No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

[Engines]

NaB,

The record, as far as I can remember was a particular night down south, when we got to 9 SHAR, 13 SK (11 of our own plus 2 visitors), a Lynx and a Wessex 5. Still had Sea Dart, so no graveyard worth talking about, and verrry dodgy lifts.

The key was brilliant leadership from the ship (Captain and Wings were outstanding), squadrons all getting on (including Sharkey) and a great ships' company supporting the action. Experienced FDO and really good ACR officers. Toss that mix into the blender and you can do just about anything.

Grindingly hard work and huge fun interspersed with occasional sheer terror. Carrier ops the RN way. Can't beat it.

Best regards

Engines

[cokecan]

Ghostnav,

its not a matter of 'affording it' - we're a £Trillion economy who'se government spends about £500billion a year.

the idea that we 'can not afford' £2bn for C&T and F-35C is mathmatically impossible. we choose not to spend £2bn for C&T and F-35C, and £whatever for LRMPA, and SSN's, and another 20 escorts.

'can't' doesn't come into it.

[Norma Stitz]

My condolences to the Joint Harrier Force on hearing this news today...your trusty steed should never have gone after all.

[A2QFI]

Mr Hammond says, according to the BBC "This announcement means that we remain on course to deliver carrier strike in 2020 as a key part of our Future Force 2020" Bearing mind that the Nimrods scrapped in January 2011 were due in service in 2003, I am not filled with confidence by this announcement.

[Finnpog]

As I have said before on this thread, I don't think that this is the worst decision ever - but there will have to be a better way of doing things than was done with JFH.

As said above, the CVFs could be the most flexible flat-tops on the seas, with more bang than a Gator and more amphibiosity ( :eek: ) than a CVN. As well as the F-35 and grey Merlins, there could always be a CHF flight and some Booties on board as a mini-MEU.

Just a pity we haven't got options on Osprey, CH53 or embarked marinised Chinooks (I am a dreamer...)

On the global scale, POTUS can now say that the B is not just a vanity project for the USMC, as the only Tier 1 partner in the project is going this way.

Ironically, the B could also be used off the CVNs, so this might make the C model the white elephant now as it is the least flexible option - however, the Navy does have catapults and arrestor gear in abundance already...but do they really want the C?

[orca]

Is it just me...

If you were making two big ships and already had contracts in place, and were asked to make modifications to one of them that no-one on your team could really be called qualified for - could you really be bothered? I think it quite convenient that ACA pushed the government beyond their price limit.

When are we re-opening the 'road to VSTOL carrier and jets not including VSTOL carrier and jets' logic?

I am sure it would only take a few FOI questions to uncover how much we saved by binning Harrier and CVS. How much we spent on changing QECV to CV and back again. How much we paid RN stovies and maintainers of both cloths to leave. How many slots we now require from USMC and how much we'll pay. I wonder how much we'll actually end up saving and how the 'one type has to go' line may not have been the whole truth.

I feel incredibly sorry for all the guys who've actually put thousands of man hours into this debate, all to be exactly where we were in October 2010...other than then we had a carrier and a VSTOL aeroplane.

[JFZ90]

British U-turn on US jets damages credibility of UK defence chiefs | News | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/defence-and-security-blog/2012/may/10/defence-fighter-aircraft)

'Cats and Flaps' Norton-Taylor again - says we're buying only '12' jsf at '£60m' each now - surely these numbers aren't right?

Surely that's (at least?) 12 deployed on a carrier CSG, not total buy!

How many are we actually buying?

The fundamental suggestion about a credibility issue for the SDSR decision making is valid however - as an outsider it feels more like the politicians fault for pushing the switch, but then again did the defence board(?) actually make any warnings against the SDSR 'go for C' option? Was going for a single carrier with cats really what the top mil brass wanted, or were they 'told' to make cats the answer no matter what?

[Milo Minderbinder]

worth listening to Lewis Page on Radio 4 on thursday morning
BBC iPlayer - Today: 10/05/2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01h75xm/Today_10_05_2012/)

Starts at 2hr 45min

[t43562]

I know nothing about any of this but it did strike me that if it is going to take extra time to get catapults fitted then possibly one of the extra expenses might be the cost of keeping a lot of people employed in shipyards while waiting for the final bit of work to materialise. I don't have anything to back this up - it's just speculation.

[stirtloe]

This change of course on aircraft carriers is essential - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9257316/This-change-of-course-on-aircraft-carriers-is-essential.html)

[ICBM]

So with the decision now made, hopefully for the last time, what does this now mean for the RN aircrew flying Hornets in the USA. I can see a benefit for retaining experience and a fresh perspective of being on a large ship but where does the line move to now wrt relevance. Ship's Company need to retain a skill set and I'm sure we'll keep our Matelots on US big decks until QEC is ready for sea trials.

I think a new bun fight is about to begin all over again. Both services have a requirement for F-35 and numbers of jets will be scarce if the price continues to climb. I agree that the jets should be embarked if the carrier is off projecting power somewhere and that even in UK waters there should be a higher training requirement to keep CS well greased as it were. That said, now that the training burden for the aircrew to arrive/depart QEC isn't as high as it would have been for F-35C the embarkation tempo will be an interesting debate. Keen to hear the RN side.

[Not_a_boffin]

if it is going to take extra time to get catapults fitted then possibly one of the extra expenses might be the cost of keeping a lot of people employed in shipyards while waiting for the final bit of work to materialise

I think the extra time refers to the slip in F35C deliveries. Assuming that PoW was to be fitted first, most if not all of the flight deck steel units have yet to start fabrication. That means there would be time to modify the steel drawings etc prior to starting fabrication. The changes for EMALS do not materially affect the large lower block units for PoW which are the first ones in fabrication now, so they could proceed without delay. The only likely delays would be due to long-lead times for the energy storage flywheel systems, but that would not result in wholesale delays to the rest of the ship.

Not to say that wouldn't stop BAES claiming it would lead to such effects though! Short version is that unless the cost breakdown for the fit is published (a most unlikely event!), we'll never know. At the minute, we don't even know if the costs were fully contractor furnished or not. The conversion costing contract for QEC with the Naval Design Partnership was only let last October.....

[Willard Whyte]

Perhaps the Argies have brought forward their invasion timetable from 2023 to 2020. Dashed cheek.

[tucumseh]

B can operate off container ships, or from desert oasis.


Even to a non-pilot like me, it is obvious there is more to operating from such "bases" than simply landing and taking off. I seem to recall a Harrier trying the first, but only in an emergency after a bird strike, or similar. The 2nd concept, a tactical land base, was in the original CONOPS for Sea Harrier and the necessary kit procured (e.g. Air/Land/Sea MADGE), but when AMSO suppliers decided to scrap it in about 1992 as a "savings" measure without mentioning it to the RN, the RN rolled over and said "It's ok, we didn't really want to do it anyway". A strange posture, given we were half way through the Mid Life Upgrade. We were shelling out big bucks for a fixed price modification contract and the kit was in the skip.

If this "oasis" concept was suddenly inserted, proper scrutiny would point out the previous waste and ask serious questions. Not that the chair of the Defence Select Committee would be interested in such scrutiny; after all, it's only his job.

[LowObservable]

The 2023 date is puzzling, still - but it may have to do with the USN's own schedule for getting operations spooled up. Their IOC is ten carrier-deployable aircraft, which is not a lot for trying to train the RN as well. And IOC is not until after IOT&E, currently in the Feb-Aug 2019 timeframe.

So not only does the RN need jets, but it needs a training cadre to work with US training and operational units to get started. It's easy to see where an organically supported UK carrier strike force (that is, with UK-based F-35 crew training) would not be up until 2023.

Conversely, the Marines' plan to declare IOC before IOT&E, with Block 2 S/W, could help the RN get started earlier.

On the other hand, this does mean going to sea trials in 2017 with a Block 3 aircraft, with new processors, that hasn't technically been cleared for US operational use. Chinook HC3 anybody?

[melmothtw]

The lack of range issue (raised by the presenter) has been solved by recent advances in Air to Air refuelling technology.




Am curious - although this looks like the commentator getting his facts wrong, could it be that perhaps the MoD/LM has developed a buddy-buddy system for F-35 aerial refuelling in order to extend its range?

[LowObservable]

The buddy idea has been talked about. One problem is that the F-35B can't carry much fuel anyway.

Unless you make the C/L pylon wet, and probably design a new hose-drogue pod for it, the option would be to design a buddy store to the form factor of the existing 425 gal wing tank. Let's say that store holds 350 gal + 425 gal in the opposite drop tank + the jet's internal fuel load, which is about 13500 pounds.

The F/A-18E, with about the same empty weight and thrust, has about 1000 pounds more internal and can carry 4 x 480gal tanks plus 300 gal in the buddy store on the centerline. 11,000 pounds more gas than an F-35B, my calculator says.

[Widger]

The quote comes direct from the MoD and I think is referring to FSTA, which is all well and good in an operation such as Libya or the Balkans, but when you are over a thousand miles away from a friendly base, things can get a little more challenging. The whole point of having a carrier group is that it will be self sufficient, without being an a leash to shore based tankers or ISTAR (UAVs) Notwithstanding that, low endurance can be mitigated by a higher sortie rate although reach will always be less without AAR.

[Teknophobe]

Don't we think that C/L or Drop Tanks would make all the compromises and expense of purchasing a LO platform slightly pointless?

[Willard Whyte]

Don't we think that C/L or Drop Tanks would make all the compromises and expense of purchasing a LO platform slightly pointless?

LO day 1 & 2 of 'The War',

Pylons galore day 3 onwards,

I believe that's the theory, anyway.

[LowObservable]

WW - Exactly, because that's how it worked in the war just before they wrote the requirements.

Bosnia, not so much. Defenses were suppressed but not destroyed.

[Willard Whyte]

It'll be interesting to see how many pylons Dave-B can cope with.

My money's on it requiring a fairly hefty stretch of tarmac in order to carry a significant loadout.

[163627]

ACA to charge MoD for modifying one QE carrier to accept "cat and traps" £2 billion.

French charging Russia $1.47 billion for two complete Mistral class amphibious assault carriers.

As our ship is now apparently going to carry no more than twelve F-35s and a few helicopters perhaps we should trade down to something much cheaper? Particularly as the crew of a QE strike carrier is around 600 not including the staff of the "air wing". Though I think anyone now using the terms "strike carrier" and "air wing" will probably be doing so tongue in cheek!

[Just This Once...]

The 'pylons galore' comment prompted a thought for those of us who have had to turn the 'B bring back capability into reality.

The 'B's 'bring back' capability is open source and I have no issue with what is in the open domain. Now try to imagine the exact same performance scenario with 2 AMRAAM in the bays, 2 ASRAAM / AIM9X on the outer pylons and all the other pylons fitted but empty.

Yep, no bombs at all but feel free to guess if this fit requires more or less available performance.

This is the challenge the USMC is facing right now. The bring back scenarios are reliant on the fact that no IR missiles are fitted and 6 pylons plus gun are safely stored on the ship. Equip the aircraft with pylons and the gun and jet is starting to look pretty heavy all on its own. For the USMC role the pylons are pretty important and the option of ditching a bunch of weapons so that they are only carrying the weight of the gun, 2 AMRAAM and 6 pylons does not appeal to them at all.

Again, not challenging the 2 bombs plus 2 AMRAAM requirement, but this is the '1st day of the war' fit that the USMC cares little about. Carrying a mixed weapon load on 6 pylons to serve their customer for all the other days in the war is giving the USMC kittens.

Sorry that I cannot quote open source info on the 6 pylon fit, but we all know the weight of the 1st day fit and work the rest out with a pencil...

[LowObservable]

JTO - Some of the issues, as the aircraft enters service, will be reminiscent of the Scottish hell-fire preacher...

And those poor damned souls will cast their eyes up from those tormentin' flames to the Laird above, and cry out "Laird, Laird, we didna ken".

And the Laird himself will answer them, in the kindliest of voices, "Well, ye ken the noo".

Correct, six pylons, the gun pod (1000 pounds or so) and AIM-9Xs will consume most of the bring-back without trying too hard. But that's the result of trying to stuff ten pounds of stealth, supersonic and STOVL into an LHA/LHD-compatible five-pound bag.

Later Edit: The last sentence indeed implies great difficulties, as Engines stresses, and yes, it is a great achievement to do it at all. That does not mean that (at a strategic use-of-resources level) it was a good idea to try. Let alone to build global tacair recap around it.

[Squirrel 41]

Ok, shambles.

Am I the only one who is looking at whether Dave-B is going to survive the US Presidential Election? In a time when there are going to be big defense cuts in 2013 onwards (even if Romney wins, which I doubt will happen anyway). The choice seems pretty straightforward, esp. as the USMC are now going to be flying -Cs off CVNs; the -B is incredibly impressive, but the USMC ConOps are utterly illogical; no-one has been able to coherently argue circumstances under which a MEU / MAGTAF would go to war needing Day One stealth and the US wouldn't feel compelled to send a CVN.

So if the ConOps are bust, it's the most expensive variant that does least, is still on technical probation, and you've won your final election so there's no need to deal with USMC worries, what do you think you're going to do? If I were advising Obama, and we won in November, I'd bin the -B before Christmas and before any more cash is wasted on it (though it is clearly a massive technical achievement.)

And then get Obama to ring his main man Dave, and explain that he has a problem, but we can lease him some F-18Es cheep for PoW. Good thing that N-a-B and Engines are all over this redesign stuff.

Tragic doesn't begin to cover it.

S41

[Willard Whyte]

UK defence policy, circa 2012:

http://scratch.mit.edu/static/projects/Paddle2See/362613_med.png

Yes, there are better merry-go-rounds out there, but as ever, ours is particularly sh1te,

[LowObservable]

S41 - Very true. And you send the CVN not only because it has the extra fighters but because it has the Growlers and the Hawkeyes, and because without those there is the risk that a lucky shot with a discount-price Chinese ASCM will hit a ship full of Marines.

So why did anyone get into this notion of a stealth jet for the Marines? Because we were all assured it would not cost anything extra, because of the magic of the universal fighter and its 3000-4000-5000-unit production run.

[Heathrow Harry]

Just struck me, listening to the Minister's speech - that we are planning to do exactly the same with the Trident replacement - the USN reckon they can keep their boats running longer than the RN (who of course are driven by the necessity of keeping Barrow busy)

So we will be lead customer with all the risks involved .... which is one of the reasons they dropped the C variant and cats & traps.................

[draken55]

HH

Building SSN's is another example of our Defence "thinking". We need subs, the USN needs them and has nukes as do the Russians so we must have nukes too. Export potential is zero so it's all about retaining a strategic nuclear submarine building ability at Barrow as much as a defence capability.

Problem was that after Upholder and the Trident build, we had no follow on programme and let many skilled sub workers go. Barrow tried to diversify building Bulwark and Albion, a story in itself but to cut to the chase, when we went for Astute we pretty much had to start again but needed help from the US to finally produce a boat well in excess of what was needed after the end of the Cold War. As it's all we can build, we have ordered another to keep Barrow in work until the Trident replacement is ready to start and this can't be delayed to match the potential expiry date of the Trident boats.

[glojo]

We talk about this first day capability and then try to justify buying the 35 but the USA did not have much of a problem regarding Libya.

The Growler (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-us-navy-next-generation-jammer-proceeds-but-f-35-integration-deferred-indefinitely-371742/) now looks like to is going to get the next generation of EW equipment which I thought was destined for the F-35B?

[Willard Whyte]

In fairness, first day against China, Iran, et al, would probably be a bit trickier than Libya.

[glojo]

Totally agree with you and my guess is we will be hiding behind anyone and everyone if we were to get involved in any conflict with a country that has modern weaponry but how good is the latest jamming technology?

The USMC always talk about close air support and will that mean the aircraft will be flown in daylight and how do they define 'close'? Is that smart weapons dropped from high altitude or is it close support that takes on the opposition that is attacking the grunts on the ground.

Looks like the French (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/05/12/240786/uk-france-f35/) are not best pleased with this decision?

[Milo Minderbinder]

I can't help but feel that the use of these new carriers has been misunderstood.

It strikes me that the powers that be see them not as weapon systems, but simply as a way of transporting attack aircraft to a combat zone, where they can go ashore an operate as bomb trucks / flying artillery from FOBs close up to the ground forces. Much as the original 1960's concept of using the original Harrier in Scandinavia or Germany
In which case all discussion re tanking / surveilance / AWACS becomes irrelevant as that will be provided by long-range land based assets - or by the USA...
I don't believe those carriers will ever be put in harms way - except for an initial approach to disembark their aircraft. If they were ever intended to do more they would have been provided with a transmission that provided a decent turn of speed. As it is they're not much more than oversized aircraft garages. We don't have enough maritime protection assets to defend them anyway, especially in a littoral environment, and no-one now seems to believe the F-35 (of any type) is going to be an effective air defence platform, so that if used as a "real" carrier they would be sitting ducks.

Face iit, all those carriers will be are oversized floating aircraft garages used solely as a way of moving the aircraft from point A to point B without worrying about tanking. When they get to point B, they'll be going ashore

[PhilipG]

Re the aircraft garage, how are the necessary stores going to be taken to the onshore location? Does this require C17s? Also this model of service means that far more munitions and spares need to be purchased, one set for the Aircraft Carrier another to be deployed in theatre, I don't think so.

[draken55]

Milo

They are certainly a way of deploying all manner of assets including aircraft both rotary and fixed wing (albeit now STOVL) to anywhere needed to serve UK interests. However HMG has called for a re-establishment of our Carrier Strike capability and the events of this week confirmed that 2020 was the absolute deadline for this.

The carrier(s) are not "primarily" for Anti Submarine Warfare or another layer of Fleet Air Defence as was the case with the Invincible Class until the Sea Harrier was binned. Clearly, they can contribute to both but these are secondary roles. They will therefore train for and expect to go in harms way when required to do so by HMG and will take what they need with them as well as being re-supplied at sea.

What the USMC wants to do with their F-35B's is another issue and something many remain to be convinced about. When not operating from a carrier, how do you forward deploy a fifth generation aircraft with a stealth coating?

Anyway for the UK as well as the USMC, the F35B seems to have become the only choice for varied reasons!

[ICBM]

Glojo,

In CAS, 'Close' refers to the close integration of air platforms with ground forces rather than a proximity issue. The integration and situational understanding is what prevents blue on blue most of the time and it is a two-way responsibility. The perfect example is a chap in Creech AFB, Nevada, consenting release of a weapon from a UAV in Helmand having built a close rapport with a controller on the ground there.

