No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B? [Archive]

GreenKnight121

3rd Mar 2012, 07:27

The 'B' in CATOBAR and STOBAR doesn't stand for 'But', it stands for 'Barrier'. So, it's Short Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery, and 'CAtapult Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery'. I think both are a bit clunkier than 'cat and trap', but it's personal choice, I reckon.

From a former naval aviation person (tech, not crew), a "Barrier Arrested Recovery" was what we call an emergency recovery... and they were certainly not "normal"!

In some 360 days at sea aboard CV-61 USS Ranger there were only 3 of those*... while there were hundreds of plain old "Arrested Recoveries" using the wires instead of the barrier!

So that meaning for CATOBAR is even more incorrect than the "But Arrested Recovery" version.

Also, here is the full (but still incorrect) definition:
CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery)

Bottom line, if you don't understand the acronyms, it doesn't mean they are 'stupid', or any other term you want to throw around. It just means you need to get a bit more informed. hopefully, this post has helped you do just that.

And perhaps my post has informed you a bit as to the inaccuracy of the definition commonly used.

* here is the PLAT film of one of those 3. On the previous landing attempt the A-6 had hit too hard, and a main wheel had broken off the aircraft.
This was in the spring of 1987.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct17otlE58k&feature=related

Here is a vid of a virtually identical incident on Ranger the previous fall... also in the North Pacific, and also on our way back from Korea.
You can see the wheel follow the boltering aircraft off the angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvRAWARfno&feature=related

Not_a_boffin

3rd Mar 2012, 08:40

Pedant mode "on".

I think I'd bet good money that the term CATOBAR derived from the STOBAR description bandied around in the late 90s to describe how Kuznetsov operated, where the B always stood for "But". As GK points out, "barrier" has always had a far different connotation at sea.

The reason that CATOBAR was invented as an acronym was that until recently, the commonly used description of catapults and arrester wires aboard ships was CTOL. This was used throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s and everyone understood what it meant. The CVF (even CVSG(R)!) concept papers throughout the 90s all referred to CTOL ships.

However, then came JSF, where in order to differentiate between the Air Force, USMC/STOVL and USN versions, people started using, CTOL, STOVL and CV respectively. This confused the issue, particularly given that CTOL and STOVL referred to launch and recovery types, but CV referred to the "host platform". Hence someone somewhere decided to invent a new acronym - CATOBAR - which really should have been CATAAR, with the first A standing for "and". However, this sounds like a bad cold, so that probably got binned.

To go all Tom Jones on folk, it's not unusual these days to find loopy new acronyms, or even old ones corrupted. Leafing idly through a defstan the other day I discovered that CVS apparently stands for "Carrier Vertical Strike", which must be a surprise to all those who for decades thought CVS stood for Anti-Submarine Carrier, or occasionally "Support Carrier". I did once read a report that suggested CVS stood for conventional submarine, but it was written by someone "a bit special", so not particularly surprising.

Pedant mode "off".

exMudmover

3rd Mar 2012, 09:08

Engines,

“All down to great airmanship, organisation, world class maintainers and one of the best Captain/Cdr(AiR) combos ever to go to sea. And that, in a nutshell, is what naval aviation is all about. It's something the FAA does.(my italics)”

Your uncritical promotion of all things Naval Air is predictable, and I totally agree with ‘airmanship’ and ‘world class maintainers’.

However, if you’re going to quote the Falklands as an example then I think you need to read RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands to see a very different eyewitness account of ‘organisation’ and ‘Captain/Cdr Air combo’ performance on another aircraft carrier in theatre.

blimey

3rd Mar 2012, 09:43

You needed flaps on your boots in order to fly a Harrier.

FODPlod

3rd Mar 2012, 10:10

BBC News 3 Mar 2012:
How to land an F-35 jet fighter at sea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17238393)

Engines

3rd Mar 2012, 11:23

ExMud and Others,

I did say that CATOBAR and STOBAR were 'clunky' - I freely admit that they aren't even quite accurate and GK121 is quite correct to point out that a 'barrier' recovery is quite apart from a standard 'trap'. However, they are the terms in use. like them or not.

The use of terms like CVS and CVF also caused some confusion, as CVS was possibly the NATO abbreviation for anti submarine carrier, but CVF stood for (as I was told) Future Carrier (CV). The USN had CVA and CVN as well for conventional and nuclear powered carriers.

If I'm predictable in reminding people that the FAA can be a world class organisation, I plead guilty as charged. I had the honour to work with some great people in many ships and stations, and I always try to bring out those facts, especially when there is some repetitive noise along the lines of 'leave air power to us, we're the only professionals'.

You'll also note that I always try to stay balanced, and in that vein I'd say that 1 Sgn on board Hermes were damn good people who brought some much needed sense to the fight, especially as the skipper of Hermes was not quite as good as ours on Invincible. I have read the 'RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands' book - I respect the viewpoint, just a shame some of the more obvious misunderstandings (both ways) weren't cleared up. In many ways, they showed up the difficult cultural issues and gaps between the RN's relationship between squadron and ship, and the RAF's squadron/station relationship. Both valid, but very different. Oh, and I certainly didn't mean to infer that operating from ships is always sweetness and light - it can be flaming tiresome if people don't all pull the same way.

And for the record, when 1 Sqn got ashore they were even better - helped me out one day with a sick Sea King and could not have been more professional and kind. They were REAL expeditionary air power, that lot, bare bases and all. Also on the record, their CO went on to become a very senior Airship, who many years later came up to me at a Strike 'bash' and warmly offered his respects for a fallen friend we both remembered fondly. A real gentleman, a fine officer and RAF through and through. I'd have jumped off a cliff for him.

Just once more - the RAF are a great service, who I respect enormously. But they don't 'do' maritime aviation, mainly because they really, deep down. don't 'get' it. Doesn't make them mad, bad or stupid - it's just not their bag.

The FAA does 'do' it. If the country wants maritime aviation (political decision) then the FAA should do it. My opinion, sincerely held after around 30 plus years doing aviation with all three services and having a great time.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

airsound

5th Mar 2012, 13:25

In view of Mr Norton-Taylor's 'slip' in the orginal article, I wrote what I hoped was a mildly amusing letter to the Grauniad. Sad to say, the letters editor evidently found it so mild as to be unamusing, and didn't publish it.

However, I have had a nice email of thanks, telling me that the online article has now been amended, with a note of the amendment at the end of the article.
UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/01/uk-aircraft-carrier-us-strike-fighter)

Nothing from Mr N-T, though, in whose Crimble card list I may no longer figure.

airsound

WhiteOvies

5th Mar 2012, 13:42

Maybe Mr N-T got so ridiculed by other Defence correspondants as well as the plethora of online folks that they felt they had to change the record?

FODPlod - good to see Steve Long being front and centre as one of the very few Brits to have actually flown an F-35 as the RAF test pilot at NAS Patuxent River.

I'm surprised that the MOD hasn't pushed out consulting contracts to old Phantom, Buccaneer or Gannet chaps, whose experience of Cats and Traps may still be valid. I'm sure they cannot all have moved on to the great crewroom in the sky! Come back Sharky Ward, the Navy needs you again. ;)

TorqueOfTheDevil

5th Mar 2012, 14:05

I think what I meant to say about "cats and traps" was that the term has seriously not made its way into the mainstream

I would suggest that if the Prime Minister himself is using a term in a public announcement, it is fairly mainstream, and those who aren't already familiar might want to get on Google or similar to avoid being left behind...

XV277

5th Mar 2012, 17:31

I would suggest that if the Prime Minister himself is using a term in a public announcement, it is fairly mainstream,

Or he's good a readiing his prepared statement...

So is the cat flap for the Wildcat?:O

TorqueOfTheDevil

6th Mar 2012, 08:57

Or he's good a readiing his prepared statement...

Exactly my point...prepared for him by people who are paid to choose their words and phrases carefully. Whether or not the PM has a clue what he's on about doesn't really matter.

So is the cat flap for the Wildcat?

Very nice! But surely you want to trap those Wildcats?:ok:

t43562

6th Mar 2012, 10:30

PhilipG

6th Mar 2012, 10:54

As I understand it the F35C has been launched from a land based EMALS set up, that I assume had not a lot of headwind, on a more serious note I understand that the EMALS is more powerful and indeed smoother than a steam catapult, so it would seem that the F35C can certainly get off the deck of a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier however landing back on is at the moment rather a problem, they have yet to demonstrate that they can catch a wire.

Navaleye

6th Mar 2012, 11:43

Completely agree with Engines. I would point out that the Captain of Hermes was a fine carrier aviator who passed under ship in the course of his day job.

Willard Whyte

6th Mar 2012, 12:03

F35C would have trouble taking off from PoW with EMALS on a day when the air was still.

I care not a jot about our carriers, but a decent boat such as in service with the USN can make 30+ kts

Navaleye

6th Mar 2012, 12:21

The quoted speeds of warships and actual speeds bare little in common. T45 was quoted at 28kts but made almost 32 on trials. You can draw your own comclusions from that. CVF has a surplus of power to drive her propulsion machinery at full tilt even with cats operating. I had the experience. of being on the Queen Mary 2 at levers 100 making over 30kts being overtaken by another ship.

Willard Whyte

6th Mar 2012, 12:29

My point is that there is rarely a time when the air is still when on board a carrier at sea, not what the speed actually is.

I despair of this place sometimes.

Duncan D'Sorderlee

6th Mar 2012, 12:33

Engines,

You said:

"Just once more - the RAF are a great service, who I respect enormously. But they don't 'do' maritime aviation, mainly because they really, deep down. don't 'get' it. Doesn't make them mad, bad or stupid - it's just not their bag."

I agree. We don't. Any more. However, I'd argue that prior to SDSR, we did; albeit in a 4-engined, land-base, ASW/ASuW platform. ;)

Apologies for thread hijack!

Duncs:ok:

Not_a_boffin

6th Mar 2012, 14:52

The QEC propulsion plant is designed to give the ship 26knots max speed at End of Life displacement. That should be plenty for launch with EMALS. Where it will hurt is in having to turn away from MLA with light winds from astern.

Duncs, with the utmost respect for the Nimrod force and no offence whatsoever intended, I think you have just re-inforced Engines' point.

glojo

6th Mar 2012, 15:20

I read the first paragraph of some magazine article that suggested that the F35C would have trouble taking off from PoW with EMALS on a day when the air was still. As I know nothing and have no way of evaluating this stuff I just mention it because it might have some relevance. Could be total rubbish for all I can tell.

:ok::ok:Spot on and it is typical remark made by all the doom and gloom merchants.

How would they define 'still air'? Would that be when the ship is steaming at 25knots with a wind blowing over the stern at 25knots??

Something that is simply not going to happen and when you look at any footage of a carrier at flying stations have a look at the angles the crew have to stand at to compensate for the wind blowing over the deck.

LowObservable

6th Mar 2012, 17:57

There have been some discussions as to whether the current steam cats are limited, versus EMALS, in terms of launching F-35C at MTOW (which is up around 74,500 lb) in some conditions. However, you have to load the thing up like a Christmas tree to get to weights like that.

Not_a_boffin

7th Mar 2012, 09:05

Must confess to being a little concerned as to the numbers being bandied around for the EMALS conversion. Have done some digging in the USN FY13 budget lines (see link).

http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/SCN_BOOK.pdf

If one goes through it, you find on page 1-24, a tidy little breakdown in $US of what the thing (EMALS) is contracted to cost. For the USS Ford (CVN78), the total fixed price contract cost for one shipset, including engineering & design support is $676M - for a four cat system. The equivalent for CVN79 is $847M, increase in price partly explained by inflation over five years difference in contract placement.

