accelerate not only the gun barrel group and all the breeches and bolts, but also the whole ammunition train. The flywheel reduces peak loads and the size of the motor and gearbox, but at the cost of a constant power drain. What all that means is that it's usually about 0.75 seconds before the Gatling gets to full rate of fire.

What that means is that if you fire the gatling in short bursts (and you normally have to on a fighter as you don't have unlimited bullets) you get an average rate of fire that can be around half that on the box. What that means, in turn, is that you have less chance of hitting or killing the target, especially in air to air where the firing opportunity is usually a fraction of a second.

Gatlings are also high volume and high weight, as they have four/five/six barrels, use more ammunition (more volume and weight) and also use more power. None of these are great on a small and crowded aircraft like the F-35.

Revolver cannons fire at full rate straight away and stay at that rate for the full burst. That increases kill probability. They are less volume, lighter (especially the amazing Russian/Czech designs) and use less power. So, it's a slam dunk for revolvers? Not quite.

Gatlings have, thanks to excellent work by the US designers, very good ammunition feed systems, usually linkless, which is great for aircraft when you don't want spent links banging into the LO skin. Revolver guns are more difficult to feed, because they accelerate so fast, and Mauser were trying for some time to develop a linkless feed system for Typhoon as well as JSF. Don't know if they ever succeeded. Finally, because the rate of fire is spread over a number of barrels the issue of barrel wear is less of an issue. Revolvers are also more complex than gatlings and require more servicing.

In recent years, the issue of guns has changed, but most users haven't noticed. New radars that work at very short ranges, accurate EO sensors and computers that perform ballistic calculations 100 times a second instead of once a second all mean that the hit probability in air to air gun combat has shot up - but most air staffs don't really grasp that. Add in the possibility of taking 'off boresight' shots by using thrust vectoring and/or clever flying controls and the effectiveness of guns shoots up again.

Sorry to be a bit of a nerd, but i spent a few happy years in my youth buying guns. Niche job, but great.

So, as ever in any engineering decision, it's a balance and all depends on requirements, timing and often politics as well. The Gatling for the 35 looks a good solution, but in my view should stay in a pod as per the B and C - I don't think that the A really has the space and weight margin for an internal fit.

Hope this informs and helps

Best Regards

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Engnes,

THANK YOU! It all makes perfect sense now you explain it. Why didn't enyone tell me before - and I was a QWI. Now you mention it I do recall that the electricaly driven flywheel in the F4 pod only ran the gun (dry) at an RPM much below the full up firing rate, but at least it started firing from already spinning. I don't think we were too short of power in the Phantom or the F-15 and the extra weight was nothing compared to what it is is in the 35. So, let's buy really big jets!;)

I am no wiser, but somewaht better informed! :ok:

Courtney

[kbrockman]

Engines,

Since you seem very knowledgeable about Gatling guns, is there a reason why
we don't do as the Russians and use Gas operated Gatlings iso the elektrical
or hydro-pneumatic operated guns we have.
As far as I know they have no issues with ramp up time , have an extremely high firing rate (up to 10000/min for 23mm), also automated feed and high reliability.
Also I read somewhere that on their FloggersB's or Su24's (don't know exactly anymore) they had some sort of automated fireline adjust system that was extremely accurate.

GSh-6-23,23mm up till 10000RPM and lighter than Vulcan cannon
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/GSh623Mavant.jpg/800px-GSh623Mavant.jpg
GSH6-30,30mm, 6000RPM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/GSh-6-30_Hu_Szolnok_1.jpg/300px-GSh-6-30_Hu_Szolnok_1.jpg

[COCL2]

Its been said before and it bears repeating. By the time the F-35C is available, unmanned aircraft technology will have advanced to the point where drones will be able to carry out this "first day strike" role deemed so neccessary.
Delays can only get worse - not lesser - and its going to be at least 15 years before the -35C is ready. In that time we could have purchased a mixed fleet of F-18 variants for interim use while the drone technology is optimised, and which could be relegated to lesser duties when the drones come online.
The F-35 in ANY of its variants can only ever be an expensive stopgap as the last of the manned fighters before the whole business becomes unmanned. Not only that, but the current stealth technology is a failure from a useability point of view anyway - failing coatings, massive repair overheads in time and cost. By the time the aircraft comes online the technology will be outdated anyway. Time to slash and burn and kill the project completely

[Courtney Mil]

kbrockman,

All good points, but why do we need a gun that fires 10,000 rounds per minute when the box (in the case of the the F35) can only hold 180 or 220 rounds? I know I'll get corrected here, but we can (sorry, could) drive our guns electrically (only to spin the fly wheel we were talking about earlier), it's gas pressure from the fired rounds that drive most guns, init?

Lighter guns, fine. But guns for the job we want them to do. Have I misunderstood your point? Sorry if I have. Also the gun in the picture (could it be a bit smaller?), doesn't look a bit like the Gatling equivalent of an AK47? Only because I like big guns, I guess.

Oh, and I don't think we would want to be relliant on the Russians for our gun parts (I know you weren't suggesting that).

Courtney

EDIT: COCL2, very good points too. You'll find find my thoughts about that somewhere around here. F-18 could well be the answer. What gun's it got?;)

[kbrockman]

I think you where reading too much in my post.
I'm in no way suggesting we should use the GSH cannons iso the GAU22,
I was just asking Engines if he knows why the Russians go with the simpler, faster,lighter technique while we seem to use a more complex system to drive our Gatling guns.
Maybe there is some good reason for it, I just don't know what that reason is
but that has everything to do with my general lack of knowledge when it comes to Guns.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"why the Russians go with the simpler, faster,lighter technique while we seem to use a more complex system "
You don't really need to ask that do you? Its because complexity = cost overruns = more profit
Remember - whats good for the corporation is good for the country!

[Trackmaster]

Reminds me of the old story about the need for folks who go into space to be able to write.
NASA spent a significant amount of money developing a pressurised ball point pen...the Soviet cosmonauts were given pencils.

[Milo Minderbinder]

but think of all the PROFIT the sales of those Papermate pens created
There you are - a lasting legacy of the space program

[Skeleton]

The Americans landed on the moon, the Russians didn't. So maybe the ball point pen was the way to go.

[Courtney Mil]

kbrockman,

Sorry, yes I did read too much into it. I see your point now.:oh:

[pr00ne]

Trackmaster,

Pure BS I'm afraid. The NASA space pen was developed by a private US company for $1m with no NASA funding. The product was a commercial success before NASA ordered it. When they did order it they paid around $7 per pen. It was so successful that two years later the Russians also ordered it for use on the Soyuz programme as it was much more effective than the grease pencils they had been using hitherto.

[glojo]

"why the Russians go with the simpler, faster,lighter technique while we seem to use a more complex system "
You don't really need to ask that do you? Its because complexity = cost overruns = more profit
Remember - whats good for the corporation is good for the country! Whilst this point may well be valid I would like to think a major factor would be reliability and hopefully less maintenance.

Is the pencil vs ball point pen statements more to do with fiction? My bank gave me one of the alleged biro that can work in conditions that are never ever experienced here in sunny Torquay, nice pen but I'm told they are quite expensive. :)

[Courtney Mil]

As it happened, they didn't need a pressurised pen. Whilst an ordinary ball point doesn't woek very well upside down on Earth, they work perfectly well at zero g. Pencils are not good in space as the bits of broken off graphite get into electical stuff.

[COCL2]

Surely the biggest problem with a ballpoint pen in space is the ink coming out the wrong end through capillary action and / or reduced air pressure and creating a mess?


Anyway back to topic
Press reports say the first F-35B was delivered to the Marine Corps on Wednesday

[Courtney Mil]

Apparently the cartridge is too wide and the capilary action only happens at the pointy end. Mind you, I've never tried it so you may well be right.

Where did you find the F35B report, COCL2?

[ORAC]

It's on Ares and other sites.

First F-35Bs Arrive at Eglin (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0dcddc8f-6471-412d-a737-e54a6e3e60b4&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[Engines]

Ok, a bit of guns stuff - lovely...

What's interesting (at least to some of us) is how conservative the US have been for some years as far guns are concerned. Having settled on gatlings in the 1960s, they have stuck with that basic design since. The core of the current M61 can be traced right back to 1930s designs or even earlier. They have always valued a high sustained rate of fire over just about any other parameter, and their aircraft have been large enough to carry the guns (and large ammo tanks) that resulted. The other side of the coin is that they have not, for many years now, had many teams capable of designing a decent gas or recoil powered gun or cannon. Mind you, nor has the UK - we are still using 1930s technology Browning M2s).

The Russians, by contrast, took a very different approach, and have appeared to go for guns and cannon that are as self contained as possible so that they can be used in a variety of platforms. They have also had very talented design teams that could produce clever stuff. So, self powered gatlings....

The 'Hind' was, for many years, armed with a 4 barrel .50 calibre gatling in the chin turret - the Yak B gun. It makes an interesting comparison with, say, the M3M .50 Browning design we still use. Lighter, fabulous rate of fire, and ever so simple - but clever. Basically, ports in the barrels allow gas to be tapped off to drive a sleeve around all four barrels that moves fore and aft - working a bit like a pump screwdriver, this sleeve then rotates the barrel group to feed new rounds in, and the gun stays going. It's started by a coiled spring up the centre of the four barrels, and if that doesn't work, there are three starter cartridges fired electrically to get things going.

The bigger russian gatlings show, however, that staying self powered brings problems. The challenges of using gas power at 23mm and then 30mm are FAR harder than at 12.7mm, and there are big issues with recoil loads and other stuff. They were not able to simply 'scale up' the 12.7mm design, and the larger gatlings had reliability issues as well. If you don't go with multiple barrels, then revolvers are need for high rates of fire. But, revolvers can be very hard work to make effectively, which I believe is why the US have stayed with the Gatling.

So... the russians went for a gas powered design in the Flanker, but discarded revolvers and went for a more conventional 'linear' design with a fore and aft moving bolt and breech. It's a bit like a 30mm GPMG. They sacrificed muzzle velocity and rate of fire in favour of a heavy 30mm shell, and I have a suspicion that they have some form of advanced gunsight to improve kill probability. But the biggest win is weight - the gun weighs just over 100 pounds, and is called the 'Ballerina' - slim, light but powerful.