Regards,

ICBM

[Milo Minderbinder]

Draken55

I rather expect that our politicians have a rather more flexible understanding of the meaning of the phrase "maritime strike" than you do, as indeed they have for so many other things where their understanding is at odds with the rest of the world.
Those two ships are just going to become aircraft ferries

[TEEEJ]

BBC News - Royal Navy 'Top Gun' pilots train to fly US fighters (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18041297)

[exMudmover]

Anyone like to offer bets on how many of these RN ‘Top Guns’ will still be uniform when the ‘B’ eventually arrives in service here?

[ICBM]

exMudmover,

I think there is a huge benefit to integrating key RN personnel onboard US big decks and 'handling' aircraft on a larger scale to prepare for operating the QEC. However, that's where it stops in my opinion. The argument for maintaining conventional carrier expertise in preparation for STOVL is now tenuous to say the least; there is no requirement for regular field carrier landing practice any more which, if we were buying the F-35C, I confess would be otherwise essential.

For the RAF and RN to prepare for F-35B we should now target a few USMC exchange posts on AV-8B and/or their initial F-35Bs in exchange for some Typhoon slots for instance (oh, what would the RN 'exchange'? :hmm:) Maintaining a STOVL-experienced cadre with embarked time to transition to our UK F-35Bs more seamlessly as we form the first Squadron is of much, much more benefit and value than getting auto-launched or being an ace at trapping a 3-wire for 6 years as a Brit abroad. We're buying F-35B and for 95% of the JSF Programme that has been the case.

It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out but fixed-wing FAA isn't looking anywhere near as future-proof as it perhaps did last week when C was on the cards. Much of the public believe that the RN are the only ones with enough STOVL carrier ops flying experience and understanding and that is simply not the case. For instance, at the time of the demise of the GR9 there were more qualified and 'in-practice' RAF pilots than FAA ones. Much fuss is made of having to be dark blue to understand embarked ops and that's simply wrong - in addition, my experience is that the majority of the ship's company regularly showed a surprising level of ignorance of what projecting Air Power was all about. I'm talking 'Strike' missions (not in the Cold War sense of course) from the sea, not defending the fleet organically with a few AMRAAM and Aim-9M.

I think the error the RN have made is that they believe that two massive QEC carriers put them back in the same league as the big deck US Navy; back to the late 1970s again. The problem is they won't have the rest of the gear required to make a CVN-style CAG (AEW, Destroyers, Frigates). The best UK could hope for is to fit into a US CAG and the US protective bubble around it.

[glojo]

Very wise words from ICBM and I dread to think what the morale might be like for our Fleet Air Arm fast jet pilots.

[LowObservable]

"Gleam dazzling silver"? WTFF?

Mind you, she redeems herself further down the page: "Lothar is actually an acronym, which stands for Loser of the American Revolution".

That could be the callsign of the entire RN/FAA if the transformational (or should it be "transformer" given all the moving bits?) B gets whacked.

And I can't wait to hear the Grunt Tiffie exchange pilot coming home and telling his F-35B buddies how uber-cool it was to be pulling 6 g at Mach 1.4 and calling Fox 3 on simulated Flankers at 60 miles with Meteors from 55,000 feet supersonic...

[Bismark]

Very wise words from ICBM

I am still looking but I can't find any wise words from ICBM.

The big risk with choosing the B is that Defence ends up with the capability of the lowest common denominator. In this case it is that of the RAF whose attitude will be the "we can just hop on and hop off for the minimum amount of time". As opposed to developing the full capability incuding maritime career minded aviators.

As for RAF doing exchange tours with the USMC, if they cannot stand being on board for anything other than the minimum amount of time how will an exchange officer cope with a 9-12 month sea deployment? In addition he would be expected to be a "maritime" aviator for the rest of his flying career, including tours on the ship as an aviation officer.....somehow I do not see this happening and presumably is the reason there are no RAF F-18 exchange officers.

The RAFF need to smell the salt water and get real. Just like the mess they created with Joint Force Harrier and the refusal to believe that the Merlins would transfer to the RN, the world has changed since SDSR and embarked ops are the future. As the current SofS said " I want this carrier deployed with jets and helos aboard not stuck around the UK"

[Lowe Flieger]

..QEC carriers...won't have the rest of the gear required to make a CVN-style CAG (AEW, Destroyers, Frigates). The best UK could hope for is to fit into a US CAG and the US protective bubble around it. Agreed - I too am uneasy about the UK's financial ability to put a properly protected carrier group into harms way if we don't have a big daddy to help us out.

But looking at just the AEW capability for the moment and thinking aloud, would F35B have the radar and sensors to provide AEW capability itself? Unless I dreamt it, I recall that the idea of using Harrier in this role was kicked around post Falklands campaign, although the AEW Sea King was then settled on. With F35's sensor capabilities would it now be a feasible platform instead of rotary? It could operate higher and further from the carrier. Endurance is an issue, less crew to operate sensors but data links should be good so carrier-based help should be at hand. Self defence capability. OR, are there just too many drawbacks that this is just plain barking? There must have been good reasons why Sea King came through instead of Harrier 30 years ago and these might still hold true - or not?

[Justanopinion]

These Pilots are gaining far more than just being prepared for the means of taking off and landing on a carrier, they are gaining huge experience in Maritime Strike Ops in a completely multirole 4.5 generation fighter that is deployed on operations around the world. This is the experience which is of relevance to the F35B in the future, more so than anything else we can do at this time.

Going on exchange with the USMC is almost irrelevant, as we keep being told the F35B is going to be so easy to fly even a Tornado pilot could do it. Equally the USMC are not in the carrier business for the same reasons so we are going to learn far more from the USN.

at the time of the demise of the GR9 there were more qualified and 'in-practice' RAF pilots than FAA ones. Pathetic.

[Squirrel 41]

Bismark

The RAFF need to smell the salt water and get real. Just like the mess they created with Joint Force Harrier and the refusal to believe that the Merlins would transfer to the RN, the world has changed since SDSR and embarked ops are the future.

Sorry to rise to the bait on a sunny afternoon, but I had to comment on this. Whatever the issues with JFH back in the day, the reality is that the (very small) FJ frontline in 2020 means that the Dave-B STOVL girls and boys will be the deep-strike role is theirs - and theirs alone. The question will be where will the training and ops be, and - just like JFH in Afghanistan - if the need is for JFD (Joint Force Dave) to go off and operate from land bases, then it will do so. If there's time, then JFD will spend more time on CVF.

What won't happen (because the number of aircraft is too small) is that JFD will spend lots of time afloat for as long as it's joint. There are too many useful things that will simply work better from a land base or against land ranges (Spade etc) - do we really think that CVF will spend 3 months at a time training in home waters with an embarked air group?

In principle, I'm a big fan of big deck "Carrier Enabled Power Projection" (in the current yuck-speak). But CEPP is a holistic concept, involving everything that is required to project power from carriers - sea-borne tankers, frigates, destroyers and submarines to protect the carrier, on board C3, a combination of on-board and off-board ISTAR - much more than the carrier and the jets.

So CEPP as a concept is much closer to the USN CVN Carrier Battle Group than to the USMC MEU - though naturally we're doing it on a shoestring, as ever. But the focus is on buying the kit, and building and then integrating these skills; which will need lots of time afloat with the jets, yes, but it will also require a great deal of equipment and capability that needs cats 'n' traps.... like E-2s, C-2s, AAR.

Worse, in going STOVL, the RN can't make the case for the jets and the squadrons to be spending lots of time afloat doing carrier landing practice getting this maritimeness thingy - as well as losing the things you need to make CEPP actually work.

I'd despair, but I've already done that.

S41

[163627]

So let me get this right, UK plc has taken a decision to invest about £5 billion on two of the world’s largest (outside the USN) and potentially most potent warships each with a crew of 600+, but according to many of those writing on this forum instead of patrolling and cruising the world’s oceans with a potent air wing they will spend most of their operational service just carrying a few helicopters, whilst the aircraft that gives them their capability operate as a Tornado replacement for the RAF in the UK? Is this really an efficient and effective use of our investment? I fully accept that the UK will probably end up with only 60-100 F-35s but should they not be prioritised to where they may be of greatest deterrent and power projecting value? In my view that is travelling the world on board a carrier, not sitting snug on a UK airfield. After all a large carrier by definition is a mobile UK airfield and will be just as capable of projecting power for UK plc as any foreign base, more so in fact. Perhaps we could reduce the pain by reintroducing the "Fleet Air Arm branch of the RAF" to be staffed only by those in light blue who are happy to spend a significant part of their service afloat; a life that I fully accept is not everyone's cup of tea.:ok:

[Justanopinion]

do we really think that CVF will spend 3 months at a time training in home waters with an embarked air group?

Why not? As the declared intent and benefit of F35 + carriers from CDS is Maritime Strike, that is exactly what we should be training to.

There are too many useful things that will simply work better from a land base or against land ranges (Spade etc) Why will flying in and out of spade be better from a land base? Would we not fly against EW threats from the sea?

This platform has not been purchased for the benefit of the RAF, it has been purchased for UK defence.

[Squirrel 41]

Just,

I get all of that. But I'd be really surprised if the carrier + air group are out for extended periods in home waters. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, and I think that it does make sense to have FAA specific squadrons, but with the numbers of Daves it's most unlikely. Ideally, there would be c 120 for Tornado GR replacement (8 sqns + OCU) and about 80 for the FAA - all Dave-Cs. But that's not where we are, or are likely to be.

S41

[Justanopinion]

Ideally, there would be c 120 for Tornado GR replacement (8 sqns + OCU) and about 80 for the FAA - all Dave-Cs. But that's not where we are, or are likely to be.

Agreed S41. My fear is that the RAF just see this as a Tornado replacement that happens to go to sea now and again, which it is not and misses the entire point of Maritime Strike capability and expertise.

[Lowe Flieger]

So let me get this right, UK plc has taken a decision to invest about £5 billion on potent warships... [which]..instead of patrolling and cruising the world’s oceans with a potent air wing they will spend most of their operational service just carrying a few helicopters, whilst the aircraft that gives them their capability operate as a Tornado replacement for the RAF in the UK?Full carrier-based power projection with all that that entails was a big stretch for our resources when it was announced, and the economy was riding the wave of credit-fuelled affluence at that time. Now that bubble has burst, we are trying to prolong the dream with a fraction of the available resources we had at the outset. It is all being done on a shoestring as Squirrel 41 said. The project is staggering through the recession, battered by financial, political and technical headwinds. I guess the hope (plan?) is that enough of it comes out the other side sufficiently intact as a usable platform. Then the elements that true CEPP requires can be added and refined when we can better afford them.

As well as brains and hard graft, a run of good fortune would not go amiss. And UK plc's economy starting to grow again would be mighty welcome too.

[Courtney Mil]

Dave C would have been the RAF's Tornado replacement.

[Timelord]

I am surprised that nobody has commented on CDS's article in the Telegraph last week(there's a thought, a General pontificating on a subject that involves ships and fast jets). Anyway, he made the point that the lower range of the -B doesn't matter "Because of our investment in AAR". If it's reliant on land based tankers then why don't we just base the damn things alongside the tankers and AAR all the way there and back!

[Courtney Mil]

Because the engine would run out of oil, the pilot would be out of crew duty time and CDS either doesn't understand Air, has been seriously misled or is spinning some kind of inappropriate party line. IMHO.

Anyway, two things cropped up this week:

A statement that the addition of EMALS (or something similar had been considered during the design of the carriers - first and last I heard of that), but it would have made installation easier.

The other thing that occurs to me is that BAES was the reason for inflating the price of the modification of the carriers. This would be because BAES wanted to keep us in the market for the B model. My understanding is that the move to a conventional carrier aircraft meant that we would go for the C instead and that carried the risk of eventually moving to the Super Hornet if the Government were ever to work out that it's less expensive, proven and pretty much does what we need. Plus, of course, we would be able to launch Growlers, AAR, AEW, etc.

BAES has a stake in the F-35 programme and none in the F-18. So by pricing the country out of cats and traps they skillfully preserved their profits in the JFS programme.

No proof of any of that, but it rings true to me.

Kevlar body armour at the ready. :cool:

[Bismark]

Squirrel,

The point is that it will not be operating around UK. It will either be working up off the E Seaboard of the US or deployed to Med/Indian Ocean. A bit like the old Ark etc as the UK will not have the facilities to work up the CVF+air group, the USN does.

[ICBM]

Lowe Flieger is right and that was the point I was making earlier. If the UK seriously invested, or had a plan to seriously invest, in the sort of hardware, training and support necessary to form a CAG of such proportions to do it true justice (a la US CVN) we wouldn't be having this debate.

Bismarck,

As for RAF doing exchange tours with the USMC, if they cannot stand being on board for anything other than the minimum amount of time how will an exchange officer cope with a 9-12 month sea deployment?...reason there are no RAF F-18 exchange officers. The RAF have had USMC exchanges since the 1970s and continued to do so until very recently - many embarked for the sort of duration you quote.

The RAFF need to smell the salt water and get real. Just like the mess they created with Joint Force Harrier It's a bit rich putting the blame for the alleged JFH 'mess' on the light blue. Neither party liked being forced together and remember that it was the RAF that made room to keep FW FAA flying going when the SHAR went. Some like that, some didn't. TELIC and HERRICK were the reasons you didn't see many GR9 deployments for lengthy periods because, as has been proven over and over again, when you have HN support and use of their land bases it is preferable long-term logistically. Situational, I know...

Justanopinion (which you are welcome to)


Quote:
at the time of the demise of the GR9 there were more qualified and 'in-practice' RAF pilots than FAA ones.
Pathetic. No matter how pathetic you think that is, a true statement is a true statement. It wasn't meant to enflame and I'm sorry if I did - I was merely talking to the great British public's perception that it is always the FAA who fly off carriers. There were 3 squadron-sized units at Cottesmore and only one of those was RN. Naturally there were more RAF than RN pilots. It was, still is, and will be a numbers game otherwise the unit is inefficient. Saying that USMC exchanges are irrelevant is slightly muddying; big navy experience is certainly better if you're going to be a big navy yourself however early on, the reality of CEPP for the UK will be more akin to the MEU because we don't have the gear in size or capability to be like big daddy warbucks USN. If we get our economy and grow our military might somewhat in the future then our QEC decks have the potential to operate at the scale of a Nimitz but let us not delude ourselves into thinking that's what it will be like for a while.

Courtney,

As I've said before, any F-35 'could' be a Tornado replacement. The radar, sensor capability and range of all three are a significant step-up and the growth of those capabilities are already being looked at I'm lead to believe.

[Justanopinion]

It is worth explaining why I, and my fellow military chiefs, proposed this move. Carriers are expensive - there is no way around that. But they offer a capability that few can match: an independent, flexible, sovereign base, not tied to other countries' wishes, that can operate around the world.

By choosing the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) model of the Joint Strike Fighter over the Carrier Variant that we had previously ordered for our two new aircraft carriers, the UK is significantly shortening the time it will take to deploy our maritime air power.

For me, this is the key factor. We are getting an exceptional military tool that is capable of projecting power, deterring our enemies and supporting our friends. In an uncertain world, this is a capability that I know we all wish to have sooner rather than later.

From CDS article.

Whilst apparently it is strange to have a General pontificating on a subject that involves ships and fast jets maritime air power and independent power projection are the priorities behind this decision.

[Justanopinion]

Saying that USMC exchanges are irrelevant is slightly muddying; big navy experience is certainly better if you're going to be a big navy yourself however early on, the reality of CEPP for the UK will be more akin to the MEU because we don't have the gear in size or capability to be like big daddy warbucks USN. If we get our economy and grow our military might somewhat in the future then our QEC decks have the potential to operate at the scale of a Nimitz but let us not delude ourselves into thinking that's what it will be like for a while.

I take your point however;

VSTOL in F35 is meant to be so disimilar from Harrier ops, building VSTOL experience in an AV8 is, in my opinion, outweighed by the benefits of operating a 4.5 Gen platform and all that involves, in a maritime environment.

a true statement is a true statement. It wasn't meant to enflame and I'm sorry if I did - I was merely talking to the great British public's perception that it is always the FAA who fly off carriers. There were 3 squadron-sized units at Cottesmore and only one of those was RN

No offence taken. It is generally the great British publics opinion anything that flies is RAF.

A true statement can also be misleading. Whilst the RAF Squadrons did obviously fly from the carrier in the GR7/9 days, I am struggling to remember an RAF det (since Oman Feb 05, IV Sqn) which was longer than a couple of weeks and purely there to gain quals rather than actually be involved in larger scale exercises. Equally the RN had the majority of the Night Boat Qualified pilots by the end.

[Lowe Flieger]

......BAES was the reason for inflating the price of the modification of the carriers. This would be because BAES wanted to keep us in the market for the B model...CM, it's a credible theory. Yet every vested interest going is busy blaming another for each twist and turn of the plot. Fact and fiction mingles with the need for revenge for long festering grudges and perceived slights and perfidy, so it's very difficult for an interested bystander to make any sense of it - assuming that there is some sense to be made in the first place.

An item in Defence News gave a brief explanation of the ever increasing cost of EMALS conversion, but it may need one of our learned engineers to tell us if this explanation has any validity.

F-35B: Anatomy of a decision - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=19743)

[ICBM]

USMC plan on IOC in 2014 - while this is not strictly a date set in the type of stone that won't get shattered as we near it, it means that the good ole' Grunts (so lovingly referred to by LO) will be the first military force in the World to deploy 5th Gen airpower from sea with their F-35Bs. That is a powerful tool and could offer an opportunity for UK Defence to learn about JSF at sea much earlier than our flying F-18s and awaiting our ships. It is also relevant because while the USMC F-35B CONUSE is different the CONOP of [what is now] our common platform is broadly the same.

I am struggling to remember an RAF det (since Oman Feb 05, IV Sqn) which was longer than a couple of weeks and purely there to gain quals rather than actually be involved in larger scale exercises. Yes, and as you know, in Aug 04 the Harrier took up their Op HERRICK commitment and that alone pushed CVS qual to the bare minimum required - another debate for another thread... Before HERRICK there were plenty of large exercises both around the UK and abroad to train our men and women though...

[bcgallacher]

If huge amounts of money have been wasted in the procurement of the VSTOL F35 just consider the effect on the carrier project if the Americans cancel the aircraft - not beyond the bounds of possibility.We could end up with two multi billion pound carriers unable to operate any available aircraft.