Now the hardware component of these costs is about 85-90% of the total, but that's for four cat systems, so you'd think that for a UK 2 cat system, you might be looking at $US300-400M hardware cost per shipset. Now admittedly, these costs don't include installation at the ship, but surprisingly you might think, installation of big expensive bits of hardware (engines and propulsion systems etc) is usually quite light on labour. Admittedly, this one will involve lots of sparkies (in their little pink ovies) so you could get a significant chunk of cost there, but I'd be surprised if it was more than 75000 manhours per ship set (say £3-4M).

There will be a significant design cost in integrating the system into the QEC electrical distribution grid and associated software, but if I put a wet finger £50M one-off cost on that it doesn't seem absurd.

So, we then get -

£50M UK-specific integration, plus (per ship) around £250M hardware, £4M labour and probably another £50M per ship on technical support, systems engineering and documentation.

Add that up and you get - £360M-ish to do one ship, with another £300M to do the second, although admittedly if that's QEC, there will be an awful lot more work on the ship itself. Still, nowhere near £340M, which is the difference between the costs so far and the putative £1Bn.

I wonder whether this reflects the usual MoD risk on risk costing approach, which often inflates costs to the point where projects are perceived as unaffordable, followed by years of trying to square the circle with nugatory studies which publicise the "budget" and funny old thing, the artefact ends up costing the same as the "budget".

GreenKnight121

7th Mar 2012, 09:37

That bu!!****e claim about EMALS and CVF has come up before... so I wilol repeat my response the last time.

One of the design specifications for EMALS is that it must be capable of launching current and planned aircraft with NO "wind-over-deck"... as in "no forward ship speed".*

So tell me... does CVF's 26 or whatever knot max speed make any &^%%$$ difference whatsoever?

* The USN has, from Nimitz-class carriers and their steam C-13 catapults, launched F-14s (with a light A-A loadout and no drop tanks) and S-3s (with normal ASW loadout) just after clearing the pier... while still in San Diego Harbor... as part of an "opposed break-out" exercise. Ship speed was ~5 knots.

EMALS is more powerful than any C-13 ever built.

glojo

7th Mar 2012, 09:59

Hi Mr Boffin,
I have NO knowledge or experience of the EMALS system so please accept these are questions and NOT disagreements.

The Americans are staying with a four catapults to launch their aircraft and we are opting for a more feasible two catapult system. Looking at your figures you have roughly cut the costs by 50% so my question is...

Is each catapult a self contained and independent unit. By that I mean FULLY self contained with one power source, one control unit per catapult? My only experience is with steam powered cats and we would always operate ALL boilers whenever at flying stations and the extra boilers supplied steam to all the catapults on the deck.

Would something similar be used for EMALS namely one huge power unit to supply the copious buckets full of volts required to launch the aircraft. If yes then the costing for our system might not be 50% cheaper and possibly on 20 - 30%. The3se are questions and definitely NOT statements. If each unit is indeed autonomous then 50% it is :)

GreenKnight
No way could our previous conventional carrier HMS Centaur launch fixed wing fast jets from her deck without having wind over the deck. I would also be VERY surprised if any of our other fixed wing carriers could have done.

If this new system can do that then what a bonus! In the meantime though we are looking at an amazing 21st century system that appears to be far superior to the tried and much trusted steam catapults.

glojo

7th Mar 2012, 10:28

Green Knight
This was our biggest ever carrier that operated Phantoms just like US carriers of the same time period.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/HMS_Ark_Royal_USS_Nimitz_Norfolk1_1978.jpeg/745px-HMS_Ark_Royal_USS_Nimitz_Norfolk1_1978.jpeg

I accept what you say about the F-14 but even with a 5 - 10knot wind and a speed of just 5 knots there is still 'wind over the deck'. I have no idea about conditions required for that aircraft to get airborne but as you can see there is a considerable difference in size and the tiny Centaur was significantly smaller than the Ark royal and yet we still operated the Sea Vixen!!

Not_a_boffin

7th Mar 2012, 10:49

GK - I'm with you. EMALS should have plenty of grunt for any aircraft we wish to shoot irrespective of WoD. Where the relatively slow 26kts of QEC is going to hurt is in the launch (and particularly) recovery cycle, where a lightish (~10kts) wind from astern may well result in the ship having to turn 180 degrees off the MLA to ensure that relative wind is suitable.

Glojo - comparisons with our carriers (even Eagle and Ark) are of very limited relevance, as the BS4 through BS6 cats were always constrained by being fitted into existing (small) ships, with limited steam generation capacity. They were also battling against the growth in aircraft weight prevalent at the time where in a little over 15 years you went from a 16000lb Sea Hawk to a 62000lb Buccaneer S2. This isn't really a factor anymore - I doubt we'll ever get a naval aircraft heavier than the A5 or the F14.

As for the Phantom - don't forget we had to extend the nose gear leg to get a launch attitude that allowed an F4 to get off the short BS6 cats with anything like a usable load. We operated them (and in a very demanding envelope) but I'm not sure comparing US and UK practices is comparing apples with apples.

As far as EMALS is concerned, I have limited knowledge of the system, although a cursory glance through the GA website suggests that each catapult comprises a linear motor (the cat trough & shuttle), with a power distribution and conversion system, which is fed by an energy storage device at each cat. The energy storage device is fed by the ships main distribution grid, so QEC will be broadly similar to CVN78, but with the crucial difference that our main grid also feeds the propulsive load, which is where balancing the electrickery might just get a bit complicated (but entirely feasible). Hence my suggestion that UK hardware costs for a two-cat system should be in the region of 50% those of a US equivalent four-cat system.

Finningley Boy

7th Mar 2012, 10:50

glojo,

When was your photo taken? I'm imagining 1964 or there abouts? Meanwhile, back to F35Bs versus the Cs.

Will this mean that having had it mentioned that 50 F35Cs would be all we could likely afford, just how many Bs would they think they could manage to pay for now?:confused:

FB:)

Not_a_boffin

7th Mar 2012, 11:05

My bet is Norfolk 1975. Nimitz didn't commission until 1973.

As for the "fifty", I don't believe that's an offical number of any sort, rather a projection by various defence "experts" that appears to have taken on a status of it's own.

glojo

7th Mar 2012, 11:16

Hi Boffin,
My comparison is merely pointing out that we were operating carriers that were possibly on the limits regarding launching fast jets that were getting heavier and heavier and I was merely suggesting a British carrier would possibly not be capable of launching their aircraft with little or no wind across the deck.

The EMALS system appears to offer far more bang for the buck, in a far more controllable manner.

Thank you very much for that explanation regarding EMALS and as you say it looks like they are autonomous units.. 50% it is :)

Answer to query I believe Ark Royal last commission 1978

.

Finningley Boy

7th Mar 2012, 11:26

As for the "fifty", I don't believe that's an offical number of any sort, rather a projection by various defence "experts" that appears to have taken on a status of it's own.

Indeed, the figure of 50 (some say 40 or even as few as 30) has been chucked about while a unit cost is far from decided. Who knows, the way things are going we might just get the half-dozen, the figure mentioned for those able to put to sea in 2020. To think they want to share these airframes between both the Navy and Air Force must surely prompt a radical re-think. If they can resolve the issue of Carrier conversion, I'd have thought 30 or 40 F35Cs just for the Navy would be rational enough. This then leaves a simple question, what to replace the GR4 with? If it can't be any number of additional F35s, of any variant, then surely it has to be something else? Or is UK plc that broke that despite Billions being found here and there to inflate overseas aid for Argentina and India of all places, not to mention bailing out the seemingly ill-fated Euro, but can't/won't agree a minimum Tactical air force.

I can't see what exactly the point is in having a tiny tokenistic flight of carrier-borne super jets. Just who are we going influence against encroaching on our national interests, with just six aeroplanes at any given time?

FB:)

Not_a_boffin

7th Mar 2012, 11:38

This is another example of planning assumptions suddenly becoming holy writ. The "six" (I believe) refer to the IOC of a carrier-capable squadron, rather than a final number. The "six" can also be changed by changing assumptions on airframe delivery rate, training pipeline throughput, OT&E etc. Changing those assumptions means changing funding profiles, but provided absolute capacities for delivery are not exceeded, it's all do-able.

I'd hazard a guess that the "fifty" is generated by dividing a published EP budget assumption by the current UPC. However, the EP budgets are only firm for 10 year forward, beyond that, there is no reason that additional funds cannot be programmed to get more aircraft etc. At the expense of "something else"? Almost certainly, but remember that the "something else" won't even be programmed in yet.

Finningley Boy

7th Mar 2012, 11:59

As I said, the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if the overall order became 6. I understand that as yet there is no firm number for very much the reason that nobody knows yet just how much they will cost. I just used the plucked figure of 6 to illustrate the endless whittling down of everything while costs head in the other direction of course!:(

FB

Bastardeux

7th Mar 2012, 12:03

The gen that I've heard from the MoD is around 25 front-line jets, so another 14 for OEU and OCU + roughly 1/3 of that number in deep servicing etc. brings the number to 52...

Bastardeux

7th Mar 2012, 12:26

Also, FB, I agree with you; the airforce is sacrificing 50 Typhoons, sentinal, A400s, a definite Nimrod replacement and the Navy's sacrificing a 2nd carrier strike group, all so we can say that we have 6 LRIP F35s on board by 2020...which, by the way, will be as useful as a turkey for a few years. Seems like an awful lot of capability to relinquish for, what will realistically, be very little initial capability. Why not keep tranche 1 typhoons and upgrade them, get the typhoon sorted into a true war-winner (buy a few more,expand the typhoon force to 10 squadrons?), and rapidly build up a truly useful carrier air wing (or maybe 2 slightly smaller air wings) with F18s and then start getting the F35 2022? and beyond?

Lowe Flieger

7th Mar 2012, 13:31

The Dismal Science (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad111409d-acda-405d-a482-e9f4f4808582&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The link is to a Bill Sweetman piece in Aviation Week, today, 7 March. Bill is not a fan of F35, so unsurprisingly there is little positive news in this item. The UK does not know how much the aircraft is going to cost, so numbers cannot yet be firmed up. That is being left until the next Strategic Defence Review in 2015, when presumably they hope to have a better idea of the costs involved, or, more likely, let the next sucker take the fall.

Engines

7th Mar 2012, 21:30

Duncs,

Thanks for the response. However, in referring to 'maritime aviation' I was referring to aviation generated from ships - sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, Nimrods were very much aimed at ASW, and extremely valuable in that role - but when I was at Strike, they were being used far more in an ISTAR role than for ASW.

But aviation from ships? The RAF don't 'get' it, don't want it, and will not do it. (Once again, doesn't make them bad people or lesser aviators). That's why I am arguing that the only way that the country will get an effective maritime fixed wing capability (as required by our Government) is to give the RN and the FAA the job of delivering it.

That leads on to some interesting issues with the future F-35C force and how they would be managed. My put, for what it is worth, would be a single support sponsor, but with operational command split/alternated between RAF and RN as required. Land based capability- RAF command. Sea based capability - RN command. And if that means a split fleet command. so be it. My direct experience of 'jointery' is that such an arrangement could use less people that a joint command.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

Duncan D'Sorderlee

7th Mar 2012, 22:36

Engines,

Roger!

Duncs:ok:

LowObservable

8th Mar 2012, 01:05

It's clear from US plans and numbers that a decision about F-35C does not have to be taken today, but can't be put off indefinitely.

The USN's fix is that, if they buy more SHs, they come out of the -35C requirement. The idea originally, I believe, was that the SH would replace the A-6, the F-14 and the F/A-18A/Bs. But now the SH is eating into the C/D replacement numbers, with airframes that are good until the 2030s, long after the last F-35C in the plans. A few dozen more and F-35C looks very expensive.