There IS a half way house, and that's the larget gun ever fitted to a helicopter - the Russian twin barrelled Gsh-30-2 automatic cannon fitted externally on some Hinds. One gun, two barrels, operated by combination of gas and recoil, huge great 30mm high velocity rounds like the A-10. And weighs a fraction of the A-10 gun.

You may have guessed that I am a bit interested in this stuff - mainly because it's an area where you get a lot of interplay between requirements, technology, pure engineering, dogma and politics. The decision to remove the gun from the Harrier GR5 and then the Typhoon was driven by one RAF senior officer who had decided that 'guns were outmoded'. The debates on the F-35 programme over guns were no less emotive and not much better informed.

Courtney, hope this helps a bit

Best regards

Engines

[kbrockman]

Another bit of news from the F35 front, not all bad, not all good;
F-35B Weight Margins Pretty Thin, OSD Testers Say (http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/13/f-35b-weight-margins-pretty-thin-osd-testers-say/)
F-35B Weight Margins Pretty Thin, OSD Testers Say

By Colin Clark

Published: January 13, 2012

......
The overall conclusion is that the most expensive conventional weapon in Pentagon history is doing, well, not too bad -- but not nearly as well as it should.

In terms of flight tests, the Navy version is 32 percent ahead of the new schedule, while the Air Force version is 11 percent behind and the Marine version lags 9 percent behind the new schedule.

Perhaps the most interesting item in the report comes from the full-up system-level testing. In live fire testing -- when they actually shoot stuff at the test item and analyze the results -- testers found "the fuel tank inserting system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions during some critical segments of combat missions when the aircraft is most likely to be hit." This system, the report says, is being "redesigned" as a result of the testing. The new system will be tested again to see if it works.

etc,etc,etc.....


Seeing that most of our forces are most likely dependant on how this
fighter performs, let's keep hope up but stay skeptical at the same time.

As for the article, a redesign to improve the survivability under fire (this is
most likely for all versions) probably doesn't bode well for the ,already
problematic, weight issue(s).

[Mechta]

testers found "the fuel tank inserting system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions during some critical segments of combat missions when the aircraft is most likely to be hit." This system, the report says, is being "redesigned" as a result of the testing. The new system will be tested again to see if it works.

Which presumably means, when descending rapidly from altitude for ground attack, outside air fills the ullage (space above the fuel) through the tank vents faster than the onboard inert gas generating system can either a) produce inert gas, or b) get it into the tank.

To the layman, the 'obvious' solution is to restrict or close the tank vents. Unfortunately this turns the tank into a partial vacuum chamber, making risk of tank implosion an additional hazard for the designer to think about. Its even more serious if your tank walls are wing skins.

[kbrockman]

For those who are interested (if not already posted before),..
The evaluation rapport

Section on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 2011 Annual DOT&E Report (http://www.pogo.org/resources/national-security/20120113-section-on-the-f-35-jsf-dote-report.html)

[COCL2]

Mechta
why not use a bladder / "bag in the box" tank? Or does that bring more problems?

[kbrockman]

Mechta
why not use a bladder / "bag in the box" tank? Or does that bring more problems?

Another system adding complexity, weight and inevitably reducing (although slightly) available space for fuel.

[Mechta]

COCL2, As kbrockman says, its extra complexity. If you look at how closely spaced the spars are, you will get the idea. Each individual tank would need plumbing and fuel probes (gauges) too.

I don't know the typical wing depth on the F-35, but as an example, some of the Eurofighter Typhoon fuel probes are not much more than 4" tall (suggesting the tank is a similar depth), so with that sort of wing depth, the thickness of a bladder could easily reduce the tank volume available by 5% or more.



http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/f-35-cutaway.jpg

[COCL2]

Thanks gents
I hadn't realised the complexity of what I suggested

[Thelma Viaduct]

The F35 will have some great capabilities with time, but the purchase just doesn't make sense, much like the 232 Typhoon pipe dream.

UK Politicians haven't the balls to go unilateral against a mickey mouse nation, let alone one with a decent IADS, so what's the point in having the capability to do so?

The F-18E idea looks the sensible option for our own mickey mouse country.

Rule Britannia etc

[kbrockman]

The F-18E idea looks the sensible option for our own mickey mouse country.

I take it you mean to fill the carrier requirements, in which case I fully agree.
Also nothing would prevent them from also opting for a couple of Growlers to go with those Super Hornets adding a formidable ELINT platform all at once.

[green granite]

The F35 will have some great capabilities with time,

But not it appears as a carrier based plane.

From the Torygraph, and it was in yesterdays Times as well:

"Leaked Pentagon documents claim a design flaw in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has caused eight simulated landings to fail.

The “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review” claimed the flaw meant that the “arrestor” hook, used to stop the plane during landing, was too close to the plane’s wheels.

The documents warn of "major consequences" to the aircraft’s structure and cast doubt on the readiness of the JSF to provide close-air support, which is seen as critical to a carrier’s role in providing amphibious landings.

The review further suggests the planes will be unable to fire the British Asraam air-to-air missile."

It adds that the F-35C remains untested in several areas, concluding that "there is a high likelihood of future failures that are not yet identified".

"The report, seen by the Sunday Times newspaper, concludes that unless a "significant redesign" of the aircraft is urgently completed the future of the aircraft is at risk.

If such a redesign is proven to be too costly or difficult to implement, it warns that the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped."

[GANNET FAN]

Why not just lengthen the arrestor hook or am I being naive?

[Courtney Mil]

Here's the reason, Gannet. The hook design is part of the stealth so is recessed. Even if this weren't the case, the hook cannot practically extend much further back due to the reheat nozzle and engine efflux when stowed. Hence they're looking at an extending hook so that it will fit the current recess and extend further back when lowered. This gets complicated, though, because you need it to return to its correct length to re-stow the hook after landing.

http://www.projectoceanvision.com/temp/F35C-01.jpg

Hope this helps,

Courtney

[ORAC]

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35cgetsdirtyscreenshot_246.jpg

[LowObservable]

Engines -

Some added info on JSF gun: What was said publicly when the 27mm was ditched in favour of the 25 mm Gatling, in 2003, was that the issue was life-cycle cost because of introducing a completely new calibre into the US military.

The Gat installation was heavier (as you note, the time-to-rate issue means you need more ammo per burst) but at the time they truly believed that they had positive weight margins. :}

I believe there was also an argument on the F-35A about the elevation angle (strafe or air-to-air) and I suspect that it was resolved in favour of the former, hence the big bulge over the gun (front end down, back end up).

And finally, since there isn't an available all-purpose round for the 25 mm, they need a new round anyway. :D

[rubberband2]

The F-35 discussed here weighs less than a super performing, short legged & lightly armed BAC Lightning did when it came into RAF squadron service.
(1960 Mk1 with 74(F) Sqn at RAF Coltishall)

What planned weapons load and endurance does this yet to be in service new generation aircraft have?

[Not_a_boffin]

RB2

You may be having lbs / kg moment. Lightning (F6) was about 25000lbs empty, 45000lbs MTOW.

F35A or C has an MTOW of 70000lbs, with empty weights of 29000lb and 35000lbs respectively.

[glojo]

Some folks are suggesting the F-35C idea be perhaps scrapped or delayed and the Royal Navy order the tried and tested F-18 to tide it over until this new stealth aircraft is fully operational. My question and please note it is a question is:

If we were to purchase the F-18 then how would this effect the RAF who I believe were also in line to take deliver of the F-35? I can understand the significant savings that may be had if both services were operating the one type of multi role aircraft but if the Royal Navy ditched the idea of purchasing the 35, then would the whole order fall through and would the RAF be happy to take delivery of F-18 aircraft in lieu of their current fighters??

If the answer is no then would the F-18 flown by the Navy go the same way as the SHAR?

Hopefully folks can see where I am coming from when I mention this last aircraft and I am thinking of the numbers involved in the training of pilots, keeping them current in all types of skills that are required to make them the front line professional warriors that we require. A combined services school for the F-35 or two completely seperate set-ups for two completely different types of aircraft.. F-18 plus Typhoon?

Apologies if this is gobble de gook (I blame the medication)

[Engines]

LO,

I was on the project when the gun decision was announced. At the time, I thought that the decision was largely driven by domestic concerns. The life cycle costs arguments were not all that convincing, and the effectiveness arguments even less so. The LM analysis even ignored the volumetric hit of a Gatling, which given the fact that the gun displaced fuel tank space was surprising.

The angle of the gun was driven by the need to get the shot line clear of the upper fuselage after it left the muzzle. The hump was driven mainly by the need to cover the multiple Gatling barrels and the bulky aft breech housing. There was a multipurpose 25mm round available, I happened to know because I had bought it for the Aden 25mm on the GR5 four years earlier. When I mentioned it, the LM armament engineers said they'd never heard of it. The same round was also available for the 27mm cannon as well.

In the end, I believe that the clincher was the fact that H&K had not, at that time, been able to demonstrate a working prototype for the 27mm's linkless feed system. Given that the LM team were frantically trying to reduce risk, that made it an understandable decision.

Hope this helps

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[COCL2]

Surely if the Navy gets F-18, then the "Duncan Sandys effect" will kick in and there will be no more UK manned fighter aircraft beyond that. F-35 will be abandoned and all will be missiles and drones...or at least that will be the politicians vision. Typhoon will have to last out until the new concept kicks in.

[Seanthebrave]

Glojo,

I would think the RAF would fly the Typhoon as their sole front line jet, while the Navy flew the F18; as far as overall arrangements for OCU setup etc. go, there was going to have to be one for the F35 anyway, likewise for an OEU, so I can't imagine it would make much difference if they are manned only by the Navy, likewise for the RAF and Typhoon squadrons.

By the way, if you were also wondering about how the RAF would fill the hole of no F35, then I guess the answer would be a few more Typhoons and perhaps drop the idea of scrapping the first 60. I'm sure there are a lot of student pilots, holding at some admin job for 2 years, that would be happy to hear there are suddenly going to be enough cockpits to put them through Linton and Valley, in reasonable time...

[orca]

Reference 'who is getting what'.