[Lowe Flieger]

bcgallacher,

We have to assume that we have talked with the decision makers in the US, and LM, and established that the risk of F35B being cancelled is sufficiently small as to be outweighed by other considerations. Even so, it's highly unlikely they were reassured that it would a completely risk-free option. By going cats & trap, we had more fall-backs, as well as more inter-operability with allies.

If B should fall over, then we would be in a big hole from which I doubt UK fixed-wing carrier operation would escape. But it is the executives' job to make these hard calls (and they are hard, likely harder still when you have more knowledge than is available to most on here), and they have made their call.

[Engines]

ICBM,

I do have to come in here, as once again we are getting partial views of historical fact.

JFH was, in the end, a failure. I say that with some real regret, having been part of setting it up. It failed because, in the end, the people who owned it (the RAF, who had been given the assets and people) did not do what they had been tasked to do, which was to maintain a force capable of both land based and maritime operations.

They got to failure by a combination of active decision (delete SHAR) obfuscation (assuring Fleet that 4 GR7/9 squadrons could maintain a dual land/sea capability) and then neglect (failed to maintain seagoing currency). The failure was confirmed by the 'Fail' assessment awarded to the last JFH embarkation on Ark Royal. The fact that it was an RN led unit just showed how far Strike Command had let the capability decline.

It was a mess, and no, it's not at all 'rich' to but the blame on the 'light blue'. JFH was under the command of the RAF, its assets and personnel owned by the RAF. All fact. Some like those facts, some don't.

Going forward, which is what this thread is about, there needs to be careful thought now over ownership (by which one could consider SDH/DDH/ODH) of the maritime strike capability. My own view is that it has to be owned by an organisation that is committed to maintaining it.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[SammySu]

Hi Engines

I normally respect all that you say but wouldn't mind a little more detail on the 'fail' assessment of the last JFH embarkation on Ark.

The last unit to deploy was 1(F) to the States for a month. Not RN led, longer than 2 weeks, and so far as I know entirely successful.

I didn't embark on that one but was closely involved. I was also dark blue.

In the year post Herrick JFH came a long way in the development of embarked syllabus and qualifications as well as Maritime Tactics. Such a shame it couldn't have continued along that path before the rug was pulled.

Regards

[ICBM]

Sammy,

You beat me to it! I was also about to again raise the issue of the HERRICK commitment and it being the highest priority from Aug 04 to Apr 09. Auriga was a particular success, first-hand.

[Engines]

SammySu,

I got that from a normally reliable source, but happy to admit an error if error made. What i do know is that a late embarkation in Ark had some serious issues with deck crews, as well as weapon loading and basic operating currency.

The point is that under RAF control, JFH's maritime operating capability was treated as something to be addressed when land based operational commitments permitted. When JFH took on Herrick, Fleet were assured that maritime capability would still be maintained. It wasn't.

Details of JFH matter to me only when they are presented in a partial way so as to serve an agenda. I try to stick to facts, once again I apologise fully if I've got some wrong. The facts behind the JFH story are important only if they are used to inform the future.

Going forward, the country needs a maritime strike capability owned by an organisation that is fully committed to making it a real one. In my honest view, the RAF isn't that organisation. Not because they aren't as 'good' as the FAA - they are better at land based ops, and hugely professional. But they just don't 'get' maritime air power. The RN does, I sincerely hope.

Best Regards

Engines

[SammySu]

Important to remember that at SO1 level and below JFH of both cloths worked damn hard to provide the best embarked capability possible and it was embraced by all.
JFH didn't fail. JFH was failed- by an RAF leadership that wanted to eliminate FW FAA and by an RN leadership that sadly didn't 'get' maritime air power.
On the day of the announcement 1SL stood infront of all RN officers and said he didn't care who flew off the carriers, the important thing was that we were getting the carriers. That was the betrayal right then and there.

[ICBM]

Engines,

I still believe that it was too much to ask JFH to maintain the required CVS promise whilst conducting HERRICK. To be assured otherwise, though noble by virtue of ambition alone, was sadly never going to be born out in reality because manning the OP became the focus for 5 years. Post-HERRICK there was a real appetite and drive to regenerate the less-focused skills and quals.

Back to the thread though...

[Engines]

SammySu,

Thank you for making a vital point that my own deficient posts missed. The effort at SO1 and below to (both cloths) make JFH work were massive, and my respect for my RAF counterparts grew every day I spent at Strike. The 'failure' of JFH was not down to those individuals, and I am sincerely sorry if my post came over like that.

Sadly, there was a concerted effort at RAF 1 star and above to make maritime aviation a non-capability. This led, I believe, to a decline in basic competencies and currencies - on the deck and in the ship as much as in the cockpit.

Best Regards

Engines

[Lima Juliet]

...BAES was the reason for inflating the price of the modification of the carriers. This would be because BAES wanted to keep us in the market for the B model...


Courtney

Spot on as usual. They have just spent £150m on expanding a new factory to build JSF and also RR have investment in the lift fan tech - so I get more than a sniff of a whiff of corporate skullduggery. There is certainly no love lost between the coalition and the defence companies after MRA4. I believe there are just 2000 jobs at risk for JSF which is peanuts - give them each a £200k severence and that would soak up just £400m that we have supposedly wasted and we could have what we need in 2020ish. This has to be protectionism at the expense of defence capability (again!); and as usual the losers are those that have to do the best they can with the uber-expensive crap tools that our defence companies have sold us...:ugh:

Grrrr

LJ

[LowObservable]

Another important point is that JFH was founded pre-9/11. The idea of a decade of combat operations with CAS requirements was not exactly on anyone's mind at the time.

[ICBM]

LO,

Shack!

[Not_a_boffin]

On the day of the announcement 1SL stood in front of all RN officers and said he didn't care who flew off the carriers, the important thing was that we were getting the carriers. That was the betrayal right then and there.

And that perfectly exhibits the RN side of the problem and why it is important that any JF Dave has a substantial FAA manning. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Foos that have got beyond 2-star in the last ten-fifteen years. There needs to be sufficient suitable bods to get maritime aviation experience up to CINCFLEET (or whatever it's now called) and 1 SL. Not exclusively and not all the time, but at least enough to be current.

AFAIK the most senior FAA bod is a 2 star and about to retire, despite having a fairly spectacular background in both command and staff jobs.

Maybe something along the US lines where you don't usually get to drive the ship unless you've got a set of wings might help. Doesn't mean all MCC are FAA, just gives a bit more balance.

[Backwards PLT]

Engines

Yet again I have to dispute your "facts" about JFH.

First to blame the RAF entirely for the demise of SHar is simply not true. It required an extensive mid life update (lots of cash) to keep it going and the RN were happy to lose it.

Second you again gloss over the RN's inability to properly man JFH - hence why there were more RAF sqns than RN. To complain that it is because the RAF demanded a couple more QFIs is in itself telling.

More generally, the dark blue complaint on here that the RAF (JFH) did not fully support carrier capability from 2004 ish onwards shows exactly why there needs to be an RAF input into carrier strike. I don't know if you recall but there was a bit of fighting in the middle east and the need was for land based CAS, not carriers. I am sorry if that is inconvenient but Air power was sent where it was needed, we can't afford to do everything, we aren't the USA.

To be honest I am surprised I haven't heard it suggested that Afghanistan was an RAF driven war to try to disprove carrier air. Some around here need to put their tinfoil hats on and knock that large chip off their shoulder.

End Rant.

[Engines]

Backwards,

Thanks for your points and happy to respond.

The demise of the Shar was driven by lack of funds sure enough - but that in turn was driven by massive cost increases for the GR9 upgrade (over four fold, due to attempts in MoD to get it done through the back door using unrealistic cost estimates). I have posted before that the RN hierarchy's decision to support the RAF savings measure to can SHAR was, in my view, a huge error. In any case, they most certainly weren't 'happy'.

The RN had real challenges in manning JFH, and in other posts I've pointed out that the RAF had a more professional and thorough approach to manning, training and the role of the OCU. That was helping address those issues. But I have hard information that the RN was ready and able to stand up the second front line unit.

For the record, the reason it didn't stand up was an eleventh hour (very nearly literally at the last minute) decision by RAF senior officers to veto formation of the unit without RN QFIs being appointed to it. They knew full well that generating 'one or two' QFIs at such short notice was an impossibility.

I absolutely accept that the UK could not, and cannot, 'do everything'. I also absolutely accept that there was a huge focus on Afghan ops. But the RAF had taken on responsibility for maritime air, which was a capability declared to the UK Government and to NATO. If the RAF could not maintain the two areas, the honest thing to do was to go to the MoD and say 'JFH needs to can ship ops for period x', and get that agreed and approved. That didn't happen.

I'm really sorry if you think I wear a tinfoil hat. I'm really, really sorry if you think I'd start pinning a war on the RAF. I always take care to pay tribute to the RAF's professional and effective land based air operations, especially the people involved.

Best Regards as ever to all those of all cloths doing the job,

Engines

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: France: U.K. F-35 Pick Could Reduce Naval Cooperation (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120511/DEFREG01/305110003/France-U-K-F-35-Pick-Could-Reduce-Naval-Cooperation?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s)

PARIS — France regretted the prospect of reduced cooperation with the British fleet air arm following London’s selection of the F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, and hoped collaboration would continue, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

“We’ve taken note of the United Kingdom’s decision to choose the F-35B vertical-takeoff fighter plane, to the detriment of the F-35C catapult takeoff plane,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said May 11. “This decision may limit our cooperation in naval aviation, which we regret. We trust that this decision, which the British government says is based on budgetary constraints, will not call our cooperation in the naval aviation sector into question,” Valero said.

Naval aviation was one of many elements of collaboration, and close cooperation will continue between London and Paris, French officials said.

The French reaction came after an announcement the day before by British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond of a planned order of the F-35B over the conventional C model for the Royal Navy’s two new carriers, in an effort to avoid high costs and long delays. Fitting the U.S.-made catapults and arrestor gear for one carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, would cost 2 billion pounds ($3.2 billion), double the amount needed to fit the ship out to accommodate the F-35B short-takeoff variant.

London had previously decided to ship the F-35C, opening up the prospects of cross-deck operations with the French Navy, which operates Rafale and Super Etendard fighters off the carrier Charles de Gaulle. The British F-35B can land on the French carrier, but the Royal Navy ships will lack the catapults and arrestors to operate the Rafales and Super Etendard.

In France, the British U-turn drew wide press coverage, headlining a missed chance for interoperability between the two fleet air arms. The afternoon daily Le Monde gave full-page coverage to the F-35 fighter program, and quoted from point 9 of the 2010 Lancaster House defense cooperation treaty, which referred to the capability to deploy an integrated Anglo-French naval aviation attack force.

For the French Navy, a British carrier offering cross-deck operations held out the hope of flying a handful of Rafale fighters from the HMS Prince of Wales while the Charles de Gaulle went into dry dock for its periodic six-month overhaul. And closer cooperation with a British carrier force would have balanced the close ties with the U.S. Navy, where French Navy pilots are sent for carrier training.

One of the questions hanging over cross-deck flights was whether the British Navy F-35C would have been too heavy to land on the Charles de Gaulle. Now, that question seems purely academic.

[Finnpog]

Backwards, I think you have just identified the truly expeditionary nature of the Royal Air Force strike role in 2004. In which whole Groups could forward deploy en masse with all of the wonderjets to do the job.

I take no pride in pointing out the forward deployed nature of the 2011 air campaign against forces in Libya, as has been said before.

At least now we can take comfort that apart from the green air force, everything else loves a lot of tarmac, with all the facilities that go with it.

[peter we]

France regretted the prospect of reduced cooperation with the British fleet air arm

Right.

Maybe the French should upgrade their carrier to support the F-35C so they actually would have something to offer in this agreement.

A far more viable, cheaper, option would be to give them one of the carriers and a half a dozen F-35B's. Although they wouldn't like that as it would interfere with their Rafale sales campaign.

[Bismark]

Not a B,

AFAIK the most senior FAA bod is a 2 star and about to retire, despite having a fairly spectacular background in both command and staff jobs.

The current Fleet Commander (new title for CinCFleet) is a 4* aviator (and will be 1SL later this year), there are currently 2x3* aviators and about 3x2*s aviators in the RN. Never has the RN/FAA been better placed to influence the "Competent Authority" debate.

Backwards,

Second you again gloss over the RN's inability to properly man JFH

No glossing over by Engines. The RAF senior bods ran an active campaign to slow down and reduce the throughput of RN FJ aircrew. This included cancelling the opportunity for non-direct single seat graduates from Valley to go into the Tornado programme for one tour prior to Harrier conversion and a pitifully slow training regime in 20R (the same is happening at Benson - rumoured 15 months to convert FL crews to Merlin???). The QFI rule was imposed to prevent the formation of 801 Sqn despite the protestations of 1SL at the time. AOC 1Gp and others tried to prevent the term "Naval Strike Wing" being used.

RAF junior officers (SO1 and below) need to realise what their bosses are doing in their name - it is an appalling abuse of power and certainly not in the interest of Joint harmony. The RN have an extremely valid case to run the maritime Strike capability but they are being prevented from doing so by an overprotective and vindictive Air Force.

[Not_a_boffin]

Bismark

Happy to be corrected and very glad to hear it. However, it's too late to rectify the alleged quote from 1SL though, which is what I was trying to get at.

[glojo]

We all know that if we want the F-35B to act as an EXTREMELY expensive tanker, we have to pay the bill for all the research, development, conversion etc. Has anyone considered how much this would cost and would it even be viable?

The carrier is there to operate where our light blue brothers cannot reach which rules out using their excellent tanking capability so what is this man talking about?

Whilst it is true that the Carrier Variant offered greater range, this is not a crucial advantage – given our major investment in air-to-air refuelling – when weighed against the greater time to bring it into service, and the increasing cost. The balance has tipped back in favour of STOVL, which has distinct advantages of its own, such as versatility and agility.

I accept the Royal Navy has Admirals that have Fleet Air Arm experience, but is that STOVL or conventional carrier experience and to me there will always be a World of difference and where do they stand regarding this decision?

Witter time (Too much pain with too much time on my hands)
My thoughts are the Royal Navy has gone far beyond 'over-stretch' and it is now performing a 'fire brigade' service of attempting to get the right ship to the right location at the right time and that is simply not good enough. We allegedly do not have a Royal Navy warship taking part in anti-piracy patrols off the coast of Somalia? No warship deployed as West Indies guard-ship and the list goes on and on, so can we afford the two carriers and do we have the sailors to man both vessels?

I lean toward all fast jet aircraft being capable of operating from carriers with two year squadron attachments to the warship as part of the duties of these pilots and the maintenance staff required to look after them. Close down a number of RAF airfields to help fund this concept and then ensure we always have one carrier deployed wherever it is most needed. If pilots don't like the thought of going to sea, then fine, don't volunteer for fast jet flying.

If all aircraft are capable of carrier operations then those deployed on Herrick would be deployed from the shore based squadrons leaving the carrier borne aircraft to carry out their sea borne role. One service with the responsibility of fast jet operation and clearly they would need to work hand in glove with their multi engined counter parts with none of the silly inter service bickering.

[kbrockman]

Maybe just a detail, but just like the C version had problems with the Arrestor hook, which for now still need a solution, I recall clearly that even earlier on there where serious doubts about the B versions frontwheel rigidity to withstand the substantial harder loads when used with a (up to 13°)ski-jump ramp.

IIRC up until today it still needs to launch from such a ramp, be it as a test on land or on sea on an existing platform, let alone @ MTOW.

There still remains the very likely possibility that a beefed up front gear is necessary , eating even further in the already very narrow weight margins, more specifically forward of the CoG.

[Bismark]

Glojo,

Whatever it is you are smoking, pass it round!

There is little connection re the carriers and the escort numbers in terms of UK funding. If we did not have the carriers then we would still only have 19 frigates/destroyers, if that number. Certainly, without CVF you do not need the T45 (well maybe 2-3 max to protect the amphibs).

To me CVF and the amphibious case go hand-in-hand and both are about projecting power from the sea base (ie no host nation required - always the thing that limits political choice) - and this is why the RN will be happy with the B version. And, quite honestly, why it has to "own" both capabilities.

[peter we]

I recall clearly that even earlier on there where serious doubts about the B versions frontwheel rigidity to withstand the substantial harder loads when used with a (up to 13°)ski-jump ramp.

i don't think there is any problem with the strength of the frontwheel.


IIRC up until today it still needs to launch from such a ramp, be it as a test on land or on sea on an existing platform, let alone @ MTOW.


Have they even started serious testing with the ramp? certainly most hundreds of flights have NOT been with it.

There still remains the very likely possibility that a beefed up front gear is necessary , eating even further in the already very narrow weight margins, more specifically forward of the CoG

Got a link?

We all know that if we want the F-35B to act as an EXTREMELY expensive tanker, we have to pay the bill for all the research, development, conversion etc. Has anyone considered how much this would cost and would it even be viable?

Israel is going to be investigating this. I doubt its going to be necessary with the STOL removing the emergency requirement for tanking. If Israel helps pay for drop tanks then range probably won't be much of an issue either. Then long deck and ski ramp should give plenty of extra weight capacity to carry more fuel and whatever else.

[ICBM]

USMC F-35 don't need ramps and won't. There's video of F-35 getting airborne without a ramp off LHD too. Ours don't either but it gives added safety margin and/or increased MTOW.

[Engines]

ICBM and Others,

Perhaps I can help on F-35B ramp aspects here.

There were no indications a few years back that the F-35B front leg needed strengthening. It's a JORD requirement for the aircraft to carry out a ramp launch, and the initial design was driven by ramp launch analyses. Of course, tests at Pax will be needed - they were certainly planning to build a test ramp a few years back. In the unlikely event that they did need to beef it up, I think it's most unlikely that it would not be allowed to impact bring back.

It's my view that the UK will need a ramp, and it would be very strange if we didn't use one. A ramp gives significant increases in MTOW (very significant) at reduced deck runs. It also delivers increased safety margins (in terms of time available for reaction to emergencies) at the same time. As I was told by one experienced TP 'knowing you're always going to leave the deck going upwards is a real plus'. Actual angles will come out of the tests, but I'd expect something less than 13 degrees.