Hence the USN is trying not to order more SHs lest the F-35C program lose numbers and become (even) more expensive. But... next year, the price of SHs starts to go up.

Also (I think most here understand it, but it's worth the emphasis) going to Mr Boeing and saying "will you build me a $1.5 billion fleet of SHs that I can return for money back in ten years, just so that I can protect your competitor's plans to wipe you out?" is unlikely to get a positive response.

GreenKnight121

8th Mar 2012, 02:49

Would something similar be used for EMALS namely one huge power unit to supply the copious buckets full of volts required to launch the aircraft.

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System - EMALS (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/emals.htm)
The average power required by EMALS is only 6.35 MVA.

The diesels and GTs in QE or POW generate a total of 112MW.
The propulsion motors use a max of 80.16MW.

{VA, volt amps, (or VA or kVA or MVA) is a measure of the complex power in a system, which includes the real power (watts, or kW or MW) and the reactive power. Real power and VA are related by the power factor.

Volt amps = power factor x real power
IF your power factor is 0.9, then
VA = 0.9 x 1000 kW
VA = 900 kVA

Circuits containing purely resistive heating elements (filament lamps, strip heaters, cooking stoves, etc.) have a power factor of 1.0. Circuits containing inductive or capacitive elements (lamp ballasts, motors, etc.) often have a power factor below 1.0. }

So no matter what the PF is, there will be far more than enough power to run both cats at the same time without dropping speed any.

siddar

8th Mar 2012, 04:42

Seems to work fine with zero ground and wind speed from the land based test version of emals.

First F-35C launch from EMALS - YouTube

Kitbag

8th Mar 2012, 05:43

Nice video, I appreciate this is the start of testing/qualification but in the video it appears that the EMAL track is a lot longer than traditional catapult tracks. Can anyone confirm if the US system being demonstrated will fit on the smaller UK boat?
On the plus side the acceleration appears to be a lot smoother than steam although the aircraft was probably lightly loaded for these early trials

LowObservable

10th Mar 2012, 20:36

U.K. Reviewing Lockheed (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/u-k-reviewing-lockheed-s-f-35b-model-u-s-official-says-1-.html)

More "back to the B" reporting. Is this just because that's what people have been reporting, so that's what they ask Venlet, and take a noncommittal response as a yes (confirmation bias)? Or have people found some bad stuff about EMALS and the QEC?

Dr Boffin to the thread, please...

Milo Minderbinder

10th Mar 2012, 21:37

So.....
assuming we can't afford to convert the ships to EMALS and so go for the F-35B.
And then for whatever reason that fails - either on technical grounds, or on financial grounds in the USA. What next?
Could a Sea Griffin launch from the ski ramp with a decent payload? And what would be the lead time from the decision to start development to in service?

I think we need to start looking at plan C (or D or E or..)

Navaleye

11th Mar 2012, 00:31

Yes its a complete dogs breakfast. Going back to the B is the wrong move IMHO. The USN needs the C and will make it work. Stick with it.

Not_a_boffin

11th Mar 2012, 10:35

Suspect PR12 exercise question may have got out of hand. As noted in post 46 - I can't see how you'd get anywhere near £1.2Bn to convert one ship. Unless you said to BAE - " the budgets £1Bn, how much will it cost (make sure you add on risk) to convert QEC".

Oh.....

Going back to B is a significant risk in itself. Overall this programme needs to be left alone to get on with it for a while. The build is going well, what is not going well is the continual vacillation by ministers, senior mil and CS and the determination by some in the media and elsewhere to portray the ships as disasters waiting to happen.

LowObservable

11th Mar 2012, 16:10

Thanks, Mr B...

It is, I think, a matter of context and confirmation bias. If a journo asks "is the UK thinking of reverting to the B?" and gets a generic all-options-on-the-table answer, said journo will take it as a positive.

In the long term, the UK really has two options: whatever the USN carries forward as its prime carrier-based aircraft, or Rafale. If the USN gets the F-35C sorted, the Hornet has problems as a long-term solution; if not, the JSF alternative that Boeing (wisely) disguises as the "International Roadmap" Hornet will be the answer.

It follows that the UK can't take a decision now, even if there was a good reason to. The program changes now are intended to give the contractors another couple of years to fix the hook, the HMD and the IPP, define and cost the structural fixes, work out how much the next-gen processors (to run Block 4) will cost, and stabilize production...

I don't think, by the way, that even JSF can withstand another couple of years of annual negative discovery and restructure.

siddar

11th Mar 2012, 18:26

I can't see how you'd get anywhere near £1.2Bn to convert one ship

Fairly easy if companies are trying to use emalls as cover to hide other cost overruns.

Finnpog

11th Mar 2012, 19:53

But wouldn't that be corruption and at least the offence of False Accounting? :oh:

Not_a_boffin

11th Mar 2012, 20:00

Siddar

Depends which companies. Given that budget hardware costs for EMALS are available, the shipbuild would have to be going badly wrong. From what I've seen, it ain't, although the most challenging parts in terms of outfit and commissioning are yet to come.

Time will tell. What grips me is the constant stream of "facts" spouted, many of which could be bettered by a six-year-old with a crayon.....

Bastardeux

13th Mar 2012, 02:17

What grips me is the constant stream of "facts" spouted, many of which could be bettered by a six-year-old with a crayon.....

Fully with you on that, a proponent of the the B, within the MoD, has obviously seen the opportunity to get some bad press in for the C, hoping to push the case for the B variant.

glojo

13th Mar 2012, 03:11

Was it William Shakespeare that first raised this question of whether to purchase the 'B' as opposed to the 'C'?

To 'B', or not to 'B': that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

Apologies if the humour is out of order but I at least need cheering up :sad:

Hopefully the criticism of these aircraft might taper off but I still cannot understand why Lockheed Martin has such sensitive information on computers that are linked to the Internet.

Hi Greenknight thank you for your post and I fear you might have misunderstood my question. At no stage did I ever think the EMALS systems would have an effect on the ship's speed, I was querying whether each unit was a fully self contained item that had its own power supply completely independent of the ship's power source. Using ship's power would suggest that the price of two would not be double the price of one. :)

LowObservable

13th Mar 2012, 09:42

As for why LMT has JSF data on computers linked to the Internet: In order to build global support for the program, JSF has thousands of subs in 50 states and around the world, some of them so small that the chief information officer is also the receptionist.

Building an "air-gapped" network would be impossible, or at least very expensive - and moreover, in 2001, nobody had a clue about the APT or how it might work. So they built a system that (as far as I know) is not unlike a commercial VPN and called it good.

This is a good document about how the Advanced Persistent Threat works:

http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/white-papers/wp-operation-shady-rat.pdf

LowObservable

13th Mar 2012, 10:59

Curiouser and curiouser...

Cost fears cause MoD rethink on fighter jets - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6f38d5e0-6b12-11e1-9781-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ozcpaJst)

"Douglas Barrie, analyst at the Institute for International Strategic Studies, the think tank, said a switch back to the F35-B “would present some interesting presentational issues” for the government having portrayed the C-variant as more cost-effective."

No :mad:, Sherlock. I don't see the whole thing being thrown into reverse in two weeks' time.

Not_a_boffin

13th Mar 2012, 12:01

The MoD's inability to cost defence projects independently (as opposed to relying on industry prices) is what is being exposed here.

I repeat, the dollar costs for a shipset of 4 EMALS cats for USS Ford as part of a Firm Fixed-Price Contract are available here on pg 38:

http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/SCN_BOOK.pdf

At $1.5 : £1, that's £516M, for the hardware of a four-cat set (based on the higher estimate for CVN79). Given that you're buying half the linear motors, half the power converters and half the power storage devices, you might think £300M was in the ballpark for one two-cat shipset.

The advanced arresting gear is at pg 40 and hardware cost is £120M per shipset.

Now if you add the full engineering support for each system (also in the data), you get costs for supply of the systems, technical data and engineering support of ~£50M and £20M respectively. So, broadly speaking about £500M for the hardware and support for one ships worth, excluding integration & installation.

As noted before, installation is actually quite light on manpower (even if you do need lots of sparkies) and integration into the L3-designed IPMS should be possible for £50M, you're looking at nothing like the numbers being bandied about. I can see that there might be a premium for accelerated delivery (probably needed for PoW), but this is taking the p1ss. Where are these numbers coming from and who is actually marking the homework?

LowObservable

13th Mar 2012, 12:38

"Where are these numbers coming from?"

I'm going to speculate here.

What if someone on the UK side has said "We can't live with a US Navy IOC beyond 20xx, because we have to shadow the USN, with the C, and big grey floaty thing + no jets = embarrassment x infinity."

To which the US response is: "We haven't nailed down any IOCs yet".

If I was LockMart, at this point I say "if you want earlier IOCs, go with the B... or at least consider it your fallback", and I'd be using whoever is sympathetic to plant the story all over the place.

Not_a_boffin

13th Mar 2012, 13:09

What if someone on the UK side has said "We can't live with a US Navy IOC beyond 20xx, because we have to shadow the USN, with the C, and big grey floaty thing + no jets = embarrassment x infinity."

To which the US response is: "We haven't nailed down any IOCs yet".

To which the UK response ought properly to be : "Can we please lease X C/D frames from AMARC, put the aircrew/maintainers through your conversion pipeline and can you please provide the number of those nice people who do depth maintenance on the Candian FA18? Or is that Mr Boeing?". Eight years from 2018 ought to do it, thanks. How much?

Problem being C/D frames are probably fairly high-time and those that aren't are scarce.

GreenKnight121

13th Mar 2012, 18:14

We've recently increased our inventory of airworthy airframes of a certain Boeing (McDonnell-Douglas)/BAE (Hawker-Siddeley) combat type... perhaps you would be interested in a lease of some of those?

:E:E

LowObservable

13th Mar 2012, 20:31

NaB - Not only are most of the C/Ds pretty well used, but you'll need a crowbar to prise the best frames from the grip of the Marines, who want every Classic they can get in order to keep squadrons flying while they wait for real numbers of JSF.

Because that's where the "off probation" thing was a joke: the biggest material bit of probation was the holding-down of production rates, and that hasn't changed.

Maybe the UK should buy some low-time, no-carrier-landing C/Ds from the Finns or Malaysians, who could then use the cash as down payment on some Supers...

Squirrel 41

13th Mar 2012, 21:32

Or do the RCAF (and forgive me, it's lovely to see the name back) have long term plans for all of their CF-18s?

S41

LowObservable

13th Mar 2012, 22:32

Yup. Fly them until the wings fall off, and then fly them some more. (Remember the Canadians and the Ozzies were the first F-18 export customers.)

kbrockman

13th Mar 2012, 23:44

Sorry all , didn't read the whole thread in dept therefor this question might sound a bit silly or already answered before but some of all this makes no sense.

Even if the Carrier costs 1.2billion£ more to convert to CATOBAR, doesn't that
still make the whole package more attractive nontheless?

50 F35B vs 50 F35C's would still mean a price difference of about 2 billion $ in
favor of the C version, let alone the undoubtedly higher maintenance costs for the B and the more limited growth potential of the B (weightmargins already paperthin as quoted).

Besides the better commonanlity with both the USNAVY and MN for the C version, a CATOBAR can take Hawkeyes and Greyhounds while the Skijump just doen't allow for such aircraft, let alone all the other good reasons to take the C over the B (lower wingloading, more range, less complexity,... )

Maybe (undoubtedly) I'm not seeing the whole picture clearly but the whole
extra EMALS costs seem like a mooth point

Bastardeux

14th Mar 2012, 00:01

Kbrockman, I agree; any change to the B, on financial grounds, is a complete false economy...