As it stands the UK is buying F-35C to fulfill its requirement for JCA which was originally the FCBA. It is fundementally incorrect to say that the RN is getting F-35. A correct statement would be that the plan is to man a Joint force with all skill sets from pilot to engineer provided by both RAF and RN. This is exactly the same as the JFH model. I believe the AOA which is essentially 'the owner' will be 1 Gp RAF. So you could argue that the RN will take deliveries of no JCA.

However as FE@R reduces the possibility and arguably desirability of a single service force comes into play. It is worth reiterating that the JCA is a carrierborne capability. It is possible to argue that the RAF wants to be part of it due to service survivability rather than being able to offer a demonstrable commitment to sea basing by the light blue. There really isn't another model for an air force operating a nation's sea based FW.

So the possible alternatives become 1) The status quo - JCA manned by a Joint force. 2) RAF continue to man the Typhoon force and the entire JCA force. 3) RAF man the Typhoon, RN man JCA. Let's rule out RN manning all UK FW - despite my saline credentials the whole 'let's split the RAF between RN and army' idea has always struck me as being infantile in the extreme.

What becomes the interesting talking point really is the GR4 successor which IIRC has been called FOAS and FCAC over the years. It was always talked of as a system of systems the manned portion of which could still be a F-35. So you could end up with Typhoon, JCA and GR4 successor as two light blue forces and either a joint one or a dark blue one. A potential model might be to ensure that GR4 replacement is exactly the same type as JCA therefore allowing the bulk of UK FW to embark. At this point the debate usually gets a little more emotive.

In summary, whilst there are large issues to be debated here the choice of any given platform to fulfill the JCA requirement is not particularly relevant, but the constitution of the force and the aircraft type selected to replace GR4 is.

[rubberband2]

NAB, you may well be correct about kg/lbs.

I took the F-35 weights from the graphic at post #123 by Mechta which lists the F35-C (the heaviest variant) as 30,618 POUNDS.

The MTOW for the Mk1 Lightning was 34,200lbs. In the Operating Data section there is a standard profile which states that after a missed approach to a second ILS the planned touchdown fuel is 100lbs per side!

[Courtney Mil]

the planned touchdown fuel is 100lbs per side!
Nearly enough to taxy in with, with one engine shut down!!!

[glojo]

Thanks Orca and please do not think I was passing any opinions. Your post answers a few of the questions in my befuddled head and this situation is liable to get more interesting. :ok:

Not into this RAF vs Army vs Royal Navy m'larky :)

Teething problems are par for the course ;)

[Mach Two]

Glojo,

I don't think anyone here would accuse you of that!

There are teething problems and there are teething problems. These are serious design issues and not easily fixed. The biggest issue is that each generation of aircraft has become (I'm going to say) exponentially (someone correct me) more expensive than the previous one. And so what used to be teething problems on the F14, F15, F18, anything from that era, is now a major, budget-busting issue. I doubt this prioject would survive a major re-design at this stage.

[orca]

If this is true one can only hope that the design team that did the jet pipe, lift fan and fan doors on the B model can think their way around a slightly longer hook; made perhaps of purest Unobtainium?

Again if true, it's slightly disappointing that they are going to have to. One would have thought that wheel to hook distance etc would have been a fairly fundemental design driver.

This reminds me of a trip to Warton where an ex-Gp Capt berated me for my cynicism when I suggested that I didn't trust computer modelling etc to the degree everyone else seemed to. At the time I was arguing that 'A400M - carries more weight' was a slight overstatement given that it was still just a picture (He thought it was accurate and balanced slogan). I was reliably, and somewhat forcefully, told that design flaws were now a thing of the past.

Maybe we could try a different height of wire? (Wanders well off beaten track and calls it a day..)

[GreenKnight121]

Its not the hook length, nor the wire height.

The hook reaches the deck in normal landing operations... the problem is that the hook is so close to the wheels that, after the wheels run over the wire and press it down, the wire does not have time to lift up before the hook arrives.

This is compounded by the hook sometimes bouncing back off the deck after it touches.

The first things they are trying are to change the shape of the hook so that it will slip under the wire even if the wire is still touching the deck*, and to strengthen the bounce dampers to reduce or eliminate hook bounce-back.




* The hook point is the same as used successfully on all F/A-18 models... its just that those aircraft have more wheel-hook distance, so the wire lifts up off the deck before the hook arrives.

The new shape is more likely to damage the wire over time, leading to the wire being replaced after fewer arrestments... they had re-used the Hornet/Super Hornet hook point because it was a low-wear design.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/F-35ChookSideViewGraphic.gif

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/F-35ChookSideViewGraphic.gif

[orca]

What you say makes perfect sense. If (big and insurmountable if in all probability) one were to lengthen one's hook (either permanently or by using an extendable one), would this not increase the hypotenuse of the triangle which would increase the wheel-hook distance thereby increasing the time available for the wire to elevate? Or does the angle of dangle have to be fairly precise? Equally could you make the wire more taut therefore reducing the time required to spring back up? This would, in a given time frame, be tantamount to raising it.

(You may be able to spot that I don't work for LM but I'm interested in the answers nonetheless!)

[BigBusDriver]

Right, here comes the civilian with an opinion and questions. I now some of you Steely-Eyed-Missile-Men don't like that sort of thing on here, but it's still a public forum and perhaps a few more civilians with some level of interest in your chosen profession might not be a bad thing, so here goes:

What would be the downside of this scenario?

1. The MOD/BAES/Etc keep their stake in the F-35, but with a reduced number of F-35C (say 60-80) to enter service from 2022-24ish when the type is hopefully getting the bugs ironed out and the GR.4 is sorely needing replacement in the strike role. Eventually the F-35C may still equip the carrier(s), but until the 2018-2025+ timeframe that need is met by:

2. A lease of a small number (12-18?) of F-18F immediately...say within 6-12 months. This squadron-sized force trains with the USN, to include CV ops. If political needs dictate then the RAF/RN Hornet Sqn is UK based with exchange postings ongoing. As the RN Carrier(s) come closer to becoming operational, deliveries of a 48-60+ airframe order begin, ideally with Growlers as part of the package. Could this purchase along with the deferred costs of F-35 allow for cuts elsewhere to be moderated?

3. Naval variants of Taranis and/or its offspring begin to equip the carriers for "Day One" operations in the 2020-23 timeframe to supplement the F-18E/F/G. Depending on how the stealth vs sensor competition works out this may even end up negating the need for the F-35C on the carriers in the longer term, leaving the eventual F-35C purchase to fill the RAF manned strike role, and possibly with a 2-seat variant, serve as a 'mothership' for unmanned platforms in the longer term as evolved Typhoons start showing their age.


I'm not a Walt or a Wannabee, just a guy who wanted to go the military route but couldn't because of eyesight. S o instead I went the civilian way and have managed to accumulate 7,000ish hours in largish flying things, but always kept an interest in military aviation and its role in global affairs. Honest answers appreciated...

[Mechta]

Perhaps if they made the decks of the ships with slight longitudinal corrugations at and before the wire, the wire would sit higher and the hook would stand a better chance of catching it?

I bet the person who chose to get rid of the arrester runway at Farnborough is unpopular with the MOD...

[Not_a_boffin]

The wire (deck pendant) sits proud of the deck in current systems.

As GK says, what is happening at / near mid-span of the cable is that the wheels running over the wire depress it close/onto the deck. Because the jet is doing something like 120kts relative (~60m/s) at that point, the time between the wheels depressing the wire and the hook point passing it is (2.5/60) or 0.04 secs. This is insufficient time for the cable to spring back up.

The trough-type arrangement you're describing would have to be very narrow (driven by the wheel track on both F18 and F35) and of the order of 1-2m in width at best, to avoid the same problem. However, by doing that you're automatically constraining the aircraft to recover within 0.5 to 1m laterally of the deck CL, which will increase the pilot burden / reduce operating envelope and also putting an osbtruction in the deck which in addition to being a corrosion / FOD trap would also be a hazard to tyres during a landing. The current safe parking lining allows for a 3m deviation off CL for the E2. It's a lot of trouble to go to before trying to sort the hook itself.

A new hookpoint is the obvious first thing and if that doesn't work, some sort of hook extension needs looking at, but that will be much trickier. If that doesn't work then they are in trouble. One thing is for certain, whoever in the project was responsible for it getting this far without the basic check on geometry for carrier landings, needs a shoeing of biblical proportions.

[Just This Once...]

...needs a shoeing of biblical proportions.

Inspired analysis.:D

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

2. A lease of a small number (12-18?) of F-18F immediately...say within 6-12 months


How are you going to pay for this? What will you cut to free up funds?

[cokecan]

if Boeing(?) think that by shoving the RN a knocked off 12 aircraft fleet of F/A-18F's - that will, realisticly, mean that that the F-35 programme gets cancelled and the the F/A-18E/F/G will stay in production for the next 15 years and take a good slice of would have been the sales going to F-35, then they'll find a way of making it affordable.

coz thats whats on the table - if the RN/RAF decide that actually, FA-18E/F/G with some stand-off weapons can do 90% of what JSF can do for 75% of the money and do it before their shiney new carriers turn to rust/the GR4 fleet starts falling out of the sky, then the export market for F-35, and the USN's already lukewarm interest in the programme will evaporate.

continuing the JSF programme as F-35A only probably isn't credible - and Boeing know that as well as the subsequent F/A-18E/F/G sales they'd make if JSF was cancelled, they'd be flogging new-build F-15's like hot cakes.

its called a 'loss-leader' at Tesco, and Boeing aren't stupid...

[Not_a_boffin]

In terms of who pays for it, it depends on the required "ramp-up" and payment schedule for F35. As I don't believe we've committed to a purchase schedule yet (?), no expenditure on actual F35 squadron a/c will be due until the mid-to-late teens and will be predicated on IOC of the first squadron of JFDave (any takers?).

One might argue that a UK buy or lease of SuperBug in say 2018, would allow a squadron to get IOC broadly when whichever of QEC/PoW commissions and is ready for sea trials (although you could do it with an IFTU, rather than a full squadron for that date.

That would provide CS until the late 20s, at which point funding for F35C (which is off the current spending horizon) could be programmed in.