Best regards

Engines

[PhilipG]

Yes there are Videos of two F35B's flying off USS Wasp, my concern is that the pictures of their take off showed them using the full length of the deck to take off from with a very light load.
What we don't want to happen is that any more weight gets built into the Bs as regards the front wheel, it was designed for vertical landing and if the RN for very good reasons needs to to rolling landings is it up to it or for rolling landings to be safe does the B need a similar set up to the C, double wheel etc? Making any British B's different from any USMC B's...
Using rolling landings as I understand it makes use of a rather different skill set to plain vertical landings, more akin to classic carrier landings I would have thought.

[LowObservable]

PhilipG - The dual wheel is associated with having a good place to attach the catapult towbar, I believe.

Also, F-35B will hit the ramp at a lower speed than Rafale M, and therefore does not need the oak-tree-sized nose gear strut of the latter.

[PhilipG]

Low Observable
My main concern is not the take off but the landing, with a lot of braking effort I assume going through the front wheel there will be far more stress on the tyres than initially designed.

Thus my thought of would it be better to have two front tyres like the F-35 C as dragging an aircraft, with a blown tyre, out of the landing area in a rough sea state at night with others waiting to land back on with heavy loads does not sound much fun...
Philip

[John Farley]

There may be some confusion about what the nose wheel (and indeed the main gear) needs to cope with on a ramp takeoff.

It is not so much the high value of the load as the length of time the modest load is present.

On a VL at the max sink rate the vertical loads that the leg has to accept are obvious and designed in from the off.

What is different on a ramp is that the significantly lower load than that above is applied for a serious length of time. This means that the lower load can still close the oleo. If this happens shock loading will occur which is not acceptable. At high rates of closure of the oleo (heavy VL say) the damper does not have time to do other than act as a simple locked strut. (Imagine holding a car shock absorber in your hand – if you try and close it quickly it will appear rigid. If you apply a small load throughout the TV prog you are watching you can close (bottom) the thing no sweat).

With the Harrier the gear had never been designed for a ramp of course but we soon realised that it was not high loads but the time the loads were applied that affected how close we got to closure and shock loading. In the end luck was on our side and a small change in the SHAR nose damper characteristic was all that was needed. Funnily enough this was to avoid shock loading after leaving the ramp when the leg suddeny extended from nearly shut to free. To ease this effect the last few feet of the ramp have a reducing angle.

Out of interest the backup plan B was to pop a disposable, crushable collar round the leg to avoid bottoming shocks.

Happy days.

[Backwards PLT]

Engines

Thank you for your considered reply and apologies for the rant like nature of my post, I just get a little frustrated sometimes. I should ban myself from posting on PPRuNe within an hour of reading!

[Engines]

Backwards,

Absolutely no apologies required - free forums and all that. Offence never taken.

I think your advice on delaying posting is an excellent idea - I could do with following it as well.

Best Regards

Engines

[WhiteOvies]

One of the advantages of going back to the B is the fact that UK ramp and weapons requirements were always in the design spec.

There is a 12 degree ramp centre field at Pax River for testing, although it is a bit overgrown having been not required for the past 18 months. No launch's yet but I'm sure that a video will be available on the internet when it does happen. The Aussies may also be interested for their Canberra class.

During the 72 STOs and VLs conducted on the USS Wasp by the F-35B they did not all use the entire length of the deck, far from it in fact. The SHAR needed pretty much the full length of the deck to get up and no-one thought that was a problem.

On Ark in 2010 we had a USMC AV8B do a vertical takeoff from 1 spot to hop ashore to Cherry Point, due to a nose leg oleo issue which would have caused the problems JF details above. It was lightly fueled and clean under the wing but proved the power of the 408/107 Pegasus. Just because you have a ramp you don't have to use it! :}

[Phil_R]

As an interested bystander I've never quite understood the purpose of ramps for takeoffs. It would seem to be an (inevitably less than 100% efficient) way of obtaining vertical speed at the cost of forward speed.

Given that the thing will fly regardless if it's going forward quickly enough, why is this tradeoff worthwhile? Is it some sort of special voodoo relevant only to aircraft with some sort of vertical lift system like Harrier or F35B?

[peter we]

It's my view that the UK will need a ramp, and it would be very strange if we didn't use one. A ramp gives significant increases in MTOW (very significant) at reduced deck runs

How much would it increase MTOW, becuase my back of a fag packet calculation says its proportional to thrust or empty weight, all things been equal on the deck length say 600ft). So I came up with a figure of 4600lb extra.
Adding the very long deck, my calculation says the F-35b could operate at close to the MTOW with quite a bit of a margin. If this is then case the SRVL really is crucial. Is the F-35b going to used its maximum on the UK carriers?

Given that the thing will fly regardless if it's going forward quickly enough, why is this tradeoff worthwhile? Is it some sort of special voodoo relevant only to aircraft with some sort of vertical lift system like Harrier or F35B?

Its ballistics, the same principle was used to fire cannons the longest distance, so its very old voodoo. Plus the more convenient aspects such as pointing towards then sky not sea.

BTW, has the f-35B got a name yet, say Strike Harrier?

[Tourist]

Phil R

"Given that the thing will fly regardless if it's going forward quickly enough"

Unfortunately this is not true, or you would be sort of correct.

Harriers need wingborne flight to take-off when heavy.




If you try to throw a stone as far as you can, do you throw it level, or up at an angle?


Imagine if during the entire time of flight of that stone it could accelerate.


The harrier needs to get to a certain speed to fly using it's wings.

It takes a certain distance to accelerate to that speed.

That speed, and thus distance changes with weight. ie you need a longer acceleration distance if you are heavier.

If you just shot off the end of the deck, your maximum acceleration distance to get to flying speed is like throwing the stone level.

If you fit a ramp, then you have given yourself a lot further to accelerate before things get wet.

Essentially, if you use a ramp you can get airborne without actually having enough speed to fly. You are just hoping to accelerate enough before you fall back to the water.

[Engines]

Tourist,

Nice explanation of the way the ramp works - it took me some years to 'get it' like you have. For Sea Harrier, the ski-jump essentially gave the aircraft around three quarters of a mile 'runway in the sky'. It's the nearest thing I have ever come across to being 'something for nothing'. And it was another Royal Navy invention. (We're quite good at this lark.)

The subtlety of ski-jump with a STOVL aircraft is that it can vector its thrust through its CG so that on leaving the ramp, while not capable of wing borne flight, it can use some of its thrust to support itself while still accelerating. The other 'not so subtle' part is that a STOVL aircraft has a control system that can work well below flying speed. Taken together, these allow the STOVL aircraft to maximise the benefit of the ramp (ski-jump) by scheduling thrust vector with airspeed to fly away safely. Ramp launches are also an extremely easy task for the pilot to carry out. And as I said previously, pointing at the sea, not the sky, is a simply massive safety win.

Ski-jump will be used on QE2 class to reduce the amount of deck used for launch and ease handling aircraft for launches. What will be interesting is if they stick with using JBDs for launch.

JF, thanks for that excellent explanation of nose leg loads. I was involved with early analyses at Fort Worth and yes, it was leg closure that was the issue, not leg loads. Ramp profile design is actually quite a complex area, with some interesting variance in ideas on opposing sides of the pond. The USN have never put ramps on LHD class ships due to USMC insistence that the entire deck be left clear for mass helo launches.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Willard Whyte]

BTW, has the f-35B got a name yet, say Strike Harrier? All variants are Lightning II; correct nomenclature would be F-35A Lightning II, F-35B Lightning II, F-35C Lightning II, F-35I Lightning II, and CF-35 Lightning II.



Maybe it's not too late to go back to the Boeing X-32 :p

[Engines]

Bah. That's what the manufacturer and the US DoD call it. Colonial.

Let's have a proper British name that has an association with an outstanding pilot's aircraft.

Has to be..... Sea Fury. Any other calls?

Engines

[Willard Whyte]

Yank names are better, in my not so humble opinion.

Can't really call it by the PPrune endorsed name of 'Dave' anymore, given camoron's defence disinterest.

[Lowe Flieger]

Cool Fanned Luke?

Incidentally Engines, did you get your sea and sky a bit muddled in your earlier post or am I as befuddled as usual?

[draken55]

Engines

My pitch for the best British name would be the Buccaneer II

[iRaven]

HM Forces' name for JSF?

Jump Jet Fanny and her Rolls-Royce/Pratt & Witney Tw@t?

...I'll get my coat...:}

[Archimedes]

Bah. That's what the manufacturer and the US DoD call it. Colonial.

Let's have a proper British name that has an association with an outstanding pilot's aircraft.



Er.... Lightning?

[LowObservable]

Between avoiding "bottoming shocks" (if you can't stay off an RN ship, don't fall for the "golden rivet" line) and "it was leg closure that was the issue" this thread seems to be under the influence of Round the Horne scriptwriters...

Back to topic. Ski jump is physically simple but you can get hung up in the idea of "where does the force to move the aircraft up come from?" when in fact what you have done is changed the vector (presumably, though, the jet would be moving a little faster coming off the end of a flat deck, given the same distance, weight and thrust).

And Engines is right: the USMC does mass trooplift and giving up deck space is taboo.

[peter we]

All variants are Lightning II; correct nomenclature would be F-35A Lightning II, F-35B Lightning II, F-35C Lightning II, F-35I Lightning II, and CF-35 Lightning II.

:hmm:
Which is why I think a British name might be in order.

And it was another Royal Navy invention. (We're quite good at this lark.)

I think it will be the death knell for the cat and traps - which are bonkers when you think about it.

For Sea Harrier, the ski-jump essentially gave the aircraft around three quarters of a mile 'runway in the sky'.

That basically gives me my answer, thanks.

[Benjybh]

'Scuse my venturing into this forum, as I have nothing to offer other than enthusiasm - flying off these carriers is something I'd very much like to be doing in a few years time.

Does F-35B have the ability to vector thrust using just the jet nozzle? Obviously the Harrier could 'prop' itself up by using x° of nozzle with minimal aerodynamic drawbacks; however I can't imagine that having two big flappy doors open on top of the jet are going to be a huge help when you want to gain as much forward speed as possible before your otherwise-inevitable swimming lesson?

[kbrockman]

re post 849 ,Peter we, Excuse me for the late response but I didn't think this thread would go so quickly,

As for a link, I will look it up but I remember reading about this issue on a Dutch engineering forum where they quoted from this article, I believe;
JSF ski jump tests due in 2011 - Jane's Defence Weekly (http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2010/JSF-ski-jump-tests-due-in-2011.html)
which stated that;
JSF ski jump tests due in 2011, EUROPE


'Ski jump' trials of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter are expected to take place in 18 months' time at US Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River in Maryland.

The question was why it didn't happen yet, seeing that testing is supposed to go rather smoothly and someone who is in a position to know stated that possible Gear problems when used with the Ramp was the reason for the delay.

Also the 13° stems from the Navantia designed carriers both used by the RAN and the Armada Española, 2 likely future F35B clients (certainly the Spanish).


Also as an aside, I don't know if there is any trueth in it (only read about it in a keypublishing-forum thread years ago) but supposedly the real reason the MARINES didn't opt for the Ski-jump was political iso operational.
It did have something to do with the effect it could have on the perceived necessity for large CATOBAR carriers for the NAVY and the argument of deck polution was more used as a rather convenient excuse, which sounds logical as it wouldn't be too hard to imagine a small extension at the bow functioning as a ski-jump without intruding on the available helicopter spaces.

Even more logical if you realize that the newest America class will get even more F35B's on a regular base vs AV8B's on the older ships adding to the importance of fixed wing ops on an otherwise MARINE landing ship (and V22's which could also benefit from it, I would guess).
Any thrueth to this, anybody knows more about the real reason(s) ?




Last remark/question, wasn't the ,nearly completed, Graf zeppelin carrier supposed to have 2 slighty upward sloping CAT's to help improve launch performance, sort of the first (albeit modest) ski-jumpish aided performance tool ?

[PeterGee]

So no mention of Crowsnest yet. (Hammond -> New Airborne Carrier based early warning) Guess this is baggers for Merlin??

Also a bit obvious, but I assume forumites do realise QEC are replacing Ocean LPH and Ark? So when SDSR said 12 F35 (was C now B) it was not because of aircraft buy budget alone, but because of an expected mixed deck. (F35, Junglie Merlin, AS Merlin, Wildcat, and now I guess Crowsnest ????? ) Think this position creates a broad number of assumptions that influence comment here!

1) USN no longer looks at this as lightening their carrier strike load - hence really not sure they care as much as they did
2) Lots of sea time now. Can't see them leaving Pompey without 12 shiny F35s aboard
3) Ignoring how to land and take off, these 12 aircraft need to do a lot. CAP, CAS, Maritime strike ........ Think the training load will be a bit higher then land based deep strike. As I assume and hope 12 will be in the minority of F35's, I think too busy to go to sea won't fly, so to speak! Only stopper would be another Afghan. Unless the current state is extended I really can't see anyone wanting to get involved anytime soon in a repeat anywhere.
4) Following on from 3), anything we do get involved in will much more likely to be in the littoral areas, launched from QEC
5) Agree to the concern about putting these in harms way, but how else do you do the LPH role? BTW US strike groups use 3 escorts and an SSN. Think that can be done. The gap is AEW (Crowsnest) and # of F35s available. Ooops :-)

[Willard Whyte]

Which is why I think a British name might be in order.

It's the name of the aircraft, and a perfectly good one.

Hercules was a Hercules

Phantom was a Phantom

Sentry was a Sentry

Lightning is a Lightning.

I accept Washington was a Superfortress, Superfortress was a better name though. Perhaps Washington was a joke at our expense by the Yanks. Maybe Lightning should be called 'Dave's Folly'.


We always screw up perfectly good American nomenclature by sticking our own bull**** designation like C.3 or FGR4 on the end.

[WhiteOvies]

First production Lightning F1 was XM135. First UK F35B Lightning II is ZM135. :8
so a perfectly good British name with links to the past. The question is really what is it's nickname going to be? Tonka, Tiffie, SHAR we haven't always been very imaginative so why not stick with Dave? It was quite a long thread on here to come up with it in the first place!

[ORAC]

The question is really what is it's nickname going to be? Tonka, Tiffie, SHAR we haven't always been very imaginative so why not stick with Dave? It was quite a long thread on here to come up with it in the first place! Well with that great big hot air blower in the middle I reckon it should nicknames the "Dyson". ;)

[Willard Whyte]

How about 'Tiny'? A nickname that can be used for fatties.

In the same vein there's 'Tony'. As in 'Fat Tony'.

There's always 'Tosser', since both B or C variants need to be thrown into the air before it will fly off a boat.


All fit in with Tonka & Tiffie alliteration too.

[John Farley]

Don't Dysons suck?

[kbrockman]

Why not stick with a bird analogy, like eagle or falcon, which we used before.

for the F35, I suggest the EMU;
-It looks a bit bloated , which is kind of fitting
http://www.icis.com/icisconnect/media/galleries/images/90/500x400/emu-bird.jpg


sounds right, the F35 EMU

[Thelma Viaduct]

They should use the old NATO Soviet nomenclature and call each version one from Filthy, Rich & Cat Flap if Dave is deemed unsuitable.

[Phil_R]

Does F-35B have the ability to vector thrust using just the jet nozzle?

Wouldn't that cause it to massively vectored-thrust its nose down into the sea?

Although I must admit the same query about being able to vector a bit during takeoff had occurred to me.

Oh, and thanks for the notes about ramp takeoffs - I hadn't realised the damn thing doesn't actually achieve what would conventionally be considered flying speed (given whatever amount of nozzle deflection) before it runs out of deck.

Fixed-wing carrier flying always appears to me to be about the most violent and risk-strewn thing anyone would ever do to themselves on purpose, though.

[glojo]

Not A Boffin quite understandably queried the published costs for the conversion of the two carriers but whilst assessing costs did he take into account the meagre profits that companies like to make when dealing with the MoD?

Babcock, which maintains British navy submarines, said pretax profit rose 26 percent to 274 million pounds ($441 million) in the year to March, on revenue up 14 percent to 3.07 billion..

[Not_a_boffin]

Profit is not a dirty word, blackadder.

Crevice is a dirty word, profit isn't........

[peter we]

So no mention of Crowsnest yet. (Hammond -> New Airborne Carrier based early warning) Guess this is baggers for Merlin??

Probably. But maybe they will have a long term plan involving STOL turboprop or even Lockheed solution based on a F-35 with something like this

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman Offer Airborne Vigilance At Lower Cost | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2012-02-10/lockheed-martin-and-northrop-grumman-offer-airborne-vigilance-lower-cost)

[ORAC]

ZPG-2 / ZPG-2W "N" Series (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/zpg-2.htm)

[Bismark]

So no mention of Crowsnest yet. (Hammond -> New Airborne Carrier based early warning) Guess this is baggers for Merlin??


From both Hansard and MoD web-site:


a £4bn plus investment in intelligence, surveillance, communications and reconnaissance assets across the Cipher, Solomon, Crowsnest, DCNS and Falcon projects

[Willard Whyte]

F35 EMU

I can't see that taking off.

[JFZ90]

The Babcock profits may seem high, but if the revenue is correct the profit as a percentage is less than 9% - not that high and within acceptable limits - they may also have civil work (?) where the margins maybe higher.

[JFZ90]

The vigilance radar link is interesting. Presumably an aesa captor/ecr90 based version would also be plausible, with greater range than a f16 job (due to bigger antenna, assuming the sig processing is comparable).

One hopes the lessons from nimwacs and the technology maturity required to harmonise 2x 180deg systems have been addressed!

[GeeRam]

The Babcock profits may seem high, but if the revenue is correct the profit as a percentage is less than 9% - not that high and within acceptable limits - they may also have civil work (?) where the margins maybe higher.

Very unlikely.

You're doing damn well in the current climate if you can make 3% :{

[500N]

JFZ90

"not that high and within acceptable limits"

Seems a strange comment to make about a public company.
Isn't the objective to make as high a percentage profit as possible ?

[Thelma Viaduct]

defence.professionals | defpro.com (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35389/?SID=57d5b16e3a091d6b9d10af17a26e1070)

How can someone be so wrong on so many levels???

Where do they get these idiots from???

[peter we]

How can someone be so wrong on so many levels???

Maybe he is actually right, becuase he has the full facts to guide him?

There is only one bad thing about the B and that is the bring back limit. Other than that, its the best choice in, my view.





Apparently the French also considered converting one of the carriers and rejected due to the cost (1- 1.5billion euro)

Mer et Marine : Porte-avions : Les Britanniques pourraient encore changer leur fusil d'épaule (http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=118931)

[JFZ90]

JFZ90

"not that high and within acceptable limits"

Seems a strange comment to make about a public company.
Isn't the objective to make as high a percentage profit as possible ?