LowObservable

18th Mar 2012, 09:25

Supposedly the decision is due in a week....

Liam Fox jet fighter error costs UK millions - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/liam-fox-jet-fighter-error-costs-uk-millions-7576420.html)

David Cameron will rubber stamp an embarrassing U-turn over the Government's £5.2bn super aircraft carrier programme this week to avoid "a floating white elephant"...

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been warned by officials that his predecessor, Liam Fox, made a massive mistake when he decided to change the jets that should be used on the new carriers.

Mr Fox switched from Lockheed Martin's F35 B class to its supposedly cheaper C variant, a move that was criticised because the planes were not going to be ready until a few years after the ships were launched. The new planes also required changes to the carrier design, costing up to £2bn – with the first ship too far developed to make the changes possible.

Mr Hammond will advise that the Government must switch back to the more conventional B-class jets, which are still expected to cost around $10bn, and has pencilled in an announcement for one week tomorrow.

More conventional? Does anyone have a :mad:ing clue here?

JFZ90

18th Mar 2012, 09:33

If I were to guess maybe it is a case of the c solution being cheaper long term, but perhaps the cat/trap conversion puts a nasty lump of cash in inconvenient years which is no longer acceptable. Plus maybe rr have being lobbying since the decision to secure all their lift fan work share.

Now we'll get marge hodge saying 'told you so' when in reality she doesnt have a clue about any of it.

Not_a_boffin

18th Mar 2012, 10:17

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been warned by officials

If this is true, I think the public ought to know just who these "officials" are and what the basis for the decision is. The cost values for conversion which appears to be the nub of the argument simply don't stack up.

There are no compelling technical reasons for going back to B (far from it!) and the risk balance short and long-term must surely be in favour of C. JFZ may well be correct that it's a profiling issue, in which case this simply compounds all the errors of the past, which are supposed to have been absorbed and learned from.

LFFC

18th Mar 2012, 10:59

David Cameron will rubber stamp an embarrassing U-turn over the Government's £5.2bn super aircraft carrier programme this week to avoid "a floating white elephant"...

... or maybe he'll cancel the whole thing.

Was David Cameron Wrong on Carrier Cancellation Costs? (http://fullfact.org/blog/david_cameron_aircraft_carriers_defence_costs-2810)

So taking into account BAE's estimates, the overall costs of cancellation seem to indicate net savings may only exist only in the case of cancelling both carriers. Meanwhile only cancelling the second, HMS Prince of Wales, seems likely to produce savings, even if it is hard to estimate by exactly how much.

glad rag

18th Mar 2012, 16:40

There may be a nasty, dirty underhand plan going on here that no one even thought a UK government would stoop to.

But you know, I think this lot are the type to pull it off.

FB11

18th Mar 2012, 18:07

What a clever way to test the water (pun intended) for the reversion to the B model.

Pop it into The Independent and see what the reaction is over the next few days.

Were this to be the chosen path, I wonder how much money will need to be spent on Queen Elizabeth to bring her back to the standard that will allow her to operate STOVL? One might imagine that a shipbuilder, having been told that CV is the way but only for the second ship Prince of Wales, might just quietly take a few hundred (million) quids worth of savings against QE in the sure and certain knowledge (or maybe hope) that nobody would call their bluff and actually test the theory that she's being launched as a full-up STOVL round.

I'd be a little nervous if I were a UK shipbuilder at the moment; for lots of reasons.

FB11

Bastardeux

18th Mar 2012, 18:30

If it really is the case that we're going for the B, that is by far the most moronic decision ever undertaken by those f*&@ing plebs at the MoD. Not only are we now sacrificing everything for this wonder jet, but we're also sacrificing a working, carrier deployable AEWACS for a jet that can't take ASRAAM or Meteor...or storm shadow...or bring back any of its weapons...or has much development potential (weight limits)...and is unlikely to have a good serviceability record...and will be eye-watering to operate, even compared to the A and C.

Is it just me?

cokecan

18th Mar 2012, 19:49

B,

no, its not just you - i have a feeling that for many reasons, and not just defence related ones, this government, and this prime minister, will go down as one of the most incompetant in UK history.

there doesn't seem to be a turd they can't tread in - they are so useless that they can't implement even their worst ideas, and the catastrophes that will follow them are less likely to be the result of the plans (?) themselves, but the moronic inability to piss without getting their feet wet.

and yes, i did vote for them.

JFZ90

18th Mar 2012, 19:54

Looks increasingly like this really will get messy.

Government plans U-turn on aircraft carriers as catapult costs spiral | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs)

Didn't everyone say SDSR was rushed? Ironic that the very thing the tories / bernard grey bang on about - poor mod forecasting and short term cash profile driven decision making - seems to be featuring here on their watch.

Squirrel 41

18th Mar 2012, 19:58

This is insane.

You couldn't make it up - and as the CentreForum paper (http://http://centreforum.org/assets/pubs/dropping-the-bomb.pdf) details on page 52, the whole airwing and the conversion cost plus Astutes and Type 26s is less than the cost of Trident. Wake up call, people.

S41

Arcanum

18th Mar 2012, 20:32

From an outsiders perspective going back to the B seems like the least-worst long term solution.

Yes, that the C is a better aircraft seems indisputable and, yes, a Cat-n-Trap capable carrier would provide the potential for AWACS, COD, IFR & interoperability with the USN and French.

However, when valuable platforms from all services have been cut-back (less T45s) or cut entirely (Nimrod, Harrier), does anyone really think it's likely we'll ever purchase a carrier AWACs platform? Certainly, the carriers will have a 30+ year lifespan and not having a cat-n-trap capability prevents us from getting AWACs, etc later, but in the last 20-years when have we ever added new capability in similar areas in any of the services?

If we stick with the C I'm guessing we'll have a part-time capability with only one carrier and barely enough money in the pot to keep the crews current. Which will be pretty embarrassing.

Whereas at least with the B we can use both the carriers and have a full-time capability. And we'd have interoperability with the USMC if not the USN (why would the USN care that much about interoperability with us given the number of carrier groups they've got?)

Also, I'd assume that if the USMC are taking the B then they'll put the time and effort in to making it a capable platform. Assuming that any of the F35 family become capable platforms that is.

Just an outsiders view.

500N

18th Mar 2012, 20:42

I happened to catch an episode of Faulty Towers the other day,
the saga posted above reminds me of that, Manuel and Basil
running back and forth not being able to make a decision.

.

Justanopinion

18th Mar 2012, 20:48

why would the USN care that much about interoperability with us given the number of carrier groups they've got

The USN have bent over backwards to help us, this will be the wrong decision on so many levels.

ICBM

18th Mar 2012, 20:56

So how 'could' this all turn out?

We convert the carrier as planned and MoD procures a limited number of F/A-18E/F (2 squadrons of 8-10 jets) to ensure the Carrier Strike requirement is met in the shorter term and doesn't rely on the F-35 timeline. This also makes good use of the US-based F/A-18 training currently going on between USN and RN. Easy solution.

RAF continues with an F-35 buy however it now decides on F-35A as a compromise between range, internal bay size (for Meteor) and performance. F-35A replaces Tornado GR4 which leaves service later this decade and the MFFO desire to have Typhoon and JCA is met as well.

But there's no money for any of the above to really happen surely

Justanopinion

18th Mar 2012, 21:09

What a mess. I guess all those fine FAA chaps gaining experience on the F/A-18 will be coming home a little earlier than expected.

And why would that be then?

They are not only gaining experience on an actual 4 generation multi role Strike Fighter (not a Typhoon) as well as maritime operations, all of which will be massively useful to the UK, not to mention the benefit they are bringing to the USN.

ICBM

18th Mar 2012, 21:26

Given the debate raging in the UK on this subject right now the FAA are doing exactly the right thing and are perfectly situated to cope with any decision that may come.

Agree with FB11, such that if a U-turn is made it would potentially expose how money is 'spent' by large defence companies. $1.9B for modification??? Holy mother of God if that's true!

kbrockman

18th Mar 2012, 21:32

From an outsiders perspective going back to the B seems like the least-worst long term solution.

Apart from all the tactical and technical reasons why it is better to go with
the C vs B , when it comes down to finances this latest decision can only
be regarded as an example of being pennywise but poundfoolish.

Yes they (might) safe 1.2 or even 1.9 billion£ by choosing the ramp vs the Cats
but that will just leave them with a substantially more expensive F35 version, both purchase-price wise and when it comes to the rest of the life-cycle costs.
50 planes for one carrier , or let alone 100 if they decide on getting them both operational far exceeds the costs of implementing (a one time cost) the CATOBAR system.

Also it firmly sets the RN with their backs against the wall when it comes to their future options of wanting less expensive planes for other roles.

When things turn better for the economy in a couple of years and (by some unspecified miracle of destiny) the RN gets the money and has a need for its second carrier (due to whatever crisis may come up by then), they'll be at the mercy of LM to provide them with a full compliment of fighters iso being able to do the logical thing and get a couple of F35's for what they are useful for (1st day war etc...) and get some cheaper supplements to do the rest.

T45 Goshawk for Air Support
F18 SH
Rafale's
old Buccaneers for some odd attack roles (<-- okay maybe a bit far fetched)
UCAV's
.....

This whole double U-turn is completely retarded except if you work for RR and have a stake in the F35b engine.

edit for PS;
Like others said before, I also highly doubt the costprice quoted by the shipbuilders for modifying to a CATOBAR system, this has a strong smell of trying to hide other costoverruns and hoping to get away with it, don't be surprised if in a couple of years when they've chosen to go for the ramp and the F35B there will be another surprise budget overrun of at least half the money they're talking about now.

Not_a_boffin

18th Mar 2012, 22:41

From what I've seen, this isn't the shipbuilder. The contract to do the detailed conversion design and estimate was only let in Oct 2011, so I doubt they have any real numbers to hand.

This smells like a programme office risk-on-risk forecast or worse a MB estimate but including all the other things people can think of adding on. You'd almost think some people wanted to go back to the B for some reason......

Bastardeux

18th Mar 2012, 22:44

Arcanum,

whether we end up with maritime AEWACS or not is but a morsel of my argument, my point is that we are sacrificing some very elementary capabilities for this thing; I would imagine we could operate the full spectrum of capabilities, including E2s, if we were getting F18s. Think about it hard, the RAF is ditching 60 Typhoons, which will probably be working quite well by 2018, for the sake of a small number of F35s, which will definitely be delivered broken. New Chinooks, Sentinal, Merlins, possibly Puma, and possibly some A400s have all been given the chop to try and keep this programme affordable...and now I'm being told that we're going to take a far less capable, more expensive version of it that can't take our weaponry and is by far the most risky. What dipsh*t is making these decisions!?

HAS NOBODY LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THE TYPHOON! We could all be raging around in copious squadrons of strike eagles right now, which could be relied upon to go out and win a war! Look at the trouble that's caused us!

FB11

19th Mar 2012, 01:18

To the various posters on what happens if we slip back into B slippers:

1. There's no interoperability with the USN - no B will operate from a CVN. Nor will it operate from Charles de Gaulle (security issues aside).
2. There's only training interoperability with the USMC - unless they opt for the UK SRVL to mitigate poor vertical performance. All of a sudden, the WASP class deck seems quite small and they might just need to move a whole bunch of CH-53/CH-46/MV-22/AH-1Z/UH-1Y out of the way.
3. There's no day 1 capability worth the risk of going to target - LO payload.
4. The RN pilots in the US won't be coming home any earlier - Justanopinion post covers the detail.
5. UK Combat Air overall loses just as much from this because they gamble on a Typhoon replacement (C fulfilled DPOC requirement; B doesn't) - cut off nose/spite face springs to mind.
6. F-35A would require either require FSTA to have the whole fleet modified to boom (mucho £££ and a renegotiated PFI) or the F-35A would need to gun removed and a probe fitted....emmm, unlikely and £££xmany.
7. The USMC can't make the B any more operationally capable - the aircraft isn't going to get lighter; the weapons bay isn't going to get bigger; the fuel capacity isn't going to get bigger.