As for the Boeing's revenge option, while it may look palatable to some (and it'll take a lot more than 12 frames!), for the USN aviation community it probably spells institutional death. After the A12 debacle and an F35C cancellation they will not get another shot at a manned aircraft, ever. SuperBug will not do everything in the requirement and UCAVs are further away (in a non-permissive environment) than you might think.

BTW if the UK does go the Joint Force Dave route, I'd just like to suggest that all assigned aircrew are renamed Dave (even the ladies) and callsigns assigned on a Dave-One, Dave-two, Dave-leader basis. Might even buy some political clout in number 10 atm........

[Mechta]

Not_a_ Boffin wrote: The trough-type arrangement you're describing would have to be very narrow (driven by the wheel track on both F18 and F35) and of the order of 1-2m in width at best, to avoid the same problem. However, by doing that you're automatically constraining the aircraft to recover within 0.5 to 1m laterally of the deck CL, which will increase the pilot burden / reduce operating envelope and also putting an osbtruction in the deck which in addition to being a corrosion / FOD trap would also be a hazard to tyres during a landing. The current safe parking lining allows for a 3m deviation off CL for the E2. It's a lot of trouble to go to before trying to sort the hook itself.
Not_A_Boffin, What you are describing is a single trough. What I had in mind was a series of shallow undulations with a maximum depth, of, say, one wire diameter and a wavelength of, say, a metre. The next wire would have its dips half a wavelength out of sequence with the first, so if the hook did hit a highpoint on the deck at the first wire it would be more likely to find a low point at the next one.

As for being a FOD trap, with a 1 metre wavelength and a 1 wire diameter depth it should be easy enough to keep clean. The 20 to 42 foot pitch between the arrester wires means that the slope of the longitudinal wavelength will be small.

Some useful info and drawings on arrester hook design and carrier decks here:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=212174

Given the loads the arrester hook has to take, and its importance, Making it telescopic sounds like a lot of weight and potential unreliability to be incorporating into an already 'weight challenged' aircraft.

Is there any precedent of telescopic arrester hooks for carrier use and what is their track record?

[Not_a_boffin]

OK, see what you're saying. Could be fabricated, but still a lot of trouble to go to for a single bird without trying to fix the hook.

No idea re telescopic hooks in the jet age, but wouldn't expect to see many (any?) prior successes. Might just need to reach for the unobtanium catalogue.......

[Kitbag]

Grumman Panther/Cougar had tail hook that extended aft below the jet pipe before dropping down:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa154/Kitweston/F9F-5Tailstaightened.jpg

I do think it wasn't dealing with such heavy aircraft as F-35 though and it may be a maintenance issue.

[SpazSinbad]

Another link for the intended hook shoe redesign which closely resembles the A-4 hook shoe here: CLICK graphic for larger version TAH.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_F-35ChookImprovementGeometryA-4orig.gif (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/F-35ChookImprovementGeometryA-4orig.gif)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15767-start-105.html

[desk wizard]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Aircraft_Carrier_3-wire.jpg

good picture here of what happens when a wheel passes over the wire....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aircraft_Carrier_3-wire.jpg

[COCL2]

Rather than a telescopic hook, has anyone ever tried a forward facing pantograph rather than a straight hook and bar?
A two -section pantograph, with a short rear facing upper arm, single rear-facing joint, and a longer lower section facing forward could put the hook in front of the wheels.
There would be some pretty extreme forces on the joint between the two arms as it was allowed to straighten out after capture, but it would put the hook in a better place.

[Courtney Mil]

COCL2,

Wow. Seriously inovative thinking. I'm no engineer so can't really help. Maybe speak directly to Boeing and sell your idea!:ok:

Mechta,

Thank you for the link. Some fascinating material there. One of the quotes that stuck in my mind was "it can't be that difficult to design a hydraulic telescoping tail hook that will increase the distance from the mains."

No, it probably isn't, but two issues occur. First, running hydraulics in a hook that moves pretty violently would be a "hostile" environment and the weight issues would be significant. Second, it's a stealth jet and the design of the hook is always going to be a significant lim fac. I'd like to hear more thoughts on this.

[Mechta]

Kitbag referenced, before his edit, a very interesting article but as it was in a blog you can reach it, as I did, by typing "A Brief History of Tailhook Design" into Google.

As for a telescopic tail hook, anything involving sliding tubes or rods is going to be prone to trouble. The best and lightest solution I can currently think of for the F-35, is something which works on the same principle as the party whistles (below) in Kevlar with the metal shoe on the end ( provided it can be damped enough). It would at least be able to get the hook back far enough for a reliable hook up:

http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/images/39/2009/07/party_whistle.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Mechta,

And to think I was almost taking you seriously! ;)



So, I've been watching a number of vids of this wonder jet raising and lowering it's gear and I can't help wondering if this isn't another modern a/c with systems that aren't quite man enough for the job (no sexism intended and there are other manufacturers of a/c/ systems).:ok:

Thus, second generation fast jets were brick built **** houses with massive generators, engines that could eat birds and launch a man into space and hydraulic pumps that could power a JCB. Third gen FJs had Skoda generators, turbo charged 1.6 litre engines (when they really needed a 6 litre V8) operating closer to the surge margine than was always healthy and that struggled to pick up the gearbox load if it's mate quit and hyd pumps that were bought on ebay.

It's been a long night, but try to stay with me.

Now we're looking at an a/c that doesn't seem to want to operate all three gear legs at the same time - somewhat reminds me of the a/c my father flew where the gear legs struggled up one at a time.

Can someone please tell me this is because of some sound aerodynamic/stealth/technical reason and not because the utility hyd system just can't move all three legs at the same time?

[JFZ90]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ier_3-wire.jpg

good picture here of what happens when a wheel passes over the wire....


Thats a great photo. Interesting how they already have reverse "leaf spring" type risers to keep the wire above the deck.

Hard to tell but isn't that the nose wheel? Wonder what it looks like when 2 spaced out main gears go over it?

[Willard Whyte]

Can someone please tell me this is because of some sound aerodynamic/stealth/technical reason and not because the utility hyd system just can't move all three legs at the same time?

Perhaps the 'Systems Operator' - the 'plane can pretty much fly itself - has to wind the gear up one leg at a time? The SO only has two hands after all, the other would be desperately podging buttons and flicking switches trying to get all the pretty lights in the workstation to stay green at the same time.

[Mechta]

Mechta,

And to think I was almost taking you seriously! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Courtney Mil, If you look in the box, and what you want isn't there...? :)

I agree with COCL2 that catching the wire before the mainwheels cross certainly has some merits. What the effects would be when the tyres do cross (hook losing the wire or tyres having cable dragged across tread) needs some investigation. If anyone can locate a photo like the excellent one that deskwizard found, but with the mainwheels crossing the wire, it would give us a much better idea with what the hook has to contend.

This 1/8th speed video shows the movement of a wire after the aircraft crosses it, although the hook caught one of the earlier wires. The main wheels cross within the first second, so be ready on the pause button:

Y-jVVj73Xg0&feature=endscreen&NR=1

One of the problems seems to be that the wire is dragged forward off the leafspring supports and is sitting on the deck at the time the F-35 tailhook would pass. More of the leafspring supports staggered 'upwind' of the first at half length separation and slightly to one side of the first, would keep the wire off the deck as it moves off the first set of supports, or just making the supports a lot longer (not taller) might do the job.

[GreenKnight121]

An interesting observation, Mechta... and something like you propose (for the cable supports) might well be added eventually.

I posted this on another thread, in response to comments about how incompetent LM had to be to screw up something as "simple" and well-known as catching the wire.

Of course, many have forgotten the problem the F/A-18A Hornet ran into during its initial carrier trials... specifically during the full-payload portion.

Simply put, the main landing gear had been designed incorrectly... when at or near max payload, with a centerline fuel drop tank mounted, every so often the landing gear would flex a bit too far during catapult launch, and the catapult shuttle would split the bottom of the fuel tank open!

Naturally, this was deemed undesirable, and carrier certification was halted until a fix was found.



It was determined that the entire main gear assembly, and possibly the center-fuselage section, would need to be redesigned... which was far too expensive.


The next-best fix was to lower the catapult tracks on all the carriers a few inches... and this is what was eventually done.

As this would only be done during a scheduled long maintenance period, modification of the carriers lagged behind replacement of the A-7s with Hornets... resulting in several carrier deployments with an extra A-6 squadron and extra aircraft in both F-14 squadrons and both A-6 squadrons.


This personally impacted me, as my USMC A-6E squadron [VMA(AW)-121] was assigned to CVW-2 aboard USS Ranger CV-61 from 11/85 to 8/89... during which time we made two 2-month deployments to Korea and two 6-month WestPac/IO cruises... and flew escort for tanker convoys through the Persian Gulf (late 1987).

Ranger had not been modified yet, so we had that "F-14/A-6 only" air wing. Ranger operated without any Hornets at all until her decommissioning in 1993 (2 years after the last USN A-7 squadrons transitioned to other types).


In that case, the carriers were modified because the aircraft fix would have been so expensive... and only the carriers needed to be modified (the land-based catapults at Pax River had been modified during the testing)... there were no land-based catapults elsewhere to be concerned about.


The last paragraph was in reference to comments made by others about the need to modify the emergency field arresting gear on all bases world-wide that a F-35C might divert to with an in-flight emergency.

[SpazSinbad]

Rather than the Goon & ELP bollocks interpretation here is an LM view:

Design blamed for F-35C tailhook issues
By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer | Jan 17, 2012

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/ (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/)

"Lockheed Martin has traced the Navy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter’s troubles with catching a carrier’s arresting gear wires to the tailhook design.

Efforts to fix the problem are well underway, a top company official said.

"The good news is that it’s fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. "It doesn’t have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane."

Moreover, the rest of the design of the tailhook system, which include the doors and bay that conceal the device and other ancillary hardware, is sound, Burbage said....

...The shape of the hook itself also has an effect on the probability of catching a wire, he added. All of these are being tweaked to increase the chances that the F-35C will catch a wire on a carrier’s deck.

"We’re doing a redesign of the hook to increase the probability the hook will engage the wire a high percentage of the time," Burbage said."