Yes, you're right - what I mean is that I recall that the MoD considers an 'acceptable' profit on a (single source) defence contract to be around 10% - give or take, its not exact.

Profit margins in some businesses can be alot higher. If some scenarios, if you were only making e.g. Sir Alan 10% profit he may well be rather dissappointed - but it varies, as the poster hints above - some businesses have tight margins and rely on volume to make worthwhile profit.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Maybe he is actually right, becuase he has the full facts to guide him?

There is only one bad thing about the B and that is the bring back limit. Other than that, its the best choice in, my view.

Since when has the MoD worried about being on time let alone be right or have facts? a total red herring imo

A couple of saved years and billions now, is going to cost decades and many more billions in the long run. But lets not mention the very same people talking about cost savings are the same people responsible for billions wasted on this & other projects.

It's obvious to see now, let alone when that idiot is enjoying his retirement in a few years from now.

One bad thing??? How about B as a choice prevents procurement of a long range AEW system, larger resupply and air to air refuelling a/c, future UCAV procurement. That's all without mentioning the relative merits of having a larger payload and more fuel.

To spend so much and yet deliver so little is criminal, they might as well have kept Ark Royal & Illustrious, I hope they're all held to account. The dickheads should fit catapults and purchase F-18s if they're worried about costs and capability for now, then buy F-35C in the future once the early issues have been ironed out and the price is fixed. Sod what the spams think, we're the customer.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Since when has the MoD worried about being on time

That rather suggests theres an external deadline. Who is gearing up to go to war with us in 2020? Will Argentinas military rebuilding be complete by then?
Or Russias?

[163627]

This article appears to strongly support the view that at 65,000 tons and with a crew of 600 both these ships need to be deployed as "proper" carriers operating the F-35 rather than just a few helicopters. After all they are rather large and expensive to be a replacement for Ocean.


UK 'must operate second carrier' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19755)

[Lowe Flieger]

The Defence Management item linked by 163627 makes some sense to me. I haven't read the former NATO ambassador Burns full item but if the summary is accurate, deploying the second carrier under the NATO banner would be better than it sitting idle most of the time.

Only trouble is it would now have to have another NATO member's F35B's to fly off of it which is a bit of a limiter. Unless we were to operate F35B's from it under a NATO banner with shared crew and costs shared with other European NATO partners? It would help fill the gap left by the US looking towards the Pacific.

Not optimum use from a UK viewpoint maybe but I'd rather see it used that way than sold for a song to a far eastern buyer.

[peter we]

One bad thing??? How about B as a choice prevents procurement of a long range AEW system

The deciding factor is the E2 is far to expensive, the UK rejected the v-22 at $80m as too expensive, so a $240m E2 had no chance. There are other solutions besides helicopters. However, I've read in another forum the HM2 will be used and its completion between LM and Thales.

larger resupply and air to air refuelling a/c
Again, there are options and its not like they MUST have tankers like the for the C version.

future UCAV procurement.
As yet undesigned and its not as US was going to be supplying them, they can be specified to fly from the ski ramp

That's all without mentioning the relative merits of having a larger payload and more fuel.

Basically nothing. The is plenty of capacity to add drop tanks and probably more ordnance than will be ever required. Being much lighter the B will perform much better, you can never remove the dead weight from the C.

[Backwards PLT]

OK I'm going to break my "1 hr from read to post" rule again. Peter - do you, or have you ever, had anything to do with fast jet aviation? The B carries deadweight (lift fan, gearbox etc), the C carries fuel and weapons.

Very interesting to read CAS's note about JSF (on intranet for those that have access and no protective markings so unclass) - he "embraces" the decision. Subtly different from supports / approves etc!

I think there's a little misunderstanding about the defence management article. Before the change back to the B we actually only had 1/2 a carrier (one deployed for about 6 months /year). Now we have a whole carrier (2 deployed for 6 months/year each) - and with the ability to surge to 2 if we are lucky (not in deep maintenance) and get enough notice. So the UK will be using both as carriers (the huge + point about the B), just don't mistake that with having 2 carriers available.

I appreciate this isn't fully funded yet, but we have £8 bil spare and we would be mad not to :\...........

Last, I understand the plan is still to use them in the envisaged CEPP role ie mix of FJ (12) and helo. They will have nothing like the strike capability of a US Nimitz but in the real world will be able to do a huge range of tasks that will crop up pretty well. Just don't go and ask them to take on China!

[Engines]

Backwards and Others,

A couple of points that might help clarify matters, I hope. (and I've kept to the 1 hour post limit!)

Phil R - the F-35B cannot vector just using the aft nozzle. Any thrust vectoring is done by using both the aft nozzle and the vane box under the forward lift fan while in its 'powered lift' mode. Using these, plus some clever flight control (UK led, by the way) allows the aircraft to move the thrust vector around without generating big pitching moments. Differential aft and forward thrust is used for pitch control.

Another big difference between flat deck STO and a ramp launch is that the aircraft does not have to be rotated before it gets to the end of the deck. There's quite a bit needs to happen in a short time in a flat deck STO, and the videos that have been released show some quite quick combinations of tailplane and aft nozzle movement. Ramp launches are actually a very low risk way of taking off.

Weight penalties - the C certainly carries dead weight, it's just not as visible as the B's lift fan. The airframe is massively reinforced in almost all areas to handle catapult launch and trap loads, and the landing gear is also much, much heavier. Lots of heavy metal. The larger fins and tailplanes needed to provide low speed control also add weight, and drag. The much larger wing also adds weight, but more lift and better cruise efficiency as well as very useful extra fuel capacity. So, that bit isn't exactly 'dead weight'.

I was told by the Chief Designer that the C's 'scar weight' (the extra weight compared with the baseline A variant) was much more than the B's. Doesn't make it a worse aircraft, it still has more range and larger bays, but the B has a better thrust/weight ratio and will probably be a better air to air platform. C will probably have a better 'first turn', but that larger wing's extra drag will probably hurt it's sustained turn rate compared with the B - but that's a bit of speculation.

Hope this helps, and as ever

Best Regards

Engines

[hulahoop7]

At a surge (36 JSF) and screened by 2 Type 45, 2 upgraded Type 23 and an Astute, they really shouldn't be nervous of going anywhere.

[glojo]

I'm sure the B does have a lot to offer but if we want to use these carriers to project power to 'lands far away' then are we doing those experienced pilots a disservice by not giving them ANY type of AEW? yes there is a lot of talk about what is being developed... Just like the MR4A was always going to be an excellent aircraft but the reality is we are going to deploy these carriers with the Sea King which I am sure will offer a very nice protective air umbrella for the carrier but what does this offer the strike aircraft that deploy hundreds of miles away from the ship? Lots of talk about what is in the pipeline and even talk that suggests the E2 would be too expensive even if we had kept to the first 'U' turn but how does the costs of an E2 compare to a Sentry? Our Air Force quite rightly gets a first class service from the crews of these aircraft but it looks like if we deploy these carriers away from 'friendly waters' and beyond the range of friendly land based aircraft, then deploy our fast jets then are they are on their own!

I read about how lessons have been learned from the Falklands conflict but no, they haven't, the old Centaur class which was just over a third of the size of these new carriers eventually carried:

7 S2 Buccaneer
12 FAW2 Sea Vixen
4 AEW3 Fairey Gannet
1 COD4 Gannet
5 HAS3 ASW Wessex
1 HAS1 SAR Wessex

I would suggest the Queen Elizabeth sized carrier would give us adequate aircraft for our needs even though they are clearly not a super carrier.

I have always maintained that if we cannot afford to do this in a professional manner, we should not be doing it and whilst I am twittering we regularly deployed our carriers with just one guardship and whilst having a US type Battle Group would be nice, it is simply never going to happen as a regular deployment. .

[LowObservable]

OEW numbers: A, 29,300 pounds. B, 32,000 pounds. C, 34,800 pounds.

So while the C has more span and more fuel than the A, it hauls an extra two and a half tons around, which won't help the range much.

The 2,700 pound diff between the A and the B is interesting because the B propulsion system itself is 4,000 pounds heavier, and I don't think that includes STOVL doors and actuators (because those weights are, I believe, those for which PW/RR are responsible).

So we're talking about a lot of weight having to be pared out of the rest of the B airframe (given that things like the IPP and the avionics are common). That's why the B is a 7g airframe and has slightly smaller H-tails and (I believe) flaperons. It does not have an internal gun, which also reduces OEW, but still it would be interesting to know how many structural bits are still common.

As for the C, the driver is a much bigger wing. 50 per cent bigger than the A/B and consequently bigger tails. Compare the Rafale C-to-M relationship and weep.

[kbrockman]

Engines,

Aren't they also all rated for differing max G loads ,because of these different weights, structural strengths and wing area ?

I always find it baffling if we compare the navalized F35, the C, versus one of its competitors , the navalized RAFALE.
The F35C weighs a whopping 5500lbs more than its brother, the A version, while the weight difference between the landbased and seabased RAFALE is less than a 1000lbs.
All this while the RAFALE M is rated for almost an identical flight envelope than the RAFALE C, ie 9G/ -3.6G with a similar lifetime expectancy (10.000hrs/5000 cycles re. Thales numbers, before it was 7000/3500 acc to the AdlA)
The F35 however is limited to 7.5G as a C vs 9G as an A.


strange.

.

edit, LO, I was writing while you posted, seems like we where having a similar brainfarth.

[Backwards PLT]

Happy that the C is heavier, but as it is fundamentally a larger aircraft I don't really view that as dead weight. Also paring everything to the bare minimums does not bode well for future growth or unforeseen stresses. A little "fat" in structural elements is a good thing, imho (if it doesn't go too far!)

Still what is done is done, and I too "embrace" the F35B!!!!

Just to point out that you can't suddenly switch from the current mix load helo/JSF config to full up F35 and expect it to work - it takes a bit of refit (carrier ops are quite complex, the RN claim ;)).

[kbrockman]

$$$$ double post $$$

[longer ron]

So have they actually 'Ski Jumped' a 'B' yet ?
I believe I know the answer already but would like to hear from an expert !

[kbrockman]

So have they actually 'Ski Jumped' a 'B' yet ?
I believe I know the answer already but would like to hear from an expert !

No jumps up until today, no fixed date yet determined to do so but was originally (at the beginning of 2010) planned for 2011 june or july.

[JFZ90]

Oooohh, smells like politics and counter briefing!

USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-f-35b-cannot-generate-enough-sorties-to-replace-a-10-371985/)

Sortie rate smells like a poor reason to knock -B if it can do 6/day - but it perhaps shows the USAF is looking for reasons to knock it.....one wonders why!

[Backwards PLT]

As ever I suspect it depends how you define sortie rate. You could just define it as getting airborne and landing again (I suspect a USMC view) or you could look at actual time on task, possibly at range (theatre-wide), in which case range/endurance become more of a factor. Without knowing what definitions each are using it is an impossible debate to have.

I am still very dubious that F35 will be able to operate at any sort of decent tempo from an austere site. Of course the US definition of austere and UK definition are probably not the same...............

[longer ron]

A10 = simple and cheap !
F35B =expensive and overcomplicated !

Looks simple enough to me LOL

Seriously I doubt the USAF ever had any serious intentions of buying the 'B'

[JFZ90]

No doubt they won't buy it, but why do they feel they need to say so?

[Lowe Flieger]

...Sortie rate smells like a poor reason to knock -B if it can do 6/day - but it perhaps shows the USAF is looking for reasons to knock it.....one wonders why! Indeed. A strange story. The USAF has never been going to get the B has it, so why go out of their way to criticise it?

The USAF did lose some A10 squadrons in the recent cut backs though, and the F35A is due to take over their role although not the most natural of substitutes methinks. Perhaps, behind the scenes, they have been asked to convert some As to Bs, maybe to help reduce the latter's unit costs and arguing it's more suited to this CAS role? All pure speculation on my part to try and make sense of a curiosity.

[LowObservable]

KB - If you had a USAF and Navy version only, the difference might be less - the 35-foot span limit (a Marine requirement) is a bear, with the wide body and quad tail layout, because you need lots of flap to get Navy-acceptable VApp.

With Rafale, the air force and navy clearly collaborated and (to some extent) compromised, although the AF today is probably happy to have a relatively smaller aircraft. But the canard delta is good for low VApp even with a small span (cf Gripen) and Rafale is MUCH lighter than F-35C.

However, the Frogs also realized that it was quite a complex task to balance two pressures: reduce the scar weight for the AF as much as possible, but maintain commonality. Result: Dassault invented and improved CATIA, the design software that almost everyone uses these days.

[JFZ90]

Surely the key question is - is the capability difference between B and C material when measured against the current SAG scenarios?

I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't "choice of B/C doesn't affect campaign outcome", even if in some cases there are some minor advantages to one over the other (and vice versa perhaps). As such B/C doesn't really matter.

Seems to me the only real weakness with the B option is if it gets cancelled. This would be bad.

[GreenKnight121]

...Sortie rate smells like a poor reason to knock -B if it can do 6/day - but it perhaps shows the USAF is looking for reasons to knock it.....one wonders why!
Seriously I doubt the USAF ever had any serious intentions of buying the 'B'
No doubt they won't buy it, but why do they feel they need to say so?
Indeed. A strange story. The USAF has never been going to get the B has it, so why go out of their way to criticise it?

The USAF did lose some A10 squadrons in the recent cut backs though, and the F35A is due to take over their role although not the most natural of substitutes methinks. Perhaps, behind the scenes, they have been asked to convert some As to Bs, maybe to help reduce the latter's unit costs and arguing it's more suited to this CAS role? All pure speculation on my part to try and make sense of a curiosity.


Simple... the USAF, flush from its success in first stealing the C-27J from the US Army and then getting it canceled completely, has now turned its attention to something that has annoyed it since 1947... USMC TacAir.

The USAF believes it has a "divine right" to own all land-based fixed-wing aviation, and has always resented that the USMC has its own fighters and tactical transports.

It probably feels that if it can get the -B killed that it can convince Congress to take the Marines' fighter squadrons away... sending the 5 planned USMC -C squadrons to the Navy and taking those planned to receive the -B for itself, equipping them with -As instead.

The USMC KC-130Js would be next, merging into the USAF Air Mobility Command... then the USAF would be much happier.

[Engines]

Backwards,

Hope this helps:

The C isn't really a larger aircraft than the A - it needs larger wings to land more slowly, is all. And larger tails to control itself at lower speeds. The main weight drivers are the hundreds of lumps of extra metal inside the airframe to handle launch and recovery loads. Oh, and the landing gear.

You are right that naval aircraft (generally) get some benefit from their tougher structure - but it's still a weight penalty whichever way you look at it. In a fast jet combat aircraft, weight is just a bad thing, as the F-35 programme found out to its cost a few years back.

The discussion on weight differentials for F-35 and Rafale is really interesting - it does look as if the French have achieved a near miracle in limiting carrier ops 'scar' weight to 1000 lbs or so. Or, their assumptions for carrier loads are off.

And to respond - properly integrating aircraft ops with ship ops to get best effect is a complex challenge. The RN don't claim it, they state it. That's because it's a fact. Ask the USN, the French, the Chinese, the Indians.......

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Bismark]

The USAF believes it has a "divine right" to own all land-based fixed-wing aviation, and has always resented that the USMC has its own fighters and tactical transports.

Nothing new there then! Precisely the behaviour of the RAF over the past few years and copied by the FAF in trying to take over Aeronavale. The difference is in the fact that the USMC is the senior service in the US and has the greatest political lobby base.

[JFZ90]

Right on cue - Panetta effectively counter briefs - 'back in your box USAF'.....!

Panetta reiterates support for F-35B and MV-22 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/panetta-reiterates-support-for-f-35b-and-mv-22-371994/)

[LowObservable]

GK & JFZ - The AF chief's comments were in response to a direct question as to whether the AF would buy the F-35B. That had been studied and dismissed a few years ago, Schwartz said that the B was fine as air support for the MAGTF. And Panetta's comments would have been scripted before Schwartz had spoken.

Mind you, most people in the AF realize that the idea of the Marines having the second most expensive fighter in history, so that they can put half a dozen of them on their amphibs and do CAS, is plain silly. They just don't say so in public.

[Engines]

LO,

The USMC are a highly effective fighting force with a great history. They have a first class ethos, fight hard and play hard. They also have an excellent record of leadership, and spend a lot of time developing their concept of operations with the US Joint Staffs. They also encourage open debate with their young officer corps. Go to an open seminar at Quantico if you don't believe me.

And the considered judgement of the Air Force on the USMC concept of ops for F-35B? Apparently it's 'plain silly'.

I don't think I can add to that.

No, I really can't.

Best regards

Engines

[JFZ90]

Mind you, most people in the AF realize that the idea of the Marines having the second most expensive fighter in history, so that they can put half a dozen of them on their amphibs and do CAS, is plain silly. They just don't say so in public.

Its a revealing mindset if true. The -B is not that much more than the -A the USAF are getting. I assume avionic, EW and stealth is fundamentally the same, extra doors aside.

It almost implies the USAF view is that the USMC aren't worthy of having a decent aircraft. Feels like a sticky wicket.

[LowObservable]

Engines,

You are absolutely right as to the Marines as a combat force. And I hold them in great regard for such efforts as their use of ScanEagle UAVs.

However, their record in the driving seat of MDAPs is very different. V-22, EFV and F-35B are classic examples of overloaded and compounding requirements: Fitting a tilt-rotor on a narrow deck; 20-25 knots in an armored vehicle, demanding a hot-rodded tank engine; stealth + STOVL + supersonic.

Have you asked the basic question: What is the scenario in which you require a stealthy, multi-sensor, supersonic fighter, but don't also need the AEW, EA and ISR that the carrier air wing includes? Because that's the only kind of scenario where F-35B (for the US) does more than add a handful of jets to the CV's 50-some.

I asked Amos that, in public, and got no answer except the usual talking points.

Also, the Marines and Navy have never managed to sort out the problem of supporting much heavier and complex aircraft (JSF replaces AV-8B, V-22 replaces CH-46, CH-53K replaces E) on the same size ship. LHA-6/7 dispense with the well deck, with more aviation space and fuel capacity, but that has been ID'd as a mistake and LHA-8 and subsequent will revert.