Milo Minderbinder

19th Mar 2012, 01:37

typerated

19th Mar 2012, 08:24

Government plans U-turn on aircraft carriers as catapult costs spiral | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs)

Rather than Dave B or C I wonder if for the same cost we could have :

Two carriers with cats and traps
A full wing of Rafales for both ships/boats
Some Hawkeyes
all with a decent IOC.

Perhaps there would be some change and we could buy a standoff weapon for day one ops.

500N

19th Mar 2012, 08:27

Don't we already have a stand off weapon as used on Libya from the subs ?

kbrockman

19th Mar 2012, 08:57

you're missing a bit of realpolitik here.
Both the -B and -C are failing projects and will probably get cancelled due to the cost overruns and technical issues.
So it makes no difference which we order - it will get cancelled anyway. The only difference is that if we go with the -B, when that gets cancelled we won't have to pay for the catapults....
The ships will then just be mothballed and probably eventually flogged off to India

Might well be true.
Another possibility is that they want to have the F35 no matter what the cost
will be to assure RR & Bae's F35 profitability, best to assure this is by going for the carrier version that can only use the F35 ,no alternatives possible.
That would also explain the sudden U turn.

glojo

19th Mar 2012, 09:26

The Russians have been operating a STOVL carrier for several years although they opted for a more conventional type aircraft, plus arrestor wires. Are they wrong when they made the decision to take that ship out of service and convert it to a conventional carrier with catapults? Where do we go if the 'B' does not come on line?

Was money involved when we ordered our EMALS system?

Was money involved when we decided to exchange one of the early 'B' model aircraft for the 'C'?

How much money has already been spent in the research and development of the carriers to convert them to CATOBAR configuration?

I was told they were never going to be built with that ski jump we saw on the through deck cruisers and yet from all accounts these aircraft are going to struggle taking off with anything like a decent payload. Will that decision also be reviewed and another redesign considered?

If we go for the 'B' then does that means the carrier will not be able to operate any type of EW or AEW fixed wing asset? Would we be able to develop a UAV to carry out these roles? :uhoh::uhoh: We deserve better.

If these reports are true then is this just another example of little boys wanting to play with bigger boys but not having those toys the big boys play with! ;)

We all know how the big boys treat those little interfering boys that cannot fulfil their promises.:sad::ouch:

glojo

19th Mar 2012, 11:39

Is this the start of a National protest?

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii527/glojoh/STOBAR.jpg

STOVL or Stobar ..... :ok:

Not_a_boffin

19th Mar 2012, 12:24

The Russians have been operating a STOVL carrier for several years although they opted for a more conventional type aircraft, plus arrestor wires.

No they haven't. The Russ have never operated a STOVL carrier. Kiev and her ilk were VTOL using Forgers. Kuznetsov has been STOBAR from the off with Flanker and Frogfoot variants.

Are they wrong when they made the decision to take that ship out of service and convert it to a conventional carrier with catapults?

Don't believe that's what they're doing, but happy to be corrected.

Where do we go if the 'B' does not come on line?

Home, for good. There are no STOVL alternatives.

Was money involved when we ordered our EMALS system?

That's ususally the case when paying for military equipment. However, I'm not sure that the system has been ordered yet. Fox seemed to think he had managed to get a shipset secured for PoW last summer.

Was money involved when we decided to exchange one of the early 'B' model aircraft for the 'C'?

Pass.

How much money has already been spent in the research and development of the carriers to convert them to CATOBAR configuration?

Since the official change to the C variant, I'd suspect a couple of million at most, certainly no more than £10M at the very extreme.

I was told they were never going to be built with that ski jump we saw on the through deck cruisers and yet from all accounts these aircraft are going to struggle taking off with anything like a decent payload. Will that decision also be reviewed and another redesign considered?

You were told wrong. All QEC designs until the official change to 'C' have had a large prominent ski-ramp at the bow. That remains the case for the STOVL option ship.

If we go for the 'B' then does that means the carrier will not be able to operate any type of EW or AEW fixed wing asset? Would we be able to develop a UAV to carry out these roles?

Pretty much. No.

We deserve better.

Yes we do. Through a combination of ineptitude in MoD and elsewhere, deliberate obstruction inside and outside of MB, poor decision-making in the Naval staff and abject political will have combined to make what should have been a relatively straightforward design and procurement process into the current horror show.

LowObservable

19th Mar 2012, 12:51

This is :mad: incredible.

The incorporation of cats and traps is now estimated to cost more than the ships were expected to cost in 2008.

People are talking about 2027 IOC, which is astonishing even for JSF.

The pluses and minuses are ably laid out by FB11.

Usually when this kind of :mad: goes down, there's something behind the scenes that nobody knows about.

And I suspect that it's more than bureaucratic insurgency.

Widger

19th Mar 2012, 13:04

Interesting dilemma and almost certainly a PR12 option being looked at. the bottom line is that the MoD has Billions of pounds to save and is anticipating an increase in Defence spending in about 2015 (which probably will not happen). It has to save the money somehow and reversion to B will be one of the options presented.

The option that should be presented IMHO, is to bin F35 altogether. It is unaffordabble and this obsession with getting a 5th Gen platform is putting the rest of Defence at risk. Convert the Carriers to cats and Traps and buy F18s or Rafale. This in itself will save billions and pull the MoD out of some of its current mire. The problem is that the 2 winged master race are fixated on F35 which will probably be their last manned aircraft before wholesale move to UAS/UAV/RPAS. It is about bums on seats for the future leaders of the RAF (who cannot be anything other than fast jet pilots!)

An F18/Rafale buy will plug the capability gap until future UAS become more affordable/capable. An F18/rafale buy will enable money to be flexed into other areas of need including ISTAR, AT, rotary lift etc. An F18/Rafale buy will however, pull the rug out from under the RAF as it will be a force predominantly occupied with naval aviators.

It is simple ecomnomics. 'Love, we cannot afford a Jag or an Aston Martin, lovely as they are but we can afford a whole fleet of reasonably priced cars and when one is broken we just use another!'

Not_a_boffin

19th Mar 2012, 13:27

The justification of these cost estimates is the intriguing thing. I cannot find an engineering explanation for these "conversion costs". To do PoW, the following activities would be necessary.

1. Acquire the hardware for EMALS and AAG. From open sources based on US costs this is unlikley to exceed £450M for a ship set.

2. Integrate the hardware physically into PoW. This will require five activities :
a) Undertake the engineering calculations and design to reconfigure the 2 deck spaces where the cats are supposed to go. This would be a design team of say 30 people for a couple of years at absolute worst, so around £12M.
b) Modify the structure to accept the EMALS and AAR systems. As most of the structure for POW has not yet been fabricated, this should not be particularly difficult. In materials terms, you're looking at some small tens of tons of steel (say 40 te @ £2000/te), so that's in the noise. In manpower terms, the work content is probably 2000m joint length of weld, which at 8 manhours per metre is 16000 manhours, which at very worst would be about £1M.
c) Modify the Integrated Platform Mgmt System (IPMS) to allow charging of the energy storage devices adjacent to each EMALS from the main 11 kVA power dist grid and also to accept power input from the AAG. The IPMS is an L3 product and involves software (which is never good). However, I'd still suggest you could fix it for £50M at very worst. Anything beyond that indicates that you'd run out of bodies to write it.
d. Install the actual EMALS/AAG hardware. If you had a gang of 30 blokes (alright sparkies) spending ten weeks to install one system, then you're looking at 12000 manhours. Even though AAG is supposed to be a bit simpler, assume all six devices (2 cats, 4 wires) take the same. That's 70000+ sparkies hours which at the very extreme is about £7M (pink ovies don't come cheap!)
e. Set to work and commission. If you assumed 20 people for a year, you'd probably be at the top end and that's 40000 manhours or ~ £4M (worst case).

So, about £450M hardware, £75M direct labour and there might be another £100M in terms of design support, documentation, logistics etc as shown in the US contracts.

I make that just over £600M, but then I'm just a simple metal-basher.

This looks more and more like a whole raft of "other costs" being tagged onto the "conversion" to make it look unaffordable.

LowObservable

19th Mar 2012, 13:46

NaB - I agree. Which is why I suspect a whole lot of other skullduggery at work.

glojo

19th Mar 2012, 14:09

No they haven't. The Russ have never operated a STOVL carrier. Kiev and her ilk were VTOL using Forgers. Kuznetsov has been STOBAR from teh off with Flanker and Frogfoot variants.Very valid point and it was my poor use of the acronym... What I meant to suggest was that the Russians are allegedly doing away with that hideous 'ski-slope' and fitting catapults.

Are they wrong when they made the decision to take that ship out of service and convert it to a conventional carrier with catapults?

Don't believe that's what they're doing, but happy to be corrected.I must emphasis I have never read anything in concrete that states this ship will definitely have catapults but this is regularly being printed: (I have emphasised the word 'might'

In April 2010 it was announced that by the end of 2012 the ship will enter Severodvinsk Sevmash shipyard for a major refit and modernisation. The report states that the refit will include upgrades to the obsolete electronics and sensor equipment, installation of the new anti-aircraft system and increase of the air wing by the removal of the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles. Upgrades might also include exchanging the troublesome steam powerplant to the gas-turbine or even nuclear propulsion and installation of catapults to the angled deck ALL the footage I have seen of that carrier launching aircraft contradicts what they try to say about maximum take off weights. Granted the footage is quite meaningless and it could be that they could take off with the weights they claim but at what expense I can envisage them using the whole of the deck to get enough speed to take off but what g-forces would this impose on the fully laden aircraft? Same questions for the F-35B which I believe is not the lightweight Harrier?

I was told they were never going to be built with that ski jump we saw on the through deck cruisers and yet from all accounts these aircraft are going to struggle taking off with anything like a decent payload. Will that decision also be reviewed and another redesign considered?

You were told wrong. All QEC designs until teh official change to 'C' have had a large prominent ski-ramp at the bow. That remains the case for the STOVL option ship.PLEASE accept that I hold you and your advise in the highest of regard but I am sure that many, many moons ago when it was decided to opt for the EMALS system I queried the removal of the ski-slope from the ship's design and I am sure it was your very good self that put me in my place by saying it was never designed to have it? I will tactfully suggest that I am only 70% sure it was you good self as my memory is not as good as it once was but if it were not you, then it would have to be someone of your stature (otherwise I would have queried it) ;)

We have a number of pilots operating from US carriers, we have had the First Sea Lord going up for a 'jolly' in an F-18 so has this aircraft ever been considered as an option instead of the F-35B?

Will the RAF want the F-35B as a replacement for one of their other types?

Thank you very much for the informative replies and are you confident we are going to ever see the Royal Navy operating the F-35 in any guise?

kbrockman

19th Mar 2012, 14:44

Sorry,

Removed because I cannot confirm with a direct quote/link .

Not_a_boffin

19th Mar 2012, 15:04

Glojo

We may be at crossed-purposes here. The QEC STOVL designs have always had a ski-ramp. However, the ski-ramp is not compatible with the cat n' trap arrangement and so once the decision to fit cats to one of the ships and go with F35C was taken, the ramp would have been deleted from that design. The inference was also that if the "other" ship of the class was to enter service as a helo-carrier, then no ramp would be required (or fitted) as it would take up valuable deck space.