A lot more explanation at the URL jump above.

[BEagle]

Thus, second generation fast jets were brick built **** houses with massive generators, engines that could eat birds and launch a man into space and hydraulic pumps that could power a JCB.

Not so in the Hunter! Select gear and flap together during the break with thrust at idle and it'd go into manual!

Rather than uprate the single hydraulic pump, the solution was to brief the pilots accordingly.

[Courtney Mil]

Good morning, BEags.

I was wondering about that when I wrote it last night. My doubt was what constituted a second generation jet. I wan't sure whether to call the Hunter and it's friends (MiG15, F-86, etc) first or second. IIRC, it was developed from the Sea Hawk, with its early protoype flying in the 40s. I guess it looks second gen and it was a replacement for the Meteor, so maybe amend my statement (which was rather broad anyway) to 'MOST' or 'A LOT' of second generation...

I was rambling anyway. Sorry.

I like Willard's answer best. Is that really true? Hand cranked, eh? I guess that saves on weight, system complexity and survivability, so good.

[rubberband2]

Why would anyone do a run & break in a Hunter and select gear and flaps together during the first portion of the turn?

A real fighter pilot would not do that. He would pull hard in the break to kill speed, at the same time enjoying a looks good, feels good factor. As the 'g' comes off he would lower flaps, gear, flaps in quick succession. If the circuit is so tight that it is essentially a tight circle then utilities would be carefully selected as each speed limit was reached.

[Courtney Mil]

RB2,

You may have misunderstood BEags. In the break, select idle/idle, extend the speedbrake(s). At gear and flap limiting speed, lower gear and (half/mid/50%/etc) flap. In a lot of types those two limiting speeds were/are close enough together to have both services travelling at the same time and, therefore putting load on the relevant hyd system.

He didn't say "in the first portion of the turn". Gear and flap could certainly come DURING the break.

Courtney

[BEagle]

Hi Courtney - yes, you have it. If I recall correctly from 36 years ago:

Approach at 420-450 KIAS (depending on whether there were any grown-ups in the tower) / 500 ft with power to idle as you cross the hedge (to make a nice blue note!). Then airbrake out and 23º flap on the break (actually, I preferred 38º flap as you slowed down quicker - remember that flap was originally used as the only airbrake in the Hunter), rolling and pitching as required to fit into the normal downwind spacing. Then at gear limiting speed, power up, airbrake in, PAUSE until the airbrake MI showed in, then gear down. Checks, then full flap starting the final turn and power to hold about VAT+10. Roll out at 300ft, let it come back to threshold speed, tweak on the control column and pop the drag bag as you touch.

[Courtney Mil]

..or drop the drag bag a little before you touched so that it fully deployed as the wheels hit the tarmac. Depending on who was watching!

With patter like that, were you a Q*I? Can't bring myself to say it. Probably not. You seem like a decent bloke.

[BEagle]

'fraid so, Courtney, old chap! A2 on the Bulldog, VC10 and VC10K, civil FI and PPL/FE. All lapsed nowadays though.....

"L00kout, Attitude, Instruments!

And what about a FOEL check?"

;)

You mentioned 'second generation' jets earlier?

I reckon:

First generation: P-80, Meteor, Vampire, Sea Hawk
Second generation: F-86, F-100, Hunter, Swift, MiG-15
Third generation: Lightning, F-4, MiG-21/23/25
Fourth generation: F-14/15/16/18, Tornado F3, M2000. MiG-29, Su-27
Fifth generation: Typhoon, Rafale, F-22, Su-35

Standing by for corrections - that should open the floodgates to the little aluminium stepladder people :8

[Courtney Mil]

Well, my friend, someone has to be clever enough to do it. There may yet be some questions that I'll need answering, having spent my whole life trying to convince Q*Is that I knew what you were all talking about so that you'd pass my annual check ride. :ok:

Anyway, we're agreed on the break.:cool:

Ooh. Good edit. Yep, I think you've got that right. Let me have a think.

[BEagle]

Well I guess it takes the laying on of hands, secret handshake and aprons of CFS...:ooh:

But weren't you a QWI? How I remember those clack, clack, clack, pause..."Hmm, ride up, early pickle, out of range" moments in the ciné rooms at Brawdy!

A mate was once asked whether he'd enjoyed some movie at the local fleapit as it hadn't had particularly good reviews. "It was great", he said, "first film I've seen in ages that doesn't suddenly stop before someone leaps out with a plotting jobber crying "You're out of range...you're out of range!".

Coolant on, tone as required.....:\

[Courtney Mil]

OK, fair cop. You have no idea how much fun I used to have with a young student in a dark room watching their home-made movies. At least it kept me off the beach at Saunton Sands!

Still have my gismo thing. Mrs C just doesn't understand it!

[Thelma Viaduct]

Typhoon, Rafale & SU-35 Gen 4.5 ;-)

[Courtney Mil]

This might need a whole new thread. Or perhaps just an unaswerable (?) question.

[LowObservable]

Spaz: "Rather than the Goon & ELP bollocks interpretation here is an LM view."

Can you explain, in the light of the current program situation, at what point LM's projections of how great things are going to look six months/a year from now have proven more accurate than their critics?

[SpazSinbad]

LO glad to get the thread back on topic. Which is what in your estimation? I had the F-35C hook issue in mind - specifically addressed in the link to the LM explanation about same. Also the QRL PDF report indicates the same intended fix. What the ELP/GOON scenario envisages is that this fix does not work and they go straight to DOOMSday. I'm patient enough to wait a few months to see if the F-35C hook 'intended fix(s)' work(s) [plural because there are at least two fixes in the works, hook profile and damper mechanism tweaking].

[LowObservable]

Spaz - As I think more qualified people have commented here, rolling or run-tests alone won't prove that the quick fix for the hook problem works. Engines does not appear to share your sunny optimism.

[SpazSinbad]

I'm patient to wait for testing of the fix mooted. People can speculate how they wish until tests show otherwise. After the land testing comes the carrier testing slated for 2013. In the meantime....

[cokecan]

Spaz wrote ''I'm patient to wait for testing of the fix mooted. People can speculate how they wish until tests show otherwise. After the land testing comes the carrier testing slated for 2013. In the meantime....''

Spaz, thats fine, and entirely correct from a purely engineering point of view - but this isn't a purely engineering problem, its also a military asset problem where time (and at this stage, credibility) is the crux issue. saying 'oh, we'll find out in 2013 if its going to be problem that requires a complete redesign of the rear half of the aircraft' isn't much use when we're a mere 20 days into 2012, and the current delay in the system, let alone the delay forced by having to completely redesign the bugger, means that these aircraft won't be available to protect UK national interests - which, lets remember, is their one and only function and raison d'etre - until 2020 at least.

i remember when JSF was going to be a fielded force by 2012 , could be maintained at a rough field location by three men, and would cost $60m apiece. i'm afraid that at this stage 'oh, we'll find out next year if we have to redesign the aircraft' isn't the correct answer.

[SpazSinbad]

An interesting view 'cokecan' but I have no sympathy nor will the USMC for your F-35C potential problems. Youse can always revert to the F-35B and use EMALS & AAG on your new CVF flat decks to launch / recover UAVs or EW aircraft. All that remains to be seen. If you read the LM's Burbage blurb you will note that the hook is going to be tested soon. Even if there were no current F-35C hook problems there will be no actual carrier testing until 2013 in any event.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/ (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/)

"...Tests with the newly modified tailhook should start at Lakehurst, N.J, in the second quarter of this year [2012], Burbage said.

That will give the F-35 program another set of data to study to make sure the new design works as promised. However, until those tests are done, there is no ironclad guarantee that the redesign of the tailhook will work, but Burbage said he is confident of that the modified design will be successful.

"The big test for this airplane is not until the summer of ’13 when we take the Navy jet out to the big deck carrier and do actual traps at sea," Burbage said...."

[ORAC]

Hmmmm. Reading between the lines, they can't meet a key contractual requirement, and are trying to persuade the customer it's not important. Good luck with that...... :ouch:

F-35 May Miss Acceleration Goal (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120118/DEFREG02/301180013/F-35-May-Miss-Acceleration-Goal?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

The F-35 Lightning II’s transonic acceleration may not meet the requirements originally set forth for the program, a top Lockheed Martin official said.

“Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.”

The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.

“We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”

A recent report by the Defense Department’s top tester, J. Michael Gilmore, says that the Navy’s F-35C model aircraft, which has larger wing and tail surfaces, is not meeting requirements for acceleration. The report doesn’t say whether the F-35A and F-35B have hit similar snags.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the revelation was not particularly surprising. “It’s a strike fighter,” Aboulafia said. “It’s not an interceptor; it’s not an F-22.” Aboulafia said it was unclear whether additional engine power could boost acceleration in the difficult transonic regime. So far, doubts about the aircraft’s aerodynamic performance haven’t diminished Lockheed’s sales prospects, he said.

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said. But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding. Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said. In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying.

Thus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane’s acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed’s job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said.

Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet’s acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added......

[Schiller]

I don't know about telescopic hooks, but the Bucc had a spring at the top of theirs, which, I presume, was to mitigate the initial shock of the arrest. Which, I suppose, made them "telescopish"

"Hook-skip" isn't a wholly new problem. The Gannet used to suffer from it a bit, especially in HMS Hermes which had rather more camber to the deck in the region of the wires than other carriers, so the wire touched the deck even with the bowsprings up. It wasn't a major problem - you just bolted. But it helped if you didn't pull the power back to 'ground idle' as you touched...

Does anyone know the proportion of hook-skips that can be expected with the F35? Every time, sometimes, or once in a blue moon?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

aren't quite man enough for the job (no sexism intended and there are other manufacturers of a/c/ systems).


Are you suggesting that we should give the contract to a womanufacturer?;)

[Courtney Mil]

Sharp, my friend. Very sharp! :)

[LowObservable]

“We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said.

AFAIK none of these factors, even including the laws of physics, has changed since 2001. So in view of the amazing modelling and simulation technology deployed in the program, one wonders how long they have known that the KPP was at risk.

By the way, there was a chap named Burbage at LockMart a few years ago, who seemed really confident that the program was going swimmingly and was "on track to meet the revised budget, timetable and performance goals set more than two years ago."