[Phil_R]

stealth + STOVL + supersonic

All right, so what's the catch? Incredibly short range? Piss-poor handling? Short life? Cost? Because this thing appears to be an everything-to-everyone device. Wikipedia suggests it has vaguely similar specs to Tornado in terms of range and weapons load, although I'm not sure if the stated load would need to be limited for a short takeoff.

[Engines]

LO,

Thanks for coming back, and I appreciate your sentiments.

No, I haven't asked the basic question about the scenario because I'm not sighted in the details of the USMC's concept of operations here - it's out there on the Web, just haven't had time to go and read it through.

But I can take a very good bet that the USMC have worked out their CONOPS, and argued it through the Joint Chiefs, and got it underwritten by Congress, and have sold it to their officer corps from top to bottom.

As I remember it from a few years ago., their basic position was that they wanted the ability to deliver survivable CAS to their Marines, without recourse to a CVN. They forecast that CVN numbers would drop (dead right) and that the position could arise where a MAG was the USA's 'first responder' on the scene. They also forecast that advancing technology, plus political instability post collapse of the USSR would cause the spread of highly capable air defence systems to 'third world' countries. (Not so far off there).

Of course, it's a free world, a free thread, and anyone can criticise their doctrine and CONOPs. But for my part, I like the way that they stick with their programmes and don't try to get them by shafting the other Services. Yes, they've reached high, and have come unstuck on occasions. That's the American way, and it doesn't always deliver.

Your point about larger and heavier aircraft on L class ships is a very good one, and the arguments about 'well deck, no well deck' are alive and 'well'. But again, contrasts with the UK process are instructive. They've had an open, well informed and courteous debate, often in the pages of their professional journals. They have maintained a good relationship with the USN, and have moved a long way to integrate their FW aviation more with the 'black shoe' fleet.

You've probably worked out that I have a great deal of time for the USMC. They are honest, open and also very effective. A very good RAF friend of mine once said that the UK should look to recast its Armed Forces along the lines of the USMC. I think he had something there.

Hope this helps the thread,

Best Regards

Engines

[Willard Whyte]

A very good RAF friend of mine once said that the UK should look to recast its Armed Forces along the lines of the USMC. I think he had something there.

With circa 200K active it's about the same size. If nothing else the UK could cull a whole p1ss-pot load of chiseling senior officers and as a result improve, let alone retain, capability.

[Backwards PLT]

Engines

Frankly I'm a little disappointed. That wasn't just a bite but a big gulp! And I even put a wink there! I expected better.

[GreenKnight121]

There are several reasons the USMC wants to have fighters it can fly off LHD/LHAs... providing dedicated CAS for an amphib landing is only one.


In the late 1990s and early 2000s there were 3 incidents where a USN amphibious group responded to a political crisis in Africa where US and Europeans were threatened, and where there was no CVN available (due to Operation Southern Watch off Iraq, or ongoing combat ops). While the Marines were able to evacuate embassies and other "foreigners" without having to shoot their way in or out that cannot be guaranteed in the future.

The USMC wants to have strike aircraft (preferably with some A-A capability) available in case one side of the local fighting tries to block such evacuations (AH-1Zs wouldn't do well against even a short handful of jet fighters).

While the AV-8B is fine for that, they won't be around past the mid-late 2020s... the F-35B is the only option available.


In addition, the F-35B would allow the USMC to be able to forward-base fighters near a combat area without needing a very long stretch of asphalt or concrete... being able to land & take off in 1,000' or less would help greatly.


Having spent 1981-1989 in the Aviation part of the USMC, I am familiar with exactly what USMC headquarters is thinking, and have paid attention to the real-world incidents which created the perception of need that drove their specs and operational plans for F-35B.

[Squirrel 41]

Dumb question - whilst the Rafale M is not much heavier than the land based version, does this suggest that the land-based Rafale is heavy versus an optimal land-based only Rafale?

No idea, a genuine question. If not, then bravo to Dassault for achieving the improbable!

S41

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Squirrel...probably. I'd suggest the land based Rafale was slightly over-engineered in order to retain as much commonality as possible with the M.

In a similar vein, the F-35A's aerodynamic/kinetic abilities are compromised by the STOVL requirement of the B and the CV recovery abilities of the C.:hmm:

[kbrockman]

While the RAFALE C is probably overweight to keep as much commonality with the M , it cannot be by very much.
It has very similar dimensions in common with ,the also 2-engined, TYPHOON save for a couple of inches left and right but weighs about 1 ton less than the typhoon ,probably due to the latters bigger wing (comparing TYPHOON vs RAFALE M here, the heaviest of the 2).

If you take G-load limits , max framelife and MTOW in consideration, they (both EF and RAFALE) didn't compromise on strength and durability.

All this compared with the one-engined F35, one wonders where all this weight has gone, empty weight is substantially more ,2 to 5 tons heavier than the Eurocanards, but dimension wise it really is not any bigger.
All this with a much smaller wing ,apart for the F35C, which is therefor no less than +5 tons heavier than the RAFALE M @OEW, giving no edge in framelife, G loads, while , according to the latest list of problems that still need to be solved, still having structural issues up until today.


PS;
Next on the F-35 (http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/05/16/next-on-the-f-35s-list-of-issues-cyberattacks/)
Next on the F-35’s list of issues? Cyberattacks Provided by iPolitics
Posted on Wed, May 16, 2012, 10:45 am by Colin Horgan

And then there was the software.

Already, the F-35 program has been singled out as a target for international hackers and now a former vice-chairman of the U.S. military Joint Cheifs of Staff is raising the issue again.

Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright told the Joint Warfighting Conference that he fears the F-35 could prove to be as vulnerable to enemy hackers as older Humvees were to roadside bombs, according to a report from AOL Defense.

“We built the F-35 with absolutely no protection for it from a cyber standpoint,” he said, adding that there ought to be a switch that can shut off the aircraft’s electronic transmission functions in case enemies access them.

Sounds far fetched, until you remember what happened to that US drone in IRAN, signals can be intercepted and manipulated, the more integration of something like an advanced datalink and complete sensorfusion, the more possibilities exist for it to be corrupted by enemy forces.



Another negative rant about the F35, I'm getting tired of it myself.

[Willard Whyte]

Sure, F-35C is heavier empty, by 5600kg

...it also has a max t/o weight 9600 more than Rafale M, can carry 4200kg more internal fuel, its single engine has ~25% more dry and wet thrust than the -M's two combined.

Contextually -35C is a replacement for the F/A-18 E/F, it is that aircraft's specs that should be used for comparison. Empty, -35C is 1300kg heavier, carries 2000kg more internal fuel, has a mtow 1900kg more, and a (non-ferry) range 125nm greater. Thrust is slightly up on the dual 414s (dry) and a touch down 'wet'. -35C's 7.5g limit is comparable to the 7.6g of -18 E/F.

I suspect that the engine and structure were compromised by the need for the -B, and are to blame for the empty weight difference. Furthermore the provision of an internal weapons bay will increase bulk and weight. Overall dimensions are a red herring. Although similar the '35 is bulkier within those parameters, Rafale is more slender & delicate looking.

[Evalu8ter]

The USMC has a long corporate memory of the "big navy" air cover leaving them unprotected at Guadalcanal apart from the Cactus Air Force. Plus, for a small scale bespoke intervention, a MAU is a lot cheaper to deploy than a CBG - even if one were available.

As for the USAF; well, they've been trying to actively kill the A10 since birth (because it isn't an F16...) so there's no little irony in them now templating its role and capabilities against F35B. I do think the USAF should be looking at a genuine A10 replacement - one that doesn't need first day LO, can carry a decent weaponload, good endurance and is affordable to both buy and operate. Surely there's a place for something between AT6 and F35A?

FWIW, I can forsee a future where the RAF buys F35A as the Typhoon replacement so we have a one-type FJ fleet circa 2030.

[LowObservable]

GK121/Engines -

An issue with both the F-35 and the V-22, from the Marine viewpoint, was that the service bought into two false promises.

One was that, because of multi-service commonality and a consequently large buy, they could get the extras - stealth in one case, tilt-rotor speed in the other - for no extra money.

The other was that the extras would be delivered with no schedule risk or performance compromise.

In the case of the V-22, the other services walked away and continued to buy helicopters, leaving the Marines with an aircraft that (most of the time) is an expensive helicopter.

In the case of the JSF (and here is part of KBrockman's answer) the rest of the operators are stuck with a compromised design (for example, short, broad body, complex structure, small wing, heavy and expensive engine) while the Marines have an aircraft that is expensive to acquire and operate and marginal on bring-back.

Historically (to address GK's point) there was a time when a small jet force on the MAGTF was the answer to a lot of scenarios - little if any air opposition and no threat to the ships - and the AV-8A/B was never that expensive of a program, in absolute and relative terms. It was also small enough that forward/austere/going ashore ops could be contemplated.

F-35B is a lot more money. (If the Harrier had cost more than a contemporary CV fighter it would never have been contemplated.) It's a lot more demanding in terms of logistics on land (no 1000-foot runways are being talked about, GK). And the likely opposition will not be headed by a squadron of rusty MiGs, but will range from insurgent rockets and mortars and counter-logistics operations to MANPADS, mobile SAMs and sea-skimmers carried on trucks.

Hence the question: Where's the scenario that calls for a few F-35Bs?

[Bannock]

Interesting read this,
U.S. House Votes Against Terminating F-35B, V-22 | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120517/DEFREG02/305170013/U-S-House-Votes-Against-Terminating-F-35B-V-22?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

[Engines]

LO,

You raise some important points, so happy to respond - hope this is of some interest.

First, multi-service commonality - not quite the same for the two programmes. V-22, as I'm sure you know, was an Army led programme for all four services, with buys anticipated from the Army, USAF, USN and USMC. The Army bailed out early on, USN fell by the wayside, leaving USMC as largest buyer to run the programme. USAF is still in the programme, by the way, with CV-22. Aircraft much the same for all customers.

If you think the USMC are trying to use the V-22 as a helicopter you are, I am afraid, incorrect. It will be used as a tilt rotor, and a key challenge is getting the users to understand what that means. I'd bet on the USMC working it out. USAF are pressing ahead with SF missions that exploit the platform's performance, and my bet going forward is that these will supplant many of the conventional helicopter SF missions.

JSF was always aimed at being a larger number of partners, but buying three distinct aircraft from one family. Just like Typhoon, a larger buy, especially international, lowers unit cost and also (importantly) makes it more difficult to cancel. Things get 'political'. Air Forces love that last bit. (Does anyone seriously think we'd still be paying for so many Typhoons for the RAF if it hadn't been multi-national?).

Risk and cost - no doubt that V-22 carried lots of risk, but in areas where they really didn't expect it - namely structure weight. The tilt rotor technology hasn't caused them major issues. F-35 has also suffered really serious cost escalation, but it's most visible technical risk was always seen to be the STOVL platform. In fact, it's probably the software that's going to cause most problems now.

Your point about how commonality has compromised F-35 design has some justification, in so far as any aircraft design is a compromise to some extent. Typhoon is really an out and out AD aircraft, and a very good one. But it has sacrificed air to ground capability to get that. F-35 was, from the start, and explicitly, a multi-role aircraft, a 'strike fighter', with exploitation of LO built in. That has driven key features including internal weapons bays, which have a massive effect on layout and structure. The fuselage is not short, it's just really, really broad, under the wing. It's effective wing area is actually very large.

Where the LM team did come unstuck was in not having the right weight estimation tools to cope with an airframe that had large holes and bays in it. On top of that, some of the detailed structural design was, well, uninspired to say the least. Those issues got fixed (as far as they were able) during the weight reduction effort.

It might be useful to remember the US background to JSF. They were looking at the wreckage of no less than four failed combat aircraft programmes. The common features, as seen by the Pentagon, were twin engined designs (grew too big to afford) and single service requirements that generated single role aircraft which were unsaffordable. The push was therefore to go for a single engined design to fill a wide range of roles and accept the compromises that this would involve. They had to take a decision that would take 20 years to work out. I think they deserve some credit for trying.

USMC F-35B CONOPS do envisage forward strips, I think the strip length is 1200 ft. (Could be 1500, not sure). Short landings, short take offs. No vertical work. Logistics at that site are not very demanding, given their concept of ops, which is to launch from the ship and land at a bare strip ready for call forward for CAS by Marine units.

The best answer I could give to your question (where's the scenario?) is to go look up some of the openly published USMC material that's out there. You probably won't agree with it, but as ever, it's your right to disagree. Evalu8ter makes a very good point - the USMC have long memories and are going to fight hard to retain USMC owned air for true CAS missions to support 'the Marine'. They are certainly NOT going to go relying on the Air Force any time soon.

They have solid political support and massive public support. That is why, for some time, I have offered the opinion that the F-35B is highly unlikely to be cancelled.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

[peter we]

On paper this looks impressive, but land based so not relevant

Demonstration Supports Independent Upgrade of Future Sovereign Payloads on Predator B

[Willard Whyte]

Interesting, but little to do with F-35B vs. 'C.

[ICBM]

While I enjoy the (sometimes) informed debate it is rather moot arguing B vs C for UK now. Unless the B is cancelled for some reason I don't see another change on the horizon.

Start a thread for the die-hard C fanboys titled 'why we should have gone for C; oh, and bring back the Bucc too!!'

[glojo]

While I enjoy the (sometimes) informed debate it is rather moot arguing B vs C for UK now. Unless the B is cancelled for some reason I don't see another change on the horizon. Totally agree but will the USA one day look at its National Debt and decide they are in deep, deep do does? As Engines I believe has pointed out there are HUGE issues regarding the software for the 'B' and whilst I totally accept the US Marines have a VERY powerful lobby force, is it possible that they might become victims of military cutbacks? Do they have more fast jet capability than our own Air Force and if there needs to be drastic cutbacks then might Congress decide to get rid of so much duplication? If the '\b' gets binned then will it be acceptable for Cameron to shrug his shoulders and suggest this was an unforeseen situation and sadly the carriers will now have to be sold?

Everyone in the UK thought Harry Rednapp was a stone walled certainty for the England Manager's job, just like folks are saying the US Marines are untouchable, but with a National Debt heading towards $18 trillion and going up by $3.96 billion per day then surely one day the penny will drop and drastic decisions might have to be made?

[peter we]

I'd suggest the land based Rafale was slightly over-engineered in order to retain as much commonality as possible with the M.

No idea if its relevant or true, but i did read that the Rafale M only carries one cruise missile against two 'normally'.

As Engines I believe has pointed out there are HUGE issues regarding the software for the 'B'

Yet the saving for cancelling the B was set at $50billion over the life time and total cost of $1.5trillion. The B seems to offer more advance and unique capabilities over the predecessor and there is really no other alternative for it.
Losing the foreign sales would also be a significant lost of income to the US economy.

[Squirrel 41]

Peter We - the number of countries who would only buy Dave-B is pretty small - Italian and Spanish navies? (On the unlikely assumption that these two countries will be able to afford a £100m STOVL strike fighter.)

Israel wanted some as a mix/match with -As (IIRC). We have decided it is a cunning plan as we won't make the savings to refit CVF. Maybe the Aussies (off the Canberra LHD) or the Japanese (off their Hyuga-class "not carriers").

But these sales will be peanuts, and no reason at all for the US to continue with the -B unless the USMC really needs it.

S41

[DBTW]

From glojo with a National Debt heading towards $18 trillion and going up by $3.96 billion per day then surely one day the penny will drop and drastic decisions might have to be made?
When the UK faced similar nationally challenging issues in the 60s and 70s the RN (even with their hugely powerful lobby) lost the conventional carriers (because they were deemed too expensive). Such speculation, especially as it relates to duplication in the US military, could just as easily have the axe fall everywhere but the USMC because, for example, conventional carriers remain hugely expensive.

Personally, I think the F35 will enter service in all its models, and so many will be manufactured over the next 30 years as to make our little discussion seem like your standard southern British Bed and Breakfast...quaint and full of English charm.:)

[Not_a_boffin]

I think the "software issues" are common across A through C, not a B-specific problem, but happy to be corrected....

[rab-k]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE

Full Screen/HD should get a few WAFUs salivating. :E

A pity most of those currently serving will likely not sit in the driver's seat.

Daft question:

Why, if we could live with Invincible Class sized carriers for the Harrier, do we need something as big as the Queen Elizabeth Class for yet another VSTOL? Surely we could have had a smaller, cheaper alternative; and more of them, with less aircraft on each. A case of fewer eggs being deposited in one (floating) basket. Or do we simply blame the French?

http://www.marinebuzz.com/marinebuzzuploads/HMSQueenElizabethandHMSPrinceOfWalestoJo_9377/Comparison_with_other_Carriers_thumb.jpg

[GreenKnight121]

Historically (to address GK's point) there was a time when a small jet force on the MAGTF was the answer to a lot of scenarios - little if any air opposition and no threat to the ships - and the AV-8A/B was never that expensive of a program, in absolute and relative terms. It was also small enough that forward/austere/going ashore ops could be contemplated.

F-35B is a lot more money. (If the Harrier had cost more than a contemporary CV fighter it would never have been contemplated.) It's a lot more demanding in terms of logistics on land (no 1000-foot runways are being talked about, GK). And the likely opposition will not be headed by a squadron of rusty MiGs, but will range from insurgent rockets and mortars and counter-logistics operations to MANPADS, mobile SAMs and sea-skimmers carried on trucks.

Hence the question: Where's the scenario that calls for a few F-35Bs?

The problem is that the USMC could not just buy a direct "low-intensity-only" replacement for AV-8B for the amphibs and a "high-intensity-capable" replacement for the Hornet. Two new aircraft programs were not politically possible.

Yes, they could just replace all their Hornets with F-35C... but there would have been no money whatsoever for developing a Harrier replacement, as the only way the politicians (and the other services) would allow development of a Harrier replacement is as part of a joint "replace everything" program.

Look into the history of JSF... ASTOVL was originally a separate program, as was MRF, JAST, CALF, etc.

The USMC was running ASTOVL while the USAF was running MRF... they were merged into CALF, which was subsumed into JAST when it was decided that CALF would also include the USN's F/A-18 replacement.

Congress demanded that the programs be combined, with any fighter or attack aircraft (other than F-22) not rolled into that "all-purpose aircraft" program to be canceled!