XV277

19th Mar 2012, 15:07

We have a number of pilots operating from US carriers, we have had the First Sea Lord going up for a 'jolly' in an F-18 so has this aircraft ever been considered as an option instead of the F-35B?

One of the early MOD design studies for CVF included a hanger deck layout that had 'boxes' marked 'F-18E/F' and 'E-2C' (as well as 'Merlin'), so it was certainly thought about.

Regarding the Kiev class, they could be used as STOVL carriers with Forgers - there was footage/pics of Forgers doing short take offs from one in the 80s. (Which was a bit of a surprise if I recall as up to that point ship based Forgers were thought to be VTOL only)

glojo

19th Mar 2012, 15:18

Hi Not a Boffin,
You and I will NEVER be at cross purposes as you always talk sense compared to either my witterings or asking of questions.

I have spent the last few hours looking for the reference that caused me the confusion (http://www.pprune.org/6837993-post3100.html) and I guess it may well have been my interpretation of your wise words:ok:

Thanks again for your excellent posts
John

Lowe Flieger

19th Mar 2012, 15:22

How did the UK get here? OK, never mind how, we are here and that's that.

How do we get out of here?

Mothball the carriers, bin F35 (all versions) for five years, and then reassess when many of the interdependent variables have been reduced, and the risks acceptable.

Continue with Typhoon and Tornado, improve sensors, weaponry and defensive aids. Replace Tornado around 2025. This might be F35A or improved Typhoon or whatever, it's not clear right now. The money saved on carrier operations and F35 acquisition and operation has lots of alternative uses in the meantime, and many of them we are far more likely to need than a 'Day 1' stealthy strike capability deliverable by a handful of aircraft.

Not what I would wish to see in better times, but a realistic response to the Class 1 mucking fuddle we are in right now. We cannot afford a carrier capability with all that entails to do it properly. If we are only able to do it in a half-arsed way, it's way, way too risky to put such a high value asset and prime target in harm's way with inadequate and underdeveloped airpower.

Not_a_boffin

19th Mar 2012, 15:29

The early concept design studies (circa 1996-1998) used the F18E as the basis for the "CTOL" carrier, because at the time IIRC the STOVL option was called the "STOVL Strikefighter" or SSF. The USN was still recovering after the A12 fiasco and had not yet worked out what to do beyond F18. the "what" subsequently became the JSF, which in turn became F35A, B & C.

The money saved on carrier operations and F35 acquisition and operation has lots of alternative uses in the meantime, and many of them we are far more likely to need than a 'Day 1' stealthy strike capability

Perhaps.

Indeed, in future we are more likely to need a maritime force air defence capability than we are a land-based deep-strike or CAS capability.........Carrier Strike is not all about Day 1 strike, there is a wider maritime piece that is often conveniently forgotten.

orca

19th Mar 2012, 16:10

Lowe Fleiger,

I couldn't agree more. Land based aviation always trumps you for scale unless you do Maritime properly.

F35C brings range which means QECV can stand off further, or you can strike deeper. It brings persistence which means you can wait until the DCA has run out of fuel and then strike - or you can offer the boys on the ground a service for longer.

A cat and trap ship can play host to F18 or Rafale; a F35B ship is a F35B ship. We're now calling it Carrier Enabled Power Projection because apparently people didn't realise you could do lots more with a ship than fling jets around - hence rebranding required.

Using the smoke/fire curve (which accurately predicted Sea Jet demise, GR9 FE@R reduction and the loss of UK VSTOL) I detect suffcient smoke to asume that there's a fair old fire around the corner. I am going to put a pint on a reversion to F35B.

I think the real lesson to learn is the notion of the capability holiday simply doesn't exist. If you lose a capability - it doesn't come back. Good luck MPA brothers let's hope you can avoid a quagmire like this!

RAFEngO74to09

19th Mar 2012, 16:26

If the trials of the X-47B UCAS demonstrator are successful, the USN may well decide to replace a portion of the F-18 Super Hornet fleet (and purchase instead of F-35 if it gets cancelled). The manufacturer's video shows possible roles as air-to-air, air-to-ground and buddy-buddy AAR.

If the UK went CATOBAR, at least UCAS would be an option.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how the carrier landing and AAR trials go in 2013.

Spot the deliberate error - F14s on carrier deck where archive footage (possibly from Top Gun) has been used:
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/X-47b_ucas_b-roll.wmv

Smiles on the engineers' faces - it flies ! - potential dollars rolling in when the F-18 needs replacing !
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/UCAS-D_FF_Music_Video.wmv

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/UCAS_Gear_Up.wmv

manccowboy

19th Mar 2012, 17:14

BBC News - Ministers discuss U-turn on F-35 fighter planes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272)

To a layman like myself and Im guessing most of the general public this news has me scratching my head.

Why were the Invincible class carriers and the Harriers scrapped?

orca

19th Mar 2012, 17:38

Mate - you've opened a can of worms. The subject is still very emotive even though our Harriers are now in bits in the USA. It comes down to the simple fact that to save money an entire fleet had to go. The one that remained had to complement Typhoons capabilities and make up for slow progress in turning that platform into a mature multi role type.

Here's what the Parliament paper says:

Reduction in the number of fast jet fleets

1.8 Affordability constraints meant that as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, one of either the existing Tornado or Harrier fast jet fleets would have to be retired. The choice was discussed in both National Security Council meetings and the National Security Secretariat briefings clearly set out the implications of either choice. In terms of overall contribution to United Kingdom fast jet capability and operations in Afghanistan, Tornado was assessed as more capable. Harrier would be the preferred choice if a continuous carrier strike capability was maintained and would better support the immediate establishment of a UK-French Maritime Task-force. Retiring Tornado would save £380 million less than Harrier over the four year Comprehensive Spending Review period but £620 million more over 10 years.

The upgrade from STOVL carrier to CV carrier was mitigated by the CVS and Harrier savings, but crucially as well by £1 billion by cancelling DPOC - the GR4 replacement.

Please let's not get into the debate again, the Harrier's gone (literally).

Phil_R

19th Mar 2012, 19:07

Sorry, DPOC?

Just trying to follow the thread here.

orca

19th Mar 2012, 19:30

DPOC was Deep Persistent Offensive Capability which had its provenance in FCAC (no idea) and FOAS (Future Offensive Air System).

All GR4 replacements really. A manned/ unmanned mix was talked of at some stage.

Nevertheless, as FB11 points out F35C could meet DPOC criteria where the F35B can't. Hence the saving of (a convenient) £1billion from curtailing DPOC was taken into account in the maths for going to the F35C.

One assumes that we'll need DPOC back if we go back to B...

LFFC

19th Mar 2012, 19:47

Labour ‘saddled Navy with oversized aircraft carriers’ (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/politics/labour-saddled-navy-with-oversized-aircraft-carriers-7577511.html)

Looks like the politicians are only now beginning to realise the massive cost of the whole system to which they have been committed. It will only get bigger and bigger while the rest of the economy shrinks and shrinks - there will have to come a point..........

Phil_R

19th Mar 2012, 23:24

Would they not have been better off to spend a fraction of the money doing a really serious refurb of the little carriers and Harrier?

Three little carriers that are sustainable long term seems to be a better idea than one giant carrier and many question marks over every aspect of it.

FB11

19th Mar 2012, 23:44

Wise words indeed. Using the logic of hindsight, we should for example really have been flying F-15 and F-16 for the last 4 decades. But we always buy British even when logic (for that read capability) suggests otherwise. Hence Jaguar; GR1 and F2 Tornado.

Apparently, in order to beat the dead horse it's best to lean against the stable door you closed after it bolted. You get lots more leverage.

I hope that the PM's focus during his decision making process is on the 2 projects - both in large part driven by the beast that is BAE Systems - of aircraft and carrier in an objective way.

We are commited to F-35 and we are building 2 carriers - many 1000's of UK high-tech workers are way more important than what any of the kit actually does in some eyes.

We are buying 50 years worth of capability yet making decisions that are focussed only for the next 2-4 years.

I do find it ironic that the aircraft are twice the cost of the carriers - and rising - so the response when the carrier cost goes up is to switch to the yet more expensive variant of the aircraft. But it's OK, the sums in the 2-4 year period (at least the sums out there today - watch this space) favour the reversion to the B.

Now, step back...I need to take a run up so I can give the hind quarters a really good kick...and close that stable door for goodness sakes...

Justanopinion

20th Mar 2012, 00:04

. An F18/Rafale buy will however, pull the rug out from under the RAF as it will be a force predominantly occupied with naval aviators.

Much the same could be said of F35C and I truly hope some of the "advice" has not been driven by this thinking.

orca

20th Mar 2012, 00:21

Phil,

Not sure I agree. The theory for the bigger carriers was sound. Eventually you have to buy new kit - that's a given. Small carriers and VSTOL aeroplanes will always suffer from performance limitations at some point, be it hot weather bring back, fuel load or getting a specific weapon off the deck. Invincible class ships really started getting complicated with 12 Harrier on them, even with no helos.

Big carriers allow you to operate more capable aeroplanes in greater numbers. I personally believe that you get to a low threshold below which it really isn't worth bothering. In the modern day you need something capable of launching a radar guided weapon air-to-air, using GPS guided weaponry and having SEAD or EA capability.

So big carriers make sense.

Now, if you were to buy two carriers of the same specification then you have redundancy. Simples.

The problem comes when that isn't possible due to budgetry constraints. And carriers are expensive enough for them to be criticised on cost grounds by those who favour land based air. And the more expensive you make the jets the more empty deck you get!

I personally thought that run on of Harrier at the expense of Tornado would give our small island nation a flexible, embarkable capability whilst preserving most of the attack and recce capability the Tornado offered. But the Harrier had dropped from a 18 FE@R fleet to 10 and the Tornado was still up at 40. So it was going to be bloody one way or the other. It went 'the other' and isn't coming back.

I'm not privy to what actually goes on in the towers of power. But what saddens me is that someone, or some people, or a systematic failing caused this. The Dannatts, Bands and Torpys of this world must have known that we were building up the famed £38 billion black hole - it didn't happen by magic. Like I said, I don't know where the blame lies. We just seem to be incapable of buying the right thing for the right price. More importantly we seem to be incapable of accurately forecasting how much projects will cost - so spend a lot of money finding out we can't afford them.

My personal opinion is that QECV and F35C are the right thing to be buying - it's not cheap but it'll last a while.

Not_a_boffin

20th Mar 2012, 00:48

The Evening Standard article is utter b8llocks, an attempt to spin a revert to B decision and to perpetuate the myth that the QEC is some sort of job creation scheme masterminded by Gordon Brown.

I have seen the original staff target (7068 IIRC), which btw was created in the last days of Majors government, although not endorsed until 98 I think. The size of the carriers (even then) was 40000 te and driven by the need to deliver a meaningful effect as opposed to the tokenism of CVS. That is not to denigrate those who operated SHAR/GR7 and CVS, but merely to point out the obvious. If you were going to fight the wars assumed in the high-level OA and Defence Planning Assumptions, you needed to generate 100+ sorties a day, sustained for several days, as opposed to the 20-odd sorties per day you'd get from CVS.

The 65000te beast arrived in 2000, when it was realised that the previous concept designs had largely crammed the aircraft onto the deck as opposed to spotting the deck properly. Cost in ships is not directly proportional to size (even for warships), but the huge disparity in size twixt QEC and CVS has given two services the opportunity to spend the last decade sniping and presenting the ships as "unaffordable", one from fear (a threat to their fiefdom) and one from lack of comprehension and an understandable desire to focus on the war they were fighting. The Naval staff have also proven woefully inadequate in presenting their case. The cost growth from the original £3.2Bn for the pair first offered by the ACA in about 2002 is almost entirely attributable to this effect, which has led to endless attempted redesigns and programme delays, all of which actually cost real money to no discernable benefit.