At Home And Abroad, Criticism Of F-35 Persists (http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/home-abroad-criticism-f-35-a-t67501.html)

I wonder if he's any relation?

Spaz - You are missing the most likely reason that the Brits went to the F-35C in the first place, which was that the B was having problems and was (in late 2010) about to be put on a two-year probation. The result was that the UK would go into 2013 with two irrevocably STOVL carriers and potentially no jet. By going CATOBAR they knew that they would always have an option, because the US Navy will always have jets.

My guess is that before the B-to-C switch was announced, the UK went to the US and basically said "Can you guarantee unequivocally that the B will go into service?" and that the answer was "well, er. that's the program of record, but..."

[SpazSinbad]

For once we agree LowObservable. We can only guess about the future.

Despite the turnaround by UK from F-35B to F-35C more options for using either variation on CVF is presented to youse as explained.

[Courtney Mil]

The 'turnaround' from B to C only works if we can remodel the carrier to do cat and trap. I hadn't realised what a massive rebuild that will be. It's not a scab-on or minor mod, to put it mildly. I shall invite an well-informed naval chap to explain here what he has explained to me.

Standby...

[dazdaz1]

Seanethebrave..."To me, the B looks like it's a dead man anyway... and the recent slew of bad news being leaked, makes me think that delays are imminent (USAF/USN IOC 2020?)."

From recent news.....The Marine Corps on Wednesday took delivery of its first two F-35B strike fighter production aircraft. BF-6 and BF-8 arrived at Eglin AFB, Florida, from Lockheed's F-35 assembly plant in Fort Worth, Texas. They are now assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing that runs Eglin's joint F-35 schoolhouse.

Thought the info might be of interest.

Daz

[SpazSinbad]

Courtney Mil, I'm pleased you have been appraised.

[Courtney Mil]

Apprised, maybe.

[SpazSinbad]

Rivetting. Awaiting correction.

[Courtney Mil]

Not a correction, Spaz, really. Nothing to correct as far as I'm concerned. Just some detail I was given that may be of use. I'll dig it out.

[Seanthebrave]

Daz,

I did see that a few days ago... I get the feeling that it's only the concurrency regime that has prompted this though, not the aircraft excelling itself through the test programme. Aren't all the US service jets firmly tethered to the ground at the moment for some sort of safety reason?

[WhiteOvies]

Lockheed’s F-35B Said to Be Getting Panetta’s Backing - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-20/lockheed-s-f-35b-said-to-be-getting-panetta-s-backing.html)

Probation should be over so we can move on and concentrate on other issues.:D

[Milo Minderbinder]

so we should buy the -B and not the -C?
At present the -C looks the bigger risk.

[LowObservable]

Either that, or the Commandant pointed out that it was hardly fair to single out the B given the problems with the C...

[rubberband2]

Have a look at another carrier hook placement dilemma, this time with the hook placed between the fore & aft wheels. Quite a pitching moment if the speeds are not spot on. Typical landing speeds were around 83-87 kts – with the throttle closed just before touchdown, and like a glider, spoilers 'pickled' to initiate the roundout.

Only a single catch wire was used because of the gear trampling problems.

Lockheed U-2 Carrier OPS Declassified - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

I wonder if the 2015 date for F-35C Sea Trials is an error and really slated for 2013 as has been said for some time now? [I guess one can read also that - without any mention of any F-35C trials or further F-35B sea trials - that the dates above refer to the aircraft actually being embarked?]

Panetta Lifts F-35B Probation Jan 20, 2012 By Amy Butler [email protected] NAS PATUXENT RIVER, Md.

Panetta Lifts F-35B Probation | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2012/01/20/awx_01_20_2012_p0-416683.xml&headline=Panetta) Lifts F-35B Probation

"...Kelly says he also expects to begin testing a redesigned tailhook for the F-35C in the second half of the year. The current design encountered problems last year when officials attempted rolling tests and the tailhook skipped over the wire owing to its weight [QUE???] and a problem with the dampening system. CF-3 will be the first test aircraft to have the new tailhook installed.

After the initial ship trials with the F-35B last fall, the B model is not expected to go to sea until 2013, with the C model following in 2015, Kelly said...."

[Obi Wan Russell]

It should be noted that in USN parlance, 'Go to Sea' means enters service, not just simply the literal meaning. Context is everything here.

[cokecan]

Obi Wan wrote: ''It should be noted that in USN parlance, 'Go to Sea' means enters service, not just simply the literal meaning. Context is everything here.''

in that case, somebody is off their tits.

Spaz is talking about the first carrier trials, which may or may not require most of the back end of this aircraft to be redesigned from sctratch, being in 2013. how then can the USN seriously be talking about it being in service - potential redesign and all - in 2015?

is this a bit like the USMC talking about DaveB being in service in 2012 as late as last year?

[LowObservable]

The FW Star-Telegram's Bob Cox reports F-35C carrier trials in 2013:

Is F-35 program flying high or sputtering? | Business | Dallas Business, Texas Business,... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/21/3676170/is-f-35-program-flying-high-or.html)

That has to be preceded by rolling arrest tests (which is what the C just failed) and runway arrested landings.

F-35C IOC is undisclosed, but it sure as heck is not going to be 2015.

[SpazSinbad]

Being an ex-RAN FAA A4G arrestor pilot some 40 years ago now, I don't always know all the USN lingo inferences today. So be it. No WuckinFurries. Here is a thread wot may interest some: [graphics in this thread show F-35A emergency hook (shoe point) similar to redesigned F-35C hook (shoe point) with similarity to A-4 hook shoe point and distance of that point to main wheels]

F-35C Lands at Lakehurst For Testing

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15767-start-120.html

As a veteran of a short field night arrest on empty drop tanks in an A4G at NAS Nowra after second night deck landing ramp strike I can attest after some 100+ deck landings onboard HMAS Melbourne with an additional 13 night deck landings, that the A-4 hook works well. Although the A-4G could 'hook skip bolter' onboard that was for different reasons IMHO. And once people got the hang of it with five wires out there was not much chance of missing an arrest. Take one or two wires away though - to leave a big gap - then all bets were off. :eek:
______________

This old wrinkly PRUNE page has outdated links now:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/347044-ran-historic-flight-dumped-3.html

Here is a new couple for A4G/FAA/Fixed Wing/MELBOURNE info:
Fleet Air Arm | adf-history.com (http://www.adf-history.com/adf/?cat=7)
&
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791
&
Videos:
bengello's Channel - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos)
&
Photos:
The A-4 Alley - RAN A-4 Skyhawk Operations 1968-1984 (http://a4-alley.x90x.net/A4-Alley/RAN-Skyhawks.html)

[LowObservable]

Did the A-4 fail its run-on tests due to trampling?

The hook point is well aft of the MLG axle line - and the A-4 wheels don't deliver anything like the same energy to the wire.

It's not the shape of the hook, it's the ability of the hook to perform consistently in an off-nominal (wire flat on deck) engagement.

Not to say it can't be done, but it's not in the bag until it has been done.

[SpazSinbad]

Agree the fix needs to be tested successfully, however as indicated in this and other reports from Burbage, more tweaking may be required to what is after all a complex system (arrestor wire behaviour) interacting with another complex system (hook behaviour).

Testing new hook should be soonish according to:
Is F-35 program flying high or sputtering? Posted Saturday, Jan. 21, 2012

Is F-35 program flying high or sputtering? | Business | Dallas Business, Texas Business,... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/21/3676170/is-f-35-program-flying-high-or.html)

"...One of the more glaring problems spotlighted in recent weeks by news media and critics is that the tailhook on the F-35C, the version intended for the Navy to operate off aircraft carriers, failed repeatedly to snag the arresting wire in mock carrier landings last summer.

The Pentagon report that revealed the tailhook problem left no doubt that officials considered it potentially a very serious problem. Fixing it, the report said, might require major changes to the aircraft design, adding more delays and still more costs to the already soaring bills for the F-35.

Burbage, a former Navy pilot who made his share of carrier landings, understands the significance of the problem as well as anyone. There won't be many carrier landings if the tailhook doesn't catch and stop the plane when it lands.

It's a challenging issue, a more complex engineering problem than with past Navy planes because of the "stealth" design of the F-35C. Tailhooks ordinarily extend from the back of Navy planes at all times. The F-35C tailhook must be shorter and retract into the body of the aircraft so it doesn't ruin the plane's low visibility to radar signals.

Burbage says he's confident that Lockheed and the Navy can solve the problem without major and costly delays.

"We put our A team on it," Burbage said, with Lockheed engineers working closely with the Navy's top engineering and carrier aviation experts. "We did detailed engineering analysis. There are some physics problems related to the way the [arresting] wire reacts when the plane rolls over it."

By the end of the month, Burbage said, he expects the tailhook to be redesigned and new parts ordered from suppliers. By midsummer the new version should be flying at the Navy's Lakehurst, N.J., base, where carrier operations are tested on the ground. [Remember also this 'carrier' at NAS Lakehurst does not move much. :D ]

"We'll go back and check it and see if we have to tweak it again," Burbage said, adding that he's confident that the F-35C will be ready and cleared for initial carrier testing schedule for 2013.

"I believe that's where we are. We need to prove it to people...."

[LowObservable]

I'm sure those predictions will be as accurate as those over the past decade from the same source.

Mr Burbage's job for the past 12 years has been to keep JSF sold, and he has done it very well.

[SpazSinbad]

And your job?

[LowObservable]

Fighting for truth, justice, freedom and decent beer.

[SpazSinbad]

Chicken Man (He's every where - he's every where) is my hero - 'the most fantastic crime fighter the world has ever known':

danoday.com - Dick Orkin's Chickenman First Episode (http://www.danoday.com/chickenman/)
________

Earlier LO asked 'did A-4 fail trample tests'. Dunno - that would have been a very long time ago indeed. I may go away in an attempt to find out - but then again I might not. Below is an excellent Laurie Hillier photo of an almost 'taxi 1' wire with some possible trample effect but also probably the main wheels/tyres have hit the deck just after no.1 wire.