JSF.mil > History > Pre-JAST (http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm#CALF)
What is commonly known today as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program had its origination in several programs from the late 1980s and early 1990s. Over the years, several tactical aircraft acquisition programs have attempted to deliver new warfighting capabilities to the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and our close allies. A brief summary of these preceding programs is provided below:

Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) 1990-1993
The U.S. Air Force’s MRF program began in 1991 as a relatively low-cost F-16 replacement. Similar in size to the F-16, the MRF was to have been a single-seat / single-engine aircraft, with a unit flyaway cost in the range of $35 to $50 million.
The MRF Program was managed by the Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. ASC hosted a planning meeting with industry in October 1991, and issued a Request For Information (RFI) with responses due in January 1992. The major U.S. aircraft manufacturers began to conduct concept and design studies for the MRF at their own expense. A formal program start was expected around 1994. The MRF was expected to replace a large number of F-16s reaching the end of service life. The MRF might also have replaced Air Force A-10s and Navy F/A-18C/Ds. Therefore, providing large numbers of aircraft affordably was a higher priority for the MRF Program than any specific capability enhancements.
However, the post-Cold War defense drawdown made the F-16 service life situation considerably less critical. A reduction in the total number of U.S. Air Force fighter wings meant that the existing aircraft would not be replaced one-for-one. Furthermore, F-16 aircraft flying hours were reduced, allowing F-16s to remain in service longer than originally projected.
In August 1992, the MRF program was effectively put on hold. Due to budget pressures and the Air Force’s commitment to the F/A-22 program, sufficient funding for a new program start did not appear likely until around 2000. Until then, it was expected that MRF activity would proceed at a low level. Meanwhile, the Air Force intended to continue production of Block 50 F-16s. By early 1993, however, the MRF’s projected IOC had slipped to 2015. Shortly thereafter, the BUR canceled the MRF Program.

Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL) 1983-1994
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began a program in 1983 to begin looking at the technologies available to design and manufacture a follow-on supersonic replace for the AV-8 Harrier. The program, known as ASTOVL, would eventually lead become a joint U.S.-U.K. collaboration. In 1987 the results of the ASTOVL program made clear that the technologies available were not yet advanced enough to generate a replacement that the U.S. and U.K. would have been satisfied with. At this time, DARPA secretly approached the Lockheed Skunk Works in the hopes that they would be able to develop an aircraft like they had hoped would have appeared from the first phase of ASTOVL. Lockheed told DARPA that they had some ideas that could be matured and that, if they were successful would meet the goals that DARPA was trying to achieve. At the same time, DARPA continued with ASTOVL Phase II as a cover for the covert work being done at the Skunk Works.

i. STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) 1987-1994
In the late 1980s the Lockheed Skunk Works was involved in a classified, non-acknowledged program with NASA Ames that looked into the feasibility of designing a stealthy supersonic STOVL fighter. This was a cooperative program that utilized the assets of NASA (wind tunnels, personnel, super-computers, etc.) along with the expertise of the Lockheed Skunk Works in designing stealthy air vehicles. The results from this highly classified program proved that a SSF could be successfully flown. Management at the Lockheed Skunk Works was convinced that the SSF design could be sold to both the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. (The U.S. Navy (NAVAIR) is the procuring office for Marine Corps aircraft.) The Skunk Works proposed a teaming between the USAF and the USN. The services agreed, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the services and the SSF program began to come out of the black.

ii. Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) 1993-1994
The ASTOVL/SSF concepts were originally seen as developing a replacement for the U.S. and U.K. Harrier jump-jet. As the ASTOVL/SSF concepts became multi-service with the suggestion of multiple variants, the program was re-christened as the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF). The management of the CALF program was handed by DARPA due to the experimental nature of the concept. DARPA was also managing the ASTOVL program, which was used by the SSF program as their unclassified, white-world cover story.
The CALF program's aim was to develop the technologies and concepts to support the ASTOVL aircraft for the USMC and Royal Navy (RN) and a highly-common conventional flight variant for the U.S. Air Force.
Although the CALF program was organized upon a suggestion from Lockheed, the government still wanted multiple contractors involved in the program. Initially, the only two contractors involved were Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. Boeing later approached DARPA and offered to meet DARPA's financial contribution if they were allowed onto the program.
Under the auspices of the CALF program,
The CALF program has also been called the Joint Attack Fighter (JAF).


JSF.mil > History > JAST (http://www.jsf.mil/history/his_jast.htm)
What is known today as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program was originally known as the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program. The goal of the JAST program was not to have developed a new aircraft, but instead it was to mature the technologies that a new series of tactical aircraft could use.

JAST was chartered to mature technologies, develop requirements, and demonstrate concepts for affordable next-generation joint strike warfare. As JAST plans took shape, it became apparent that JAST would be funding one or more concept demonstrator aircraft starting in 1996–about the time the ASTOVL program planned to enter its Phase III (full-scale flight demonstrators). The ASTOVL project, as an advanced concept for a future joint-service strike/fighter, appeared consistent with the JAST charter. It was therefore agreed by the management of both programs, that JAST would become the U.S. service “sponsor” for the flight demonstration phase of ASTOVL, if Phase II were successful and if the concept appeared to be able to satisfy the requirements of at least two of the three U.S. services participating in JAST. However, FY95 budget legislation passed in October 1994 by the U.S. Congress directed that ASTOVL be merged into JAST immediately.

[peter we]

Why, if we could live with Invincible Class sized carriers for the Harrier, do we need something as big as the Queen Elizabeth Class for yet another VSTOL?

I expect its sized to match the run up for a F-35B to take off at MTOW (60k lb) with a nice bit of spare. Plus more length helps with other types.

[ICBM]

So I wonder who will emerge as the new WEBF of the JSF thread, continuously banging on about this for years hence forth?! Just like Harrier, CVS, Nimrod and nice pensions, the decisions been made so let's get over it and move on or you risk all sounding like a whining Pegasus engine.

[kbrockman]

As far as I understand it , the F35B is also supposed to give Air support with its
cannon and other weapons, a task for which it probably is not very well suited ?

Didn't they(USAF/NAVY/MARINES) , at one point, contemplated using more specialised systems for that task?

I seem to remember that they came up with that refitted cropduster, and also a further evolution of the good old BRONCO, more specifically the new OV-10X.
Looking back 30 years ago, it was rather succesfully (the Bronco , that is) deployed from the LHD's at that time without the aid of CAT's and cables.
I could imagine a small amount of them (6 or 8) on board the CVF's and the latest US LHD's could be of great help to the F35B, making it able to perform the tasks it is best suited for without having to 'abuse' them for a role for which they certainly are not well suited.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/OV-10A_over_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg/800px-OV-10A_over_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg
and the cropduster;
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcQqymRAMEVv_UVhL9vPMnuqhnUAtUnN5Lr9Awpoy wZEG1_Hut

[longer ron]

At the risk of sounding like a whining pegasus :)
Is it proposed that the F35 B does not use the Lift Fan/vectored nozzle during a ski jump take off ?
Just asking as I always assumed that the B would use its stovl lift components for a ski jump take off - until I saw a comment on another forum recently !
So thought I would ask the experts on here :)

[Bismark]

Why, if we could live with Invincible Class sized carriers for the Harrier, do we need something as big as the Queen Elizabeth Class for yet another VSTOL?

Simple....sortie generation rate with max load of 36 JSF. INV class simply too small, always was.

[peter we]

OV-10X seems a bit pointless when we have all these helicopter types. Wiki also mentions that no pilot has ever survived ditching, which isn't encouraging.

A160 Hummingbird, another potential AEW platform.

[Willard Whyte]

longer ron, -B can vector rear thrust and use the lift fan to achieve STOVL*, it was demonstrated last October. Whether this is practical for every sortie is another matter, given the wear on the clutch mechanism for example.

*Or VTO for that matter, albeit with ~1/2 fuel and just a couple of Sidewinders.

[longer ron]

Yes WW thanks I know it can but I was asking specifically about ski jumping,on another forum I am sure some poster said that it was planned to ski jump with fan door closed and nozzle aft.
AFAIK the B has not as yet done a ski jump ...

rgds LR

[LowObservable]

First, having taken some time off to cool down, a considered response to Evalu8r:

ENOUGH WITH :mad:ING GUADALCANAL, ALREADY!

At the time of the "Navy bug-out", the Navy had built a total of eight carriers since CV-1 Langley in 1922 and three had been sunk, leaving five for two oceanic wars. Carriers had been shown to be both lethal and vulnerable (see Midway) and two more CVs - the brand new Wasp and Hornet - would be sunk in the months after Guadalcanal.

Only two new fleet carriers (Essex and Yorktown) were commissioned and operational in the 12 months after Guadalcanal, along with a few much less capable CVLs.

The US Navy Aircraft Carriers List (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-list.asp)

The US could not afford to play attrition warfare with CVs. Nevertheless, Marine mythology has continued to depict Guadalcanal as the betrayal of the brave Marines by the milquetoast Navy. Rubbish.

GK - Congress did, eventually, legislate a single JSF program, true enough. However. the "Congress made me do it" excuse still does not apply. The notion that one basic design could cover CV, CTOL and STOVL emerged from industry and DARPA studies and was adopted by the Aspin/Perry DoD as a way to plan for TacAir recapitalization, punt the major costs into the lap of the 2000 election winner, and force industry to consolidate.

Trifecta? They damn well did and the rest of us too.

It's very true that a standalone Harrier replacement would have been hard to get funded. An RN-USMC ASTOVL-only program might have worked, but the US threw a huge spanner in the works in the late 1980s by driving towards stealth, which not only drove weight up but for some time froze cooperation.

Engines: Thanks as usual. Just a few points:

The fuselage is not short, it's just really, really broad, under the wing. It's effective wing area is actually very large.

So why does the F-35C need almost 40 per cent more gross area than the Super Hornet (670 vs 500 ft2)? Seems to me that the projected wing area over the body is not as efficient or effective than the bits sticking out of the side.

Where the LM team did come unstuck was in not having the right weight estimation tools to cope with an airframe that had large holes and bays in it. On top of that, some of the detailed structural design was, well, uninspired to say the least.

I would add that they came unstuck on production cost estimation as well, see this: Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-McCurdy Breaches, Volume 1: <em>Zumwalt</em>-Class Destroyer, Joint Strike Fighter, Longbow Apache, and Wideband Global Satellite | RAND (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1171z1.html)

I still think that the single engine was more driven by STOVL than affordability - after all, JSF or SSF/ASTOVL before it was never envisaged as F-16-sized. It started as F-18 Classic and grew to F-18 Super.

USMC F-35B CONOPS do envisage forward strips, I think the strip length is 1200 ft. (Could be 1500, not sure).

I have never seen a KPP for land-based STO. However, as a practical matter the Marines never talk these days about less than 3,000 feet (it was 4,000 feet in their latest talking points to Congress). I suspect that has to do with getting KC-130s in and out.

[Occasional Aviator]

Quote:
Why, if we could live with Invincible Class sized carriers for the Harrier, do we need something as big as the Queen Elizabeth Class for yet another VSTOL?

Simple....sortie generation rate with max load of 36 JSF. INV class simply too small, always was.

But now the max load will be 12.....

[Obi Wan Russell]

No. The minimum load will be 12 F-35s, plus six Merlin HMA2 for ASW, plus whatever mix of helos is deemed necessary for the current mission. The CHF will be aboard regularly. The MAX load will include another 24 F-35s when required, and/or a Commando brigade when in LPH mode.

[draken55]

ICBM

Agreed!

I saw an American film called "Speed and Angels" covering the training of US Navy aviators. Have a look for it on U Tube and watch Part 4 from about 8 minutes in then think if we really would want the C!

"It's STILL better to stop and land than it is to land and stop"

[Backwards PLT]

No. The minimum load will be 12 F-35s,


No, the minimum load is zero F-35 with even more helos (including AH-64). Things become a lot easier for LitM if you take those pesky FJ off.

[Engines]

LO,

Thanks for coming back, happy to oblige with a reply.

Wing area of the F-35C is driven mainly be the need to recover at high trap weights at an acceptable speed. LO means that many high lift devices are not feasible, so more wing area it is.

The F-35B certainly did have a requirement to be able to conduct a required mission set from a short land base, I think it was about 1200 feet but could well be wrong. That was driving some aspects of the wheel and brake design, I think. The Conops at the time did not envisage getting C-130s in and out, but it's quite possible that they have changed.

Single engine was certainly driven by STOVL, but seen as a desirable move by Pentagon planners. As I've said previously, twin engined aircraft designs have a habit of growing. They were also influenced by the results of a well funded US engine research programme that showed peRformance advantages from a larger single engine.

Hope this helps a little

Engines

[Evalu8ter]

Jesus LO, I'm going to need a bigger boat!! I wasn't making a historical comment but commenting upon a deep-rooted perception within the pysche of nearly every US Marine I've served with..they believe it, and that's why they want organic air (inter alia).

Every service has its shibboleths....

[LowObservable]

Sorry, Eval. I do apologize.

Please try to understand that in a long struggle to get some rationality happening in acquisition, I have found that Guadalcanal is the Godwin's law issue around STOVL. It makes you want to scream...

It may go away sometime. After all, it was only a few days ago that the CNO endorsed a new USAF bomber...

Revolt of the Admirals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals)

[Evalu8ter]

LO,
No worries; FWIW I've been trying to get rationality into Procurement for the last decade (with varying degrees of success....). As Liddel-Hart said, "The only thing that's harder than getting a new idea into a military mind is getting an old idea out...". Once you work with the deeply entrenched parochial mindset of VSOs it does rather shake your confidence that anything will ever change......

[ICBM]

Fortunately being the least-senior Service does lend itself to being the most forward thinking most of the time

[Squirrel 41]

ICBM,

Which doesn't say much for the other two!

S41

[Lowe Flieger]

Never quite sure who is behind 'news' stories such as this from Flightglobal. The cynic in me suggests it's LM feeding positive copy but then again it just might be that the change of emphasis from selling then testing to testing before selling might be having a favourable impact. Whatever, it's in our interests that the F35 starts making the news for the right reasons. The sooner it's available in good working order the better.

F-35 problems on their way to being fixed (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-problems-on-their-way-to-being-fixed-372074/)

The B version has also taken it's first tentative hops (conventional ones only for the moment) at Eglin too:

USMC F-35B starts local area flights over Eglin AFB - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/05/usmc-f-35b-starts-local-area-f.html)

[peter we]

With enough time and money things get fixed, there shouldn't be surprise or suspicion about.

BTW, the F-35B has performed several hundred vertical landings, already so "first tentative hops" is a bit harsh. I will believe the F-35C tail hook issue has been fixed after a few hundred tests, its going to have to be statistical proven to work.

[ICBM]

I think Lowe meant first tentative hops at Eglin specifically. It's no news to anyone that many flights have been made by all three types over the years. Eglin is important because these are flown by pilots in the initial training centre batch and not the test pilots at Pax or EDW. That IS progress and is worthy of mention.

[Lowe Flieger]

I think Lowe meant first tentative hops at Eglin specifically... Thank you ICBM, that was my point. Just shows how easy it is to draw unintended meanings from the written word.

Anyway, I was aware of prior vertical landings and have even found pictures on another aviation forum:
Vertical landing fighter. &bull; FighterControl &bull; Military Aviation Forum (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=58902)

[LowObservable]

Made I larf, thanks LF.

[ITman]

http://bit.ly/KNmUF3

[kbrockman]

@ITMAN,

Not that I'm a proponent of the F35 but as problems come to surface, the melting flightdeck is probably not really of any serious concern in the longrun.
I seem to remember that the V22 initially had similar problems which where effectively dealth with, I would make a fair bet that this will also not be a showstopper for the F35B.

[GreenKnight121]

God, another piece of lying, hysterical bullshiite!

The so-called "melting flight deck" problem DOES NOT EXIST!!

The vertical landing & horizontal take-offs (several) from USS Wasp by an F-35B were done with normal flight deck non-skid... AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENED!

There was a small (~10' x 20') section of the new flight deck coating on one section of Wasp's flight deck... but not the section where the F-35B landed (or took off from).


The new coating is in the last stages of the approval process... it was developed independently of the F-35B program (specifically in response to heating issues with MV-22, not F-35B, and is intended primarily to reduce recoating intervals from 1 year at the most (usually every 6-9 months on a CVN) to 10 years!

The cost over that period will be identical or lower, so there is no "increased cost"!

And what BS is this "beg from the US" crap... If you decide to use it, you will buy it from the manufacturer in a normal purchase procedure... no begging needed.

Here is a link to the manufacturer's website... click on "non-skid" on the left side of the page for specific info on the coating. Arc Spray Equipment - Thermal Spray Equipment - Metal Spraying Equipment | Thermion Inc. (http://www.thermioninc.com/)

I thought we had gone over this before... here is my post on page 25 of this thread; http://www.pprune.org/7139699-post481.html

[LowObservable]

GK 121 - Correct, the Mirror has it wrong. However, what is really, hysterically funny is that the "melting deck" meme started with some of the F-35's more fanatical online defenders, who were all "see, it didn't melt the deck, nananananaaa" after the Wasp trials.

No critic I have heard of ever said it would.

However, there are two parts of the problem that have had money spent on them. One is the heat-resistant nonskid, that seems to have been solved. The other is long-term fatigue from thermal expansion cycles, which last time I checked (late 2011) ONR was still looking at.

[kbrockman]

CANADA, put up or shut up
http://impolitical.********.com/2012/05/lockheed-martin-pulls-out-big-guns.html
Lockheed Martin rep in this main excerpt from Postmedia:

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin is warning that Canadian companies will lose out if the Conservative government decides not to purchase the stealth fighter. "Right now we will honour all existing contracts that we have," Lockheed Martin vice-president Steve O'Bryan told Postmedia News on Thursday. "After that, all F-35 work will be directed into countries that are buying the airplane."

[GreenKnight121]

P.S.: Prices will go up too.

LM had claimed that "the quoted price is guaranteed if contracts are signed in a timely manner" when Canada was making verbal commitments to F-35A "at less than $75 million each".

[Dengue_Dude]

What a mammoth thread . . .

Just one torpedo . . .

[FODPlod]

. . . I thought it was Cornetto?!?

[Dengue_Dude]

Much depends on which gondolier is singing I suppose.

The Titanic too was unsinkable in its day.

That's too much money, resource and vulnerability to stick in one tin can.

My 2d worth . . .

[Obi Wan Russell]

...Well that's why we are buying TWO of them!:ok:

[LowObservable]

Kbrockman - That quote from O'Bryan will be news to partners, who thought that the right to bid on production came with the PSFD MoU they signed in 2006, and ends only if they decide to abrogate said MoU.