Only two yards in the country had a realistic chance of constructing the ships in conventional fashion, Swan Hunter on the Tyne and Harland and Wolff in Belfast. However, Swans destroyed their large berth in 2001-ish to build the LSD(A) in a dock and Harlands was pretty much only a dock with no fabrication facility by 2002. That left a choice between Inchgreen on the Clyde, Nigg in NE Scotland or Rosyth as the only places with a cat in hell's chance of assembling the ships. As the first two hadn't been used for a decade and were essentially bare facilities, Rosyth was a no-brainer and nothing to do with politics or Chancellors etc. Gordon Brown did everything he could to avoid contracting for the ships (thereby increasing the price) and it was only (IMO) a last desperate throw of the dice that persuaded the useless tw@t to allow MoD to place the order.

The ships are big because we learned the lessons of CVS. If you're going to buy something, make sure it has the potential to be used properly, including potential changes of use. CVS was supposed to be a helicopter carrier with 9 cabs and a force of five SHAR. That it managed to eventually accommodate another eight aircraft (just!) was partly due to a good basic design, but also due to a change in policy (permanent deck park). However, building-in known limitations is not generally considered a good design model to follow.

This is a sorry tale even before the present shenanigans. The latest manoeuvrings threaten to lose the chance of a half-decent capability to short-termism based on half-@rsed data, ignorance and malice.

TBM-Legend

20th Mar 2012, 01:41

Build them in Korea in half the time and half the price!

These "work for the dole" schemes cost the taxpayers a fivetune....:eek:

howiehowie93

20th Mar 2012, 03:36

I am going to put a pint on a reversion to F35B

Looking at todays DM; pint won !!

ORAC

20th Mar 2012, 09:02

The Scotsman:

Published on Tuesday 20 March 2012 00:00

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is to make a Commons statement on the defence equipment programme amid reports of a major U-turn on the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, Downing Street said last night.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said Mr Hammond was expected to address MPs before Easter following reports of a rethink over the carriers’ Joint Strike Fighter aircraft............

Finnpog

20th Mar 2012, 09:34

I suppose that the B has in fact demonstrated the ability to land on a real ship at sea.

Maybe POTUS told Cameron on AF1 that the C had more issues going on behind the scenes with the hook - coupled with the point that America does love The Corps.

Widger

20th Mar 2012, 09:38

Its normal PR activity.

Option 1. Delete Carrier and F35 cost £xBn
option 2. Carrier and F35B cost £xbn
Option 3. 1 Carrier and F35C cost £xbn

Etc.

The MoD is skint. It has to save money. PR12 will be more about savings than spending/profiling. The reversion to F35B will be one of those options to be considered and the risks will be outlined. A decision will then be made as happens every single year with every PR round.

The problem this year is that there is no money, well, no no money but a yawning chasm of a black hole. The carriers are all but built/money spent and when in service will be of significant utility. The issue is what to fly off them.

All this chat about F35B or C is irrelevant and is missing the main point, that the UK CANNOT AFFORD any variant. Forget about Defence Industrial Strategy, that went out years ago on the altar of savings (recent announcement of MARS being built in South Korea) so, whilst it hurts to say it, to hell with UK industry and jobs in Rolls Royce. The MoD is not there to subsidise UK manufacturing. I will say it again, the UK cannot afford F35 so it must go for another option.

Build the ships with Cats and traps and purchase Rafale or F18. This will be a 70-80% of the F35 solution but, more than adequate for the UK's needs. 36 F18's instead of F35 could save in the order of £11Bn, which would fill about a third of the MoDs black hole, enabling future investment in more important capabilities such as Long Range MPA, ISTAR, AT, Helicopters, Vehicles for the army and the Future Maritime escort.

I know that this would upset the RAF, who want skies full of fast jets but, Typhhon is here, make the most of it. The UK cannot afford F35.

This is the sensible solution without inter-service politics getting in the way, without political interference or UK Defence Industry lobbying. If the MoD is to get back on its feet by 2020 and be a place where quality people want to serve, with appropriate remuneration and good conditions of service, then that is the choice that MUST be made. Look at all the other threads on here about pensions, pay, Married Quarters etc and you get the picture. Typhoon is here and the money spent, CVF is nearly here and the money all but spent (and considering thru life costs, relatively cheap for the effect) the expensive item, where the money has not yet been committed is the jet. The UK cannot afford F35, go for F18 or Rafale and then in 20 years time replace with UAS.

WillDAQ

20th Mar 2012, 09:50

The MoD is skint. It has to save money. PR12 will be more about savings than spending/profiling

The problem this year is that there is no money, well, no no money but a yawning chasm of a black hole.

All this chat about F35B or C is irrelevant and is missing the main point, that the UK CANNOT AFFORD any variant.

That PR12 black hole in full:

MoD budget 'now back in balance' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18893)

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is set to announce that the Ministry of Defence's £38bn financial 'black hole' has been "dealt with" and that the defence budget is now balanced for the first time in four decades, according to a report in The Daily Telegraph.

The story also suggests that around £2.1bn of unallocated funding has been found in the ministry's current financial planning round.

Widger

20th Mar 2012, 09:57

Doubts have been expressed, however, as to whether it is realistic to expect the ministry's books to be balanced just two planning rounds since the SDSR.

Defence Analysis editor Francis Tusa told The Telegraph: "Let them publish the financial figures. If they won't then it is right and proper for everyone to doubt they have got their budget right."

Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said that full transparency from the government was needed before the announcement could be believed.

"If the department won't publish their figures people will conclude that this is nothing more than fiscal hubris," said Murphy.

They may well have balanced it for PR12 (next 5 years) but they still have several years to go yet before they are out of the woods and there will still be savings required in PR13/14/15/

LowObservable

20th Mar 2012, 13:28

What an unbelievable :mad:ing mess.

That Cat in the Hat won't be able to pick this one up. Has anyone thought about what happens if (when) sequester kicks in in the US? Or if some of the numerous fixes and bodges being developed for the B add 100 pounds of weight apiece, or require the pilot to stooge around at 10,000 feet while the clutch cools down? Or that the system can't deliver improved VL performance without being redesigned completely?

Important point about Panetta's ending of probation: He did not reverse the key action that Gates took, which was to drop B production to a crawl until the aircraft worked. In fact, both B and C are in single digits until 2018-19 deliveries.

SAMXXV

20th Mar 2012, 13:49

Widger

+1

If you can't afford to buy tailor made suits you buy "off the peg" - as the US did with our 70 Harriers - & the US Treasury must be laughing all the way to the bank...

The Harrier took many years to iron out the initial problems. The same will be true of the F35B - especially as the US will probably refuse to supply anything other than a flyable airframe!

That means MOD having to pay millions (billions?) more to kit the "bare bones" out with AI radars, weapon systems etc. - & we all know where that goes don't we! The A/C will be out of date before it enters service in a useable combat condition for the UK. Again, the US must be laughing - but they are nearly bankrupt & need our $$$........:ooh:

Justanopinion

20th Mar 2012, 17:01

This will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier and allow us to buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons.

Also

Mr Speaker, this is another area where the last Government got it badly wrong.

There’s only one thing worse than spending money you don’t have.

And that’s buying the wrong things with it – and doing so in the wrong way.

The carriers they ordered are unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France.

Directly from;

Tuesday 19 October 2010
Prime Minister David Cameron's statement to the House of Commons on the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

I rest my case. Any advice to the contrary can only be based on self serving interests

Thelma Viaduct

20th Mar 2012, 17:17

Major mistake moving away from the 'cats & traps' both in terms of capability and long terms finances, but only to be expected from the politicians.

ORAC

20th Mar 2012, 17:19

If the Evening Standard is right, then Cameron got mugged by Obama and th eoprion of going backed to the B is off the table.

Quote:

.......However, voices from Wahington suggest that the President said this was no option at all, and he wants the British to reconsider and go with the more powerful "C" version of the F-35.

It is being circulated that the US is now likely to order only four squadrons of the jump-jet "B" version for the US Marine Corps. Since this would be a maximum of about 65 planes, it is now thought in Washington that this is all a preliminary to cancelling the "B" version altogether.....

Roadster280

20th Mar 2012, 17:28

"Dave, there'll be no Dave "B", but I can't tell the Jarheads that outright right now, because I don't have the balls. You'd better order the "C". Tell you what, how about some F/A-18s to be going on with?"

"Oi Phil, tell your Navy blokes they're getting the C. Any questions?"

Milo Minderbinder

20th Mar 2012, 17:40

Whatever they order is going to get cancelled anyway, so the whole argument is pointless
However, they will order the - B. and then cancel it. Why? Because as its the more expensive aircraft, they will be able to announce bigger savings when its chopped.
Of course they'll be able to offer an earlier saving by not buying the catapults.

So ....first they announce the most expensive carrier option - and then pull back, so saving a fortune that they were never going to spend anyway, and then they save an even bigger fortune by not buying the aircraft they were never going to buy

kbrockman

20th Mar 2012, 17:41

LM warned, no more cost overruns or the US DoD will take less F35's.

More cost growth would cut F-35 buy: US Air Force | USWebDaily.com Follows News Happening Now. (http://uswebdaily.com/news2/more-cost-growth-would-cut-f35-buy-us-air-force)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Any further cost increase or problems with the $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would mean reduced Pentagon purchases of the new warplane, being developed and built by Lockheed Martin Corp, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told a Senate committee on Tuesday

LowObservable

20th Mar 2012, 18:15

ORAC - Do you have a link to that?

Ivan Rogov

20th Mar 2012, 18:47

So is Cameron taking over what Brown started by keeping the ship yards in work?

I'm not a fan of the carriers and don't think they are a sensible option for our future Forces, the full cost of building, kitting, protecting and operating them will cripple the Defence budget for years. However if we are getting them a conventional design gives us a much more flexible platform with more options. I still can't believe they are not nuclear powered, which muppet didn't think oil prices wouldn't increase sharply in the next few decades.

With the F-35 rapidly slipping to the right, why not just build the carriers flat sans catapults and use them for helo ops? In 2020 +/- a few years we will be able to see if the B or C are actually fit for purpose and can carry out a refit. Continually changing a contract almost always ends in a large delay, poor value for money and a compromised product :ugh:

Just a thought, if the US bin the B we could buy those 65 odd aircraft destined for the USMC, then the UK could have a horrendously expensive bespoke fleet of poor performing aircraft :mad:

silverstrata

20th Mar 2012, 18:47

>>> Its a mess IMHO

Over on Aarse, they are speculating that the change is being made because the STOVL carriers have greater survivability (less to go wrong and leave your carrier dead in the water).

http//www.aarse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/178170-uk-aircraft-carrier-plans-confusion-ministers-revisit-square-one-9.html

ORAC

20th Mar 2012, 18:52

Sorry, no. It's was in the late edition today. tapped in the above on my iPhone direct from the page.

Article was by Robert Fox their defence correspondent.

silverstrata

20th Mar 2012, 18:55

>>>Why were the Invincible class carriers and the Harriers scrapped?

Now that's a different matter entirely. You never throw your shoes away, until you have bought a new pair - a very basic adage that every five-year old learns.

But you don't expect our politicians to have the wisdom of a five-year old, surely? Come, come, now, don't be so naive....

>>>Would they not have been better off to spend a fraction of the money
>>>doing a really serious refurb of the little carriers and Harrier?

Don't be silly, that is logical and rational thinking, you cannot expect that from politicians. You have to remember that 98% of politicians are lawyers and economists, and they have trouble with words like 'machine-tool' or 'diesel-engine' - it like a Martian speaking, to them.