Also the F-35C hook redesign (to make it look like the F-35A emergency hook and the A-4 hook) is to enable it to catch a trampled wire flat on the runway or deck - so not a future problem one hopes.

http://a4-alley.x90x.net/A4-Alley/RAN/Images/A-4G-871-dkldg.jpg

http://a4-alley.x90x.net/A4-Alley/RAN/Images/A-4G-871-dkldg.jpg

[John Farley]

Developing a water based arrester gear at Bedford in the mid 60s we did I hate to think how many run in trials. But clearly a real landing compresses the gear more than somewhat while the hook dynamics/angle following a high sink rate touchdown are quite different from the run in case. While the new hook shape at post 144 looks lovely for a run in, on a landing with the gear compreesed I would think it could wound the deck nicely/and or wear itself.

[Modern Elmo]

Panetta Lifts F-35B Probation


Jan 23, 2012



By Amy Butler [email protected]
NAS PATUXENT RIVER, Md.
...

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has ushered the F-35B out of the penalty box, after the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version of the stealthy fighter was sidelined for poor performance for more than a year by prior Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

...


Panetta Lifts F-35B Probation | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2012/01/20/awx_01_20_2012_p0-416683.xml&headline=Panetta%20Lifts%20F-35B%20Probation&channel=defense)

[GreenKnight121]

Funny... SpazSinbad posted a link with that very info 3 days (and 12 posts) ago in this very thread.
http://www.pprune.org/6971391-post202.html

[Modern Elmo]

Funny... SpazSinbad posted a link with that very info 3 days (and 12 posts) ago in this very thread.
More delays for the F-35

Thank you, Green Knight. I don't know how I'd get by here if you weren't following me around, wiping my nose for me.

I mean, what? You expect me to read every post in a long, repetitive set? :cool:

[Machinbird]

When you get down to it, roll in landings are always harder to catch a wire than fly in landings. My hook skip rate in the F-4 was pretty high in cases where gear hit the wire first. Of course, the sharp pitch down the F-4 did on touchdown plus a bit of tendency of the main mounts to rebound off the deck didn't help either.

As I recall, the F-4 hook tip was redesigned from the original. No big deal. I'm surprised that the F-35 folks didn't have a spare in their back pocket of an alternate design.

What they will have to watch with the lower point tip is that wear limits are strictly observed. Too sharp and they will be tearing out strands.

[lj101]

MoD officials said that contingencies are now being considered with discussion on whether to change the variant of JSF Britain buys, or to purchase a different aircraft. Elizabeth Quintana, of the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, said: “Most of the JSF partner [nations] are having to look at other options. There are no fixed costs; they are going ever upwards and if they cross a certain threshold Britain will have to look to buy elsewhere.”

Copied from an article in The Times today.

Superhornet anyone? Maybe, just maybe.

[SpazSinbad]

Interesting idea to replace the 'similar to Hornet but not at moment working hook on the F-35C' A/C with a CompleatWuckingSuperHornet. Good oh. :*:ugh:

[LowObservable]

The RN situation is only partly connected with the hook. The concern is that the USN IOC will slip due to other factors to the point where the UK's first carrier has an empty deck at commissioning.

[glojo]

Interesting points being raised but would the RAF consider the Super Hornet as a suitable replacement for the GR4? If the Hornet were forced upon them then would we then be back to the saga of the SHAR? Hornet being a fully capable carrier aircraft but not the aircraft of choice for our shore based friends?

Good morning Low Observable,
I thought that first carrier would not be capable of operating fast fixed wing aircraft?

John

[Willard Whyte]

Wonder how much it would cost/save if F-35 (or F-18) were to be procured solely for the RN.

Initial thoughts are that F-18 would have little advantage over Typhoon as a land based asset, save cost perhaps.

[orca]

Afternoon all,

Glojo. Correct - first one to have no cat and trap. (As it stands with the current wind direction)

F18E would offer a greater capability than the GR4 but if we pass up the chance to buy the last manned fighter (F-35) the implications are large.

Can we save/ lose money by taking the Joint out of JCA? Not vast sums. I think that with the post SDSR figure of 12 deployable to start with we are now possibly in the realms of single service manning. Therefore the desirability of a single service force really boils down to what it offers defence. I can't see how this would significantly effect the cost.

We are buying a carrier borne aircraft, to embark, for maritime strike. If it were to be solely manned by the RAF you deny all levels of the RN experience in operating the product. If it were to be solely manned by the RN, the ACC (who - let's be realistic - will always be RAF) might not know what his 'other box of tricks' is capable of. Both can be mitigated to some degree by LOs. I think Joint is the way forward. If I had to choose between two single service options - gun to head - given the existence of Typhoon and GR4 replacement, that the lesser of the two evils is for the ACC to be broadly, if not intimately, familiar with the capability. i.e. JCA becomes dark blue and the boys spend their entire lives at sea, singing shanties and searching relentlessly for the golden rivet and we send a fishy type to the CAOC to answer the tricky questions.

As to the debate about what JCA is, well it would be brilliant if it were F-35 but everyone will have a line in the sand as to when it becomes 'something else' (or F-18E, or Rafale). As the programme slips and the jets get more expensive we start tripping over those lines and at some point we'll get to Mr Cameron's.

[glojo]

An excellent reply that should hopefully stimulate discussions from all corners of the debate. My big concern is that are we playing games with the thought of being a nation that possesses a carrier with full fixed wing capability and if the answer is 'Yes' then is ONE carrier enough?

Can we afford two carriers and all the other issues that go with these types of ships?

[cokecan]

gents.

with regards to 'what should we do if JSF becomes too expensive', could you give your views on the possibility that instead of a F/A-18F/G / Rafale buy we went for a carrier capable UCAV?

UCAV's on the horizon include the USN's X-47B, and GA's 'Sea Avenger' - do any ppruners think that with a bit of cash shoved their way, any of the possibles could replace Tornado GR4 and take the place of F-35C?

[Courtney Mil]

Glojo, Coke, good points all round. As for UCAVs, it's the long argued choice between manned and unmanned. Perhaps once we could absolutely guarantee that they're completely immune to EMP, jamming, deception, etc, they could become a possibility for more mainstream ops.

Of course, no real pilot would ever (should ever) openly support UCAVs. We'll always think up more reasons why they "just wouldn't work". ;)

[Not_a_boffin]

FA18F is probably more capable than GR4, but that is irrelevant in terms of acquiring the aircraft, as the requirement being procured against is JCA, which requires significantly more capability in certain areas. No-one, I say again, no-one, is going to get a new-buy aircraft past the EAC and the Treasury unless it meets the future requirement.

For all Boeing's current strapline ("Affordable. Capable. Available Now" - wonder what they're thinking??!!) you are talking about an aircraft for which the first production model was delivered 14 years ago (yes, really) and was developed from an aircraft first delivered in the early 80s.

So - new buy of SuperBug unlikely to get past MoD hurdles. In any case, the line is now ramping down with only 67 E/F and some Growlers on the plot between now and FY2014 when production ends. This also makes the idea of "loaning" a squadron or two of 18E/F and deferring F35C much harder, particularly if F35 is delayed.

The only loan option that might be feasible now would be to consolidate all those on "exchange" into a single squadron (would have to build up with a high US content to start with) and operating FA18C if we're lucky, although there are only a couple of dozen C models at AMARC atm. Kind of a reverse of the Eagle squadrons. Depending on the conditions of the exchange, the UK gets a coherent CV-capable unit in the Orbat maintaining skillsets and the USN (or even the Foul & Most Foreign) get an additional squadron of manpower, although fitting in with the deployemnt and training schedules for a CVW will be very tricky.

UCAVs are nowhere near being ready for operational deployments as part of a CVW yet. There's a reason it's called the X47....

[orca]

Maybe a UCAV operator could enlighten me. I can see how a well found capability, operating from a carrier would work. But if their lordships gave a "Right, we're jumping forward, how long until we're all in Al Udeid ready to fight?" I would guess that the F-35 could be off the deck in an hour and en route...how long would a drone-det (don't call them drones...err - no I shall) take to get off the boat with operator consoles etc..

..or is the answer that the drones could be controlled from somewhere(Waddington?) and the flying bit of the drone system could be anywhere worldwide?

PS They're drones. And Courtney's right. They make sense, they can stay up for hours, they persist, the operator can have a coffee or nip to the head. But we all deep down know it ain't right!;)

[PhilipG]

With the IOC of the F35 slipping further away as I read things and the price going up and up, as was stated above some countries will have their lines in the sand regarding the F35 crossed, be this due to its late arrival or its unaffordable cost.
What confuses me is why the default alternative is the F18 not the Rafale, when the Indians and others have selected the Rafale above the F18 in their competitions.
Personally I would have thought that with the co operation that is meant to be happening with the French a purchace of Rafale Ns, the two seat carrier version would fit the bill for the UK. I do know that at the moment none have ever been built, two seats seem a better solution in complex situations.
I look forward to comments on the above...:confused:

[Willard Whyte]

Rafale may be a little pricey though, I seem to recall the flyaway cost is around 50% more than F-18's.

[orca]

NAB,

Whilst you are absolutely correct about the requirement I think we might be under estimating what an EASA equipped aircraft brings to the party. And we could argue all day about weapon fits. The F-18E is IMHO more of a F-35 'minus' than a GR4 'plus'.

Not sure any allied power would like the idea of an embedded mercenary squadron. Far more palatable to disperse the same amount of people through out the fleet, after all with no deck to fly from the UK has no requirement for a formed Naval Air Squadron (for now).

I'm personally in the 'buy F-35C' camp, but can see how valid the 'look at F-18E' argument is.

[Seanthebrave]

Is the concept of the programme being "joint" not a bit irrelevant now? I'm under the impression that it came about from the idea that "look, we fly the same aircraft, why don't we operate under a joint force and replace the aircraft in a corresponding manner". But if the navy went F18/Rafale, would that not negate the necessity for a joint force until (or if) the F35 comes in?

[orca]

It is my opinion that JCA could well be manned by a single service. But there is no requirement for JCA and follow-on JCA. If the JCA requirement is met by F-18E then F-35C is finished as far as the Uk is concerned.

So the RN could man F-18 (assuming they didn't make everyone redundant (:hmm:)), as could the RAF but it would not be as a stop gap.