And contrary to some Canadian politicritters, who would appear to be less than accurately informed:E, the MoU does not provide for anyone to be kicked out if they delay orders, or hold a competition.

It is surprising that Mr O'B appears to be less than accurately informed:E about this. Or maybe it's not. :E:E:E:mad::E

Oh, by the way:

Atlas Elektronik: range record for torpedoes (http://www.atlas-elektronik.com/en/information/press/news-2012/range-record-for-torpedoes/):eek::eek::eek:

[Yankee Whisky]

You are most welcome. As I said, the fact that 'cat and trap' isn't in the
'mainstream' is probably down to general public ignorance of naval aviation (and
defence matters in general).




Not having been in a navy and anywhere near "cat" (catapults) and "traps" (landing arrester wires) I do think that "flaps" are useful when landing on a flight deck. At least I would to add stall safety and some reduced speed when hitting the sudden stop.


What is confusing is the reference to arrester barriers for the F-35B and not the (normal) use of tailhooks. I suppose that there are tough and soft enough materials for those barriers as to cause no damage to the nose, gear and leading edges.

It also seems to me another boondoggle around the neverending developmental (and financial tab increases) problems holding up the
planned aircraft replacements by the various committed air forces.

But, what can one expect from people who buy hammers for $2000 a piece ? Of course I say this with due respect to the design engineers. It is not their fault that specs get changed all the time.:ugh:

[163627]

With cuts like these coming down the track will the B or C survive?


US 'must plan $500bn extra defence cuts' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19874)

[t43562]

It's a long article but about 2/3 of the way through there is some information about the XTE68/LF1.

IN FOCUS: Civil engines to drive P&W military upgrades (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-civil-engines-to-drive-pw-military-upgrades-372070/)

[kbrockman]

For those that still think that the F35 is the way forward, look what it is doing to the Dutch Air Force.
JSF Nieuws.nl (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/)
translated:
It is remarkable that just the F-35, which should ensure the future of our Air Force for the coming decades, is claimed as the main reason for this huge reduction:
Calculations are made ​​that (in spring 2011 revised)a budget of € 4.5 billion for replacement of the F-16 is only sufficient for 42 F-35A fighter aircraft to be purchased. For this reason it is better and cheaper to reduce the number of F-16's as soon as possible to 42. Because this would only require 1 airbase so the other airbase can be closed.

A quote: "The replacement of the F-16 is a major fiscal risk for the Defense budget if we select the Lockheed F-35A. This not only because of rising investment costs but also by the high operating costs. "
Because of the investments already made up until today ,abandoning the JSF is not an option. therefore, no actual calculations made what it would cost if we pulled out of the JSF.


That is 42 with today's projected prices, a secret rapport from 2009 spoke of no more than 38 planes, a number that is closing in faster and faster.
Just wait and see what the final numbers will be for all the other nations, I suspect a very similar trend.

[orca]

It's almost as if the people buying it actually think the price tag and cascading effects are worth it. Which can only mean it is and they know something we don't, or it isn't but aren't telling us.

Which could it be?

[kbrockman]

It's almost as if the people buying it actually think the price tag and cascading effects are worth it. Which can only mean it is and they know something we don't, or it isn't but aren't telling us.

Which could it be?

I doubt it is such a black and white choice between only 2 possible reasons, it's probably more an amalgam of many reasons to stick with the JSF.
-a vested interest of both the industry and politicians and higher military leaders, the first ones protect their investment/future profits, the others to safeguard their reputation and further carreers.
-a lack of vision when it comes to alternate routes for their air forces.
-a (displaced) sense of loyalty when it comes to buying equipment from the US iso somewhere else leading to emotional choices iso rational ones , most notably in Norway and the Netherlands, not so much so for the other partners (maybe not even the 3 US forces).
-Stealth and its reputation in both the normal and popular media combined with the idea that it is a necessity in all future wars and conflicts.
Of all things this might be a the most valid reason, it only remains to be seen how determining it really is, as for the F35 I doubt it'll be as advantageous as originally claimed, let's be honest here it's not a B2 all aspect stealth bomber, let alone a F22 which is not only considerably more stealthy but also far better equipped to fight and protect itself if required.
-The complex sensor package, this might proove to be its biggest salespoint and biggest achilles heel, a bit like the VIGILANTE before, a platform with so much promise plagued by eternal issues stemming from its complexity.
By the time the F35 has these issues all solved , the competition will have the same capacity available at a much more reasonable price.
-probably many other points.........

[Squirrel 41]

Some utter tripe from Min AF to the party faithful.

Nick Harvey MP writes on Carrier strike capability (http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-harvey-mp-writes-on-carrier-strike-capability-28760.html)

S41

[Bastardeux]

It'll be very interesting to see what happens to the F35 Re. Eurozone nations; most economists now seem resigned to at best a Greek exit, at worst an implosion. I can't imagine any Euro area country would be interested in an increasingly expensive F35, if the **** really does hit the fan.

Also, the 42 for the dutch poses an interesting question: At what point does the number become so small that an order isn't worth it?

Personally, I'm cynical that its avionics will ever live up to the current specification touted. With so much code left to write & verify and the programme's track record, will it really be achieved in an affordable and timely manner?

Then there's the ever-increasing issue of US sequestration, which is now a mere 6 months away with no likely resolution until December (if it gets resolved at all)...how many people think a bunch of politicians will come to an agreement in 1 month??

[Lowe Flieger]

With cuts like these coming down the track will the B or C survive?Absent a major new show-stopper, the answer is 'Yes'. The project is now too big for the US to allow it to fail. From afar, it looks as if the sequester is likely to be avoided once the presidential election is out of the way. It arose because Democrats and Republicans would not give political ground to the other and so wider budget cuts could not be agreed. I doubt either party really want to emasculate their military and so a 'fix' will be found before the sequester bites. However, our US contributors are closer to the politics than I am so maybe they can comment with more authority.

...look what it [F35] is doing to the Dutch Air Force...I was talking with an ex Dutch Air force F16 pilot this week. He was unimpressed with F35 and felt it was the ego of top brass that were behind it. He felt upgraded F16's would be a more appropriate option, and more of them too. Hardly a representative cross section of opinion but it does demonstrate a problem for smaller military forces where they will have only a few ten's of F35s. The numbers have developed that way because costs have spiralled (F35 was meant to be the affordable, second tier jet to back up the F22) and some operators must be at minimum effective numbers, or even below that, whatever their 'official' purchase requirement may be. Presumably the hope is that the numbers will be built up over time as the economy improves.

[Bastardeux]

From afar, it looks as if the sequester is likely to be avoided once the presidential election is out of the way...However, our US contributors are closer to the politics than I am so maybe they can comment with more authority

I've been in the US for the last 6 months and the political climate aint too hot, the election isn't until November, and the president elect doesn't actually become the president until a week or so later. Plus, the two parties are pretty damn polarised, at the moment; my bet is that they return to a democrat president with a republican congress. Most democrats know that more defence cuts would still leave the US far more powerful than anyone else, and social security takes priority for them. I guess we'll have to watch and see!

[kbrockman]

I've been in the US for the last 6 months and the political climate aint too hot, the election isn't until November, and the president elect doesn't actually become the president until a week or so later.

Just to set things straigth, the US presidential elections are between 2 and 8 november , on a tuesday aka election day.
Contrary to many other countries, the new US president (or re-elected President) is only inaugurated in the beginning of the following year on january the 20th, an almost 3 month difference.

[Bastardeux]

kbrockman,

well there we go, get ready for sequestration

[kbrockman]

All kidding aside, it has been the policie of every outgoing
president to Enact as many new policies as possible, especially if you think that the incoming president would disapprove.
This practice has been used by presidents of both political parties with increasing fervor since Ronald Reagan.

Could be very interesting to see what happens if Obama has to give way for Romney, these last 3 months can be very interesting (also for the military), to say the least.

look up "Midnight regulations"

[Heathrow Harry]

It'll be Obama and he'll cut the F-35

Romney can't even get his own side to vote for him

[kbrockman]

It'll be Obama and he'll cut the F-35

Romney can't even get his own side to vote for him

If , like you say, it'll be Obama that gets reelected, he won't be a lame duck president, therefor he won't be doing drastic things after election day.
Obama's reelection might well be a good thing for the F35 as things will be going further as if nothing has happened.

[Heathrow Harry]

BECAUSE he is not running for re-election again he can do what he likes - cancel the F-35 and buy a lot of F-18's (or even a few more F-22's) to keep the Military Industrial complex quiet and still have cash left over to cut the deficit

[GreenKnight121]

Precisely... a few months ago he was overheard (via live mics that he thought were dead) telling Putin "give me a little space, this is an election year. After November I'll be able to settle your worries over the "European missile shield"".

He has said similar things to others who have complained their views are being shunted aside... various gun-ban groups among them.


He has made it clear that many of the policies he has followed were "re-elect the President policies"... and that once he doesn't have to worry about elections many policies will change.

[stilton]

Impressive video of the -B landing and taking off on the boat.


It seems to do very well in perfectly smooth seas, in daylight and a million miles visibility.



As long as the opposition promise to go no faster than Mach 1.6, not turn too tightly or carry too many weapons I think it will offer complete air averageness.


:ugh:

[longer ron]

Impressive video of the -B landing and taking off on the boat.

Indeed LOL
But as I have posted previously...as far as I can make out - the UK F35 is not planned to use the STO technique a la USMC,our plan seems to be to take off conventionally using the ski jump to lob it into the air but - unlike the harrier - after leaving the ski jump the pilot will not be able to select STO to gain lift etc.

So

(1) To me the landing gear looks a little flimsy (esp nose u/c leg) for ski jumping,if you look closely at the landings on the vid...you can see the noseleg flexing - by comparison the Harrier noseleg is built like a brick outhouse !

(2) So for takeoff all that ubercomplicated STOVL system is just dead weight/space...what a great idea LOL.

The harrier ski jumping technique was that as soon as you leave the ski jump then the pilot would select nozzles to 50ish degrees (preset on nozzle lever stop) and thereby gaining engine lift until not required.
I am sure John Farley would be able to give corrections/details

[Engines]

Longer Ron,

Perhaps I can help out a bit here.

The UK F-35B is required, and is perfectly able to, use a 'STO' technique to get airborne. The pilot will select 'powered lift' mode before it starts its take off run, and the aircraft will be partially jet borne and partially wing borne when it leaves the ramp. At the appropriate point as it flies away, the pilot selects back into 'conventional flight' mode.

The landing gear is fine. What you see on the video is the tyre flexing. The Harrier nose leg was massive because it was a 'bicycle' gear layout with the nose wheel taking around 50% of the weight of the aircraft. The F-35 has a conventional gear, with the front leg taking around 10% of the load. Oh, and I can testify that Harrier landing gears (outriggers and nose legs both) flexed plenty during deck ops. Stopped them breaking.

Hope this helps

Engines

[glojo]

Good morning Engines,
From what you are saying, will the 35 have a softer landing compared to those we sometimes witnessed when the harrier tended to shake the dust from the ship's fittings as they 'landed' on deck? :)

[Engines]

Glo,

Your question about landing speeds is a good one.

The last few feet as a jet powered lift aircraft nears a surface are both complex and critical. There is the ever present risk of Hot Gas Ingestion (HGI) as well as quite complex flow around and under the aircraft that can lead to 'suck down' and/or loss and deterioration of control.

The Harrier had some quite challenging characteristics in this area, although the fact that it was able to enter service without much artificial stability augmentation was a great achievement by the people who designed it. You probably know that a key to this was controlling the 'fountain' of air generated under the aircraft, hence the use of strakes, airbrake and on the AV-8B, a separate air dam.

The best way to avoid problems in this area for the Harrier was to land 'firmly', and so get through the critical 'near to ground' area as fast as practicable. Hence the sometimes firm landings. Although it's worth noting that the vertical velocity of these was still way less than is normally used in 'cat and trap' operations.

Fast forward to F-35B. The team have used design tools and test rigs that didn't exist in the 60s when the Harrier team did their work. That has given the F-35 team a much better understanding of how the jet operates close to the ground, and this has paid off. You'll see from the videos that they are using the inboard weapon bay doors as 'strakes' during vertical landings.

Another major difference from Harrier are the flight controls. F-35B has a 'rate command' system, which reduces pilot workload, but it did, in the early days, lead to some 'rebound' on landing - look up some of the X-35 videos that are out there. This appears to have been solved now.

Just a final offering - this area of the JSF design was one of the most critical and difficult, and has been led and largely executed by a hugely talented team of Brits. Cue for a BIG round of applause, I think.

Best regards as ever

Engines

[glojo]

The last few feet as a jet powered lift aircraft nears a surface are both complex and critical. There is the ever present risk of Hot Gas Ingestion (HGI) as well as quite complex flow around and under the aircraft that can lead to 'suck down' and/or loss and deterioration of control.

The Harrier had some quite challenging characteristics in this area, although the fact that it was able to enter service without much artificial stability augmentation was a great achievement by the people who designed it. You probably know that a key to this was controlling the 'fountain' of air generated under the aircraft, hence the use of strakes, airbrake and on the AV-8B, a separate air dam.

The best way to avoid problems in this area for the Harrier was to land 'firmly', and so get through the critical 'near to ground' area as fast as practicable. Hence the sometimes firm landings. Although it's worth noting that the vertical velocity of these was still way less than is normally used in 'cat and trap' operations.

Fast forward to F-35B. The team have used design tools and test rigs that didn't exist in the 60s when the Harrier team did their work. That has given the F-35 team a much better understanding of how the jet operates close to the ground, and this has paid off. You'll see from the videos that they are using the inboard weapon bay doors as 'strakes' during vertical landings.

Another major difference from Harrier are the flight controls. F-35B has a 'rate command' system, which reduces pilot workload, but it did, in the early days, lead to some 'rebound' on landing - look up some of the X-35 videos that are out there. This appears to have been solved now.

Just a final offering - this area of the JSF design was one of the most critical and difficult, and has been led and largely executed by a hugely talented team of Brits. Cue for a BIG round of applause, I think.

As ever a most informative and welcome contribution,
My accommodation on Centaur was directly underneath the area where aircraft touched down and thank goodness the deckhead (ceiling) :uhoh::uhoh: lighting was always secured on shock absorbent mountings as I can confirm these landings were quite 'firm'.

The footage of the F-35B landing on the Wasp was very impressive for such a heavy aircraft and I look forward to watching the next round of sea trials. It makes sense using the one ship as there must be a learning curve and Wasp has lots of extra sensors fitted at numerous locations to record valuable information which no doubt will get applied through the fleet of ships that will eventually operate that type of aircraft..

[ICBM]

Longer Ron,

Typical nozzle settings for ramp departures varied little but were normally 30-35 for the Harrier II; weight, WoD and 'spot' dependant of course! Also, a positive arrival from a vertical landing is what is required for the reasons Engines mentions however, on the ship it is even more critical as the ship moves. You need to get her down firmly and not hang up above the deck where sideways or, God forbid, rearwards drift may creep in. The gear was designed to take a hell of a thump down (>720 ft/sec) but lateral shear loads could result in 'Outrigger Mortis'. Stop her, steady her, smash her down with some grace.

As Engines nicely explains, F-35B will require a STOVL lift mode to get airborne from a ramped deck in most fits, unless lightweight, when a Kuznetsov departure could very well be possible but not advisable. I too applaud the British design team who have contributed so much to the B's lift system and control laws. A sterling effort indeed!

[longer ron]

Thanks ICBM
I may have been thinking SH nozzle settings...or were they similar to the plastic pig ??

Thanks Engines
Some geezer on another forum had posted that the ski jump technique was going to be door closed and use reheat if necessary,but if that was the case you might as well use a STOBAR a/c LOL
I still think the nose gear looks a little flimsy for MTOW ski jumping :)
I know what you mean about tyre flexing but I looked at parts of that clip many times and I can see movement in the strut/fork area too!

rgds LR

[Heathrow Harry]

I see this weeks "Flight" is calling for the USN to keep improving the F-18 and asks what use is a short range fighter if the carriers can't get close to China..........

[glojo]

and asks what use is a short range fighter if the carriers can't get close to China.........Should we be asking what use is a short range fighter that has no air to air refuelling support or any decent AEW?

Will the carrier need to operate under the umbrella of shore based assets and if so why waste money on a very expensive warship? :(

[Engines]

Longer,

Don't know who the 'geezer' was, but sounds a bit less informed than others.

One of the many surprises in my engineering career was learning that bits of metal bend first, and then break. The fact that an undercarriage leg bends is not a problem, as long as it doesn't bend too much. The F-35 nose leg is a long travel telescopic design, mainly driven by weight considerations - it's the lightest possible design. However, it is definitely strong enough.

Trust me on this, loads are not the problem for ski jump, it's the load profile and whether the leg closes, as John Farley has already pointed out. One of the many insanely great features of the ski jump launch is that is a fairly gentle manoeuvre, both aerodynamically and structurally. It's the closest thing I have ever encountered to 'something for nothing'.

And it's another British invention - and a Royal Navy invention to boot. A nice thought for Jubilee Sunday.

Best Regards

Engines

[longer ron]

it's the lightest possible design.

So is the Fin structure...and I understand that is a little on the weak side ;)
I understand about flexible structures but 40 years as an aircraft technician has made me sceptical about some aspects of a/c design,all the a/c I have worked on have ended up being 'beefed up' in service,It is better to start off over engineered and perhaps gradually pare the weight down - to start off with 'just strong enough' is asking for trouble.
To return to the noseleg - surely it will get a little bit 'wobblier' during a rough sea/moving deck landing.
I worked on harriers for 11 years and well understand the reasoning behind the firm landing technique but I would not compare the weakness of a Sea Dog outrigger to a noseleg,the noseleg on the F35 looks more like the design you would find on a light a/c...a twin fork design would be both stronger and more stable.

rgds LR

[Bastardeux]

Should we be asking what use is a short range fighter that has no air to air refuelling support or any decent AEW?

Glojo, all at the highest possible cost...but expense always equals good value for money and a damn good product, hence why our decision to go for Typhoon over the strike eagle has resulted in a true war-winner from the get go!!

You should be looking forward to the next eye-wateringly expensive clusterf**k that will come out of the carrier saga; the bespoke one-of-a-kind V22 AEW will definitely be inferior to the tried and tested E2, but that's okay because horrendously expensive = the best:ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

When "Flight" - which is highly dependent on advertising from Big Aviation - starts asking questions about the F-35 I think you can see the end of the road ahead