[cokecan]

is there any real chance that cabinet would accept a 3 type fleet?

if we had F/A-18F/Rafale for the RN, and F-35 and Typhoon for the RAF, would that not be a msassive duplication for diddly squat result?

are not F/A-18F, Rafale and Typhoon roughly at the same level of capability - except that SuperHornet is a bit less of a dogfighter than the other two, but has a much better radar and is cleared for pretty much every A2G munition in NATO?

the ideal result might well be a single, seemless RAF/RN fleet of F-35, but who here would be appalled at a single, seamless RAF/RN fleet of F/A-18 F/G with JSF cancelled, the Typhoons flogged to the Arabs and Tornado GR4 being put to bed? one single type,and huge savings on training and maintainence that can be put twoards the AWACS, ELINT, LR MPA and tankers that we desperately need...

[ORAC]

The advantage of a joint force are the reduced cost of joint training and logistic support - 1 type instead of 2.

The second advantage which was offered by the F-35B was the ability to surge by reinforcing the Carrier force with RAF crews/aircraft as the SHAR force was reinforced by the GR3s in 82. The proposition being that carrier STOVL required limited additional training for a land based pilot. Purportedly the skills required for conventional cat & trap require continuous practice and the second advantage is no longer available.

The question therefore being does buying the F-35C as a part replacement for the GR4 force (the rest being UAV) still make commercial sense in view of the price or is there an alternate option available such as additional Tranche 3 Typhoon?

[Seanthebrave]

Yes, if the JCA requirement does eventually follow through with one aircraft type, then I agree about it being jointly manned (a highly logical argument). But if the navy went F18s for a few years, my point is that I would imagine they would be manned exclusively by the navy, while the air force find their own solution to the capability gap (probably more typhoons). I was speaking to a guy that's just left the MoD, who said talk of this as an alternative plan is rife, with a view to re-visiting the F35 in 10 years time... as demonstrated by the commander in chief fleet's comments.

[glojo]

The Americans are now ordering a few more F/18's:

U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Contract
No. 054-12 January 25, 2012
CONTRACTS
NAVY
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $687,484,033 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year procurement contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for 14 additional fiscal 2012, Lot 36, F/A- 18E aircraft and one additional fiscal 2012, Lot 36, F/A-18F aircraft contained in the F/A-18 multi-year III production contract. Pursuant to the variation in quantity clause, this procurement will bring the number of F/A-18E aircraft on this contract from 55 to 69, and the F/A-18F from 20 to 21.

[Not_a_boffin]

Orca

I too am firmly in the "buy F35C" camp, but potentially with a bit more flexibility on the when. If the "when" slips into the twenties, then an intermediate solution is required (at least for the FCBA bit of JCA) for which a loan is the only sensible option.

Phillip - I don't believe the Indians have announced their selection yet. However, as it's due this week, I bet the phones in both BAES and Dassault executive offices are managing about one ring before pick-up.

ORAC - I don't think the difference between cat n trap and STOVL training demands is as stark as you make out. I'm pretty sure that the various squadrons in US CVW do not spend the time they are not embarked sitting on the ramp at Oceana, North Island or Whidbey Island incapable of operations. Similarly, the USMC squadrons sometimes integrated into big-deck CVW don't spend years working up to it. That is not to suggest it's simple - CarQuals are an intensive and demanding training period as outlined in this ref.

http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf

What it does mean is that an RAF squadron can't hop on for a week and then be certified as "qualified" as per STOVL. However, with a little imagination (a significant number of field landings to be conducted as per carrier landings), you'd be looking at being able to deliver a CV-qualified element of FE@R at a readiness measured in some tens of days. Not impossible, I suggest, but would require more willingness to embark more often, such that it isn't a new experience every time. It almost certainly implies a bigger AE for Joint Force Dave to ensure that a six-ship sustained commitment to a land-theatre doesn't mean you can't deliver a CV-based component as well.

[PhilipG]

Not a Boffin
Phillip - I don't believe the Indians have announced their selection yet. However, as it's due this week, I bet the phones in both BAES and Dassault executive offices are managing about one ring before pick-up.

I was meaning that besides Boeing have offered their best version of the F18 the Indians having done a long and involved comparison decided that the F18 did not make the final short list, whilst the Rafale and Typhoon did. Unless the requirements that the Indians had were very different from those of the UK, which they may be... It surprised me that as a default carrier aircraft the F18 comes to people's mind.

I do agree that the quick of the nails must be nearly gone whilst waiting for the result....

[Not_a_boffin]

I think the Indians are settled on the MiG29K for their carriers, it's not part of the MRCA requirement.

Could be there are elements of the MRCA requirement that suit Typhoon and Rafale airframe performance better than SuperBug.

[glojo]

Are we talking about Indian aircraft carriers and the selection of aircraft? I thought the carriers they were operating lacked catapults which would suggest their choice of aircraft is limited!

[Willard Whyte]

glojo,

Are we talking about Indian aircraft carriers and the selection of aircraft? I thought the carriers they were operating lacked catapults which would suggest their choice of aircraft is limited! Apparently the Indian's are examining concepts for future carriers...

Concepts currently being examined by the Directorate of Naval Design for the IAC-2 are for a conventionally powered carrier displacing over 50,000 tons and equipped with steam catapults (rather than the ski-jump on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya and the IAC) to launch fourth generation aircraft.

Read more at: First indigenous aircraft carrier to be launched next year: Navy chief : Latest Headlines News - India Today (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/First+indigenous+aircraft+carrier+to+be+launched+next+year:+ Navy+chief/1/73256.html)



I suppose it would be as well to investigate the various a/c types that it could carry too.

[LowObservable]

NaB - The Super Hornet's age (and the age of the original design) certainly means differences in terms of stealth versus a from-the-ground-up design.

If your requirement is written around JSF RCS numbers, the SH probably won't meet it, even with conformals and weapon pods and everything else that can be done.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to look at the actual RCS profiles of JSF and the Ultra Hornet - dB, aspect, band - and ask the question: How much difference does that make to survivability and lethality, across a likely set of missions and threats?

And stealth aside, the SH - particularly with conformals and the uprated engine, which are lower risk than the JSF at this point - gives little up to the F-35C, will surpass it in many respects and costs less. Maybe enough less to CATOBAR another carrier...

[Not_a_boffin]

A long time since I looked at the FCBA (as was) requirement, so can't really contrast between F35 & "UltraBug", particularly not for signature aspects :=.

My point was merely that the UK is not just buying a carrier-borne aircraft, but a carrier-borne aircraft that meets particular performance requirements - something that sometimes gets lost in the debate.

The age of the aircraft is perhaps not as important as it once was, but is still a half-decent indicator of the growth potential for a service life of 30+ years. Make no mistake, I think getting some F18F in the next five-eight years would be fantastic for the UK, but only if that then led to F35C sometime in the twenties.

In any case, given the choice for an alternate, Tomcat-21 would always have had my vote - wishful thinking I know!

[Kitbag]

NAB raises the growth potential issue, my understanding of the latest gen of 'stealthy' aircraft is that actually growth is strictly limited by the current structure/shape unlike the F18/F16/Mig 29 types which have had their capability and capacity greatly increased through 'growth'. For instance changes to the F35 fuselage for instance to accomodate what I see as a minor mod to the hook have been reported as difficult and expensive by the company.

[Not_a_boffin]

Growth ain't just weight / payload. Growth is increase beyond IOC through life, which can also mean data handling, signature etc.....

[LeCrazyFrog]

http://www.marianne2.fr/blogsecretdefense/photo/art/grande/944258-1121352.jpg?ibox

:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E

[glojo]

Hi Willard,
Thank you very much for the update and I have a few questions none of which are specifically aimed at you but one question does involve your comments about a conventional carrier.

If India were to build or purchase a conventional carrier then where would she get a trained deck crew to operate the ship whilst at flying stations? I ask this question as this area of expertise takes possibly years to master in a competent and professional manner. There are lots of noises being made at the moment regarding certain countries buying oil from Iran with gold instead of the recognised dollar... Would America appreciate this and still offer to help train the Indians or the other fast jet operator France who is part of the EU boycott. where would Indian get this expertise?

Going back to the F-35 or a substitute F-18, I am still about the RAF ownership should the F-18 be deemed necessary. Would the RAF prefer the F-18 to the Tornado or are all GR4's eventually being replaced by the Typhoon? If so same question but substitute Typhoon. If the RAF are not 100% committed then would the 18 be a dead man walking and we have the SHAR saga all over again?

Please note these are questions and I am NOT suggesting or implying anything regarding the purchasing of the F-18 or its future roles..

having said that would the F-18 Growler be more than welcome on any flight deck and is there a substitute for what that aircraft brings to the table? :)

[ICBM]

NaB,

Problem is, we're not procuring a carrier-borne aircraft any more but a carrier capable one. F35C will spend most of its service life ashore because the carrier will be late and we're only buying one Cat/Trap one. It won't be because we don't want to embark, but that we can't because she's in for servicing. The emphasis has switched and F35C will be looked at to replace lost GR4 strike capability for the RAF.

[BEagle]

Nice model, LaGrenouilleFolle!

.

[LeCrazyFrog]

works perfect! you just need to get rid of the garlic perfume....:ok:

[orca]

Whilst we have one of them listening, could we ask the French for a little help?

Can you quickly explain to us why having Aeronavale pilots flying Rafale M is better than simply embarking a few Armee de l'air chaps every now and then?

Is it more efficient? Does it cost less? Is it safer? Couldn't the air force just supply the air boss? How about the yellow coats? The MAOC staff? Does it really take 3 years to make a LSO?

Please help because we have a navy that once knew about carriers but has forgotten and an air force that helped out to a greater or lesser degree in both the cat and trap ones, and also the VSTOL ones, but now all we're good at is blaming each other for the capability's demise.

It seems we might be interested in your aeroplane, please give us a quick data burst on your C2 and modus operandi.

Many thanks indeed.

PS Please answer from the point of view of both services. Does your air force want to go to sea? Or does it want all the Rafales including the Ms for some other reason? Has it ever been stated how much time a land based pilot would need to become proficient on the deck?