And you all wonder why none of the infrastructure in the UK works. And don't get me started on the Thames Estuary Airport again......

>>>The theory for bigger carriers was sound.

No it wasn't. A nation has to live according to its budget. To have had four smaller carriers would have been much more flexible and probably cheaper (economies of scale) than two large ones. It was the most stupid idea ever, and who knows why the Admiralty fell for it.

?

The Helpful Stacker

20th Mar 2012, 18:57

Over on Aarse, they are speculating......

That well-known military think tank.:ugh:

Just a thought...........we could buy........65 odd aircraft..........then the UK could have a horrendously expensive bespoke fleet of poor performing aircraft

Almost sounds like the AW159/Wildcat/Lynx Wildcat/Future Lynx order in places.

hval

20th Mar 2012, 19:33

@The Helpful Stacker

That well-known military think tank.

Just like here then.

hval

20th Mar 2012, 19:48

The F-35 series of fighters are highly complex systems that will work, sometime. Look at the P1127/ Harrier development. That was ten years or so until a useful aircraft was developed; wasn't it?

Due to the increased complexities of the F-35 variants, plus the fact that there are really three different aircraft being developed isn't it reasonable that it will take longer to develop than the Harrier and cost one heck of a lot more?

I know there are problems and that costs are increasing, but is this not the same for every project which is at the leading edge of technology?

Do most of us (including myself) have a downer on the F-35 due to the fact that we were promised the world at unrealistic costs? Should we not be looking at what the three variants will provide in the future?

In other words: -

1/ Were marketing making unreasonable promises?
2/ Will the aircraft be worth waiting for?
3/ Will the aircraft do what they need to do?
4/ Are they the correct aircraft to develop for the future, or should some other product be under development?
5/ Can the development teams (excluding marketing) be blamed for the current situation?

Milo Minderbinder

20th Mar 2012, 19:58

That was ten years or so until a useful aircraft was developed; wasn't it?But the point is that the P.1127 was designed as an experimental prototype / technology demonstrator that through development was refined into a production model
With the F-35 production of what was close to the final configuration was decided on before any prototypes were built
The development process has been turned on tis head: instead of finding whats possible and then commercialising it, with the F-35 they've decided on a commercial product without finding if its possible.

hval

20th Mar 2012, 20:00

Good answer Milo Minderbinder.

In response I write that if we only built what could be built now then developments would not occur.

Milo Minderbinder

20th Mar 2012, 20:09

Thats not true
Theres no reason why you can't investigate technology independently of actual production. Used to happen in the past: the P.1127 is a good example, the Fairy Delta another. or more recently, the work on the rewinged FBW "unstable" Jaguar (sorry, I can't remember the acronym for it)
Those sort of aircraft all provided technical information as to what was possible - and could be used in a new model
Even the Spitfire was only possible because of the work on the Schneider Trophy aircraft - which were basically pure experiments

hval

20th Mar 2012, 20:29

Milo Minderbinder,

I totally agree that in a perfect world that lots of different technologies would be developed and tested. Unfortunately companies need to make a profit to keep shareholders happy and to not go bankrupt, so development when their are no sales won't be perceived as being acceptable. The governments of today can't afford to fund such projects either. A slight generalisation there as it does happen, but on a small scale. We also rarely see the type of persons who are generous enough to aid such developments through magnanimity these days.

The Jaguar FBW aircraft was called Active Control Technology (ACT). Registration was XX765.

silverstrata

20th Mar 2012, 20:32

>>>The F-35 series of fighters are highly complex systems that will work, sometime.

I doubt it.

The F35b carries a large lift-fan, when there is no need for one whatsoever. It has trouble transitioning to the hover, because of fan door and airflow issues. It cannot go supersonic without returning to base after five minutes. It cannot vector in flight. The 'c' version cannot catch a cable, without a hook so long you could see it on your weather radar. And now to increase performance, it has external stores - "hey, Bud, why can every radar in Eyerakk see me?" Duhhhhh...

So in the end, after all this computer designed cutting edge technology, we will not get anything better than the 1970s Harrier. Happy days.

Not_a_boffin

20th Mar 2012, 20:47

The theory for bigger carriers was sound.

No it wasn't. A nation has to live according to its budget. To have had four smaller carriers would have been much more flexible and probably cheaper (economies of scale) than two large ones. It was the most stupid idea ever, and who knows why the Admiralty fell for it.

Utter hoop I'm afraid. Every single study by any nation on taking aircraft to sea since the 1970s has conclusively demonstrated that both in terms of UPC and also operating costs, economy of scale favours larger ships. Or do you really think duplicating the required facilities and personnel for ops across more ships can somehow work out cheaper?

The external stores issue is to allow for flexibility in a situation where additional weapons / fuel might be more useful for that particular situation than an LO configuration.

As for the debate on aarse about survivability, that too is being conducted from a level of misconception as to STOVL ops. The nub of the argument appears to be that "a bomb crater" in the flightdeck will preclude cat n'trap operations. This conveniently misses the point that there will be two cats in different locations and also that without access to a ski-ramp and it's runway, which is a larger target than a cat and might therefore be statistically more likely to suffer damage, STO becomes VTO which is just about enough to get you off the deck to circle the ship and then land again. There are some detailed differences in survivability between the two modes, but the actual delta is literally in single figures of percent.

These things have been done to death years ago if you know where to look.

GeeRam

20th Mar 2012, 20:47

hval

20th Mar 2012, 20:48

Silverstrata,

The Harrier had its' own complexities and design limitations. Perhaps the additional lift fan is an attempt to get around these limitations. All aircraft development programmes suffer problems. These are resolved.

I don't see a design fault with the fan door as being a major problem. Most aircraft undergo inlet design changes. As for being unable to catch a cable, that is a current problem that will be resolved also.

Having written the above, I have never been a supporter of over complex kit. Adding things just means there is something else to go wrong. Complex things go wrong more often.

Personally I can't see why they didn't take the basic Harrier principle further by producing a supersonic airframe. Wouldn't look the same but there is an awful lot of technology in the Harrier to provide a base line to start from.

hval

20th Mar 2012, 20:55

Not_a_boffin,

You are correct in what you write. I would write though that redundancy is provided by having four smaller ships. I would also like to add that there is no point starting to build ships when one is going to be sold (probably) leaving us with one ship. From my experience you really need to have three/ four ships to provide full time use. You normally have two in various stages of refit and upgrades, one sailing back to port and one sailing out from port.

The fact that we can't afford any ships is irrelevant. Think of all those wasted billions that could have been used to purchase further Astute class submarines or Type 45 Destroyers.

Engines

20th Mar 2012, 21:01

Guys,

Just a little proportion here.

Yes, the UK is broke and any defence spending is going to strain the budgets, which are broken anyway, but...

The carriers are not going to 'cripple the Defence budget for years'.Let's look at some NAO figures. Last cost to completion for QE2 class carriers was £5.1bn. Let's look at some other programmes. How about Typhoon, which the NAO reports will cost £20.2bn for 160 aircraft, with total cost of £37bn. How about FSTA at £12bn, or perhaps Meteor at £1.15bn?

Yes, choices have to be made. I'm damn glad I don't have to make them. But the carriers are one part of a broken budget. Personally, I'm not convinced that spending £37bn on an AD aircraft with a very secondary AG capability represents best value for money right now, but I'm not the guy making the calls.

Just a response to silverstrata -

1. The F-35B does not have 'trouble' doing a transition to the hover. It did, that's why the lift fan door was redesigned after the X-35 programme. Now it doesn't. Oh, and a Brit led the redesign.

2. The B needs a lift fan because it is required to land vertically. It's a STOVL aircraft. Sorry if this sounds obvious - but it is.

3. The B can't vector in flight because there was no requirement for it to do so. Harrier doesn't use VIFF operationally.

4. The B (and A and C) has issues right now with supersonic flight due to heat effects on the aft fuselage. This will be fixed.

5. The C has experienced problems with arresting gear tests. A longer hook probably wouldn't be the fix they will choose - they're looking at hook tip and damper rates. If these don't work, they are in real trouble - but they're not, not yet.

6. Like every variant of the F-35, the C is designed to carry external stores as an option when really 'low' LO isn't required. It's a requirement to give flexibility to the system, unlike the F-117, B-2 and other legacy stealth aircraft.

HVAL - sadly, all the studies carried out for around 15 years by the UK and the US showed that the Harrier layout would just not go supersonic in any meaningful way, and carry the avionics and internal stores required. LM were right to go for a concept that split the lift fan and thrust engine and put the thrust engine at the back of the aircraft.

Have a pop at the aircraft by all means - it's a free forum. But look at the facts, then make up your mind. And make any judgement you like - free country.

Very Best Regards

Engines

hval

20th Mar 2012, 21:33

Engines,

Apologies, I obviously wasn't clear in what I wrote (making pesto and typing at the same time is not a good idea). I agree the current Harrier airframe can not be made to go supersonic. I was talking about a new airframe with some of the Harrier ideas used.

Personally I don't like the F-35 aircraft, but then I was not fond of the Tornado. That eventually became a good aircraft. I do believe that the F-35 will work.

Engines

20th Mar 2012, 21:45

HVAL,

Thanks for coming back - hope the pesto turned out right!

The basic problem with the Harrier concept (one engine providing both lift and thrust) was that to get the thrust required to allow a sensibly capable combat aircraft (around 35 to 40 thousand pounds) to hover required an engine just too big for sustained supersonic flight. Cross section got too big, and using hot gas to provide the main lift effort just didn't work.

The other problem with a big engine in the middle of the aircraft, driven by CG, is that it displaces lots of other stuff you want to put there. One of the major issues with the F-35 weight saving effort was to redesign the aircraft to put lots of bits and pieces back in their proper places. Having a dirty great engine in the middle makes that even harder.

Oner good thing to take away from this thread - STOVL is insanely hard. Supersonic, stealthy STOVL is even harder. Getting the F-35B to where it is, and making it part of a whole family of combat aircraft, is even harder than that. And here's the thing - this achievement (and it is a massive achievement) has included many extremely talented Brits doing things that our American friends could not do. Once in a while, it would be nice to celebrate that.

Hope this helps,

Best Regards

Engines

hval

20th Mar 2012, 21:59

Engines,

Thanks for your response, much appreciated. Your explanation is clear and simple to understand.

I totally agree with your last paragraph.

Pesto did turn out alright; eventually. As I was making it I knew I had left something out but couldn't think what. It was the parmesan. It was only when I was making the pasta that I remembered what I had left out. I hurriedly effected modification.

LowObservable

20th Mar 2012, 22:05

A voyage to the bottom of the Internet yielded an actual link to the story Orac cited above:

Gulf Times ? Qatar?s top-selling English daily newspaper - Britain/Ireland (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=493978&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20)

Cameron had been asked by his defence department, and the Navy in particular, to say that Britain would like to buy the limited Short Take Off Vertical Landing version of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for its two new aircraft carriers...

With the spiralling cost of the catapult apparatus, the Navy switched back to the Stovl or “jump jet version” — grandson of the Harrier — for the new plane. Although the plane is very limited in range and payload, it might enable the Navy to afford both carriers to be fully equipped.

This was to be explained to President Obama. However, voices from Washington suggest that the president said this was no option at all...

It is being circulated that the US is now likely to order only four squadrons of the jump-jet “B” version for the US Marine Corps. Since this would be a maximum of about 65 planes, it is now thought in Washington that this is all a preliminary to cancelling the “B” version altogether.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond appears to have been asked by Cameron “to go through the figures again” with a view to buying the more expensive “B” F-35 and more expensive carrier with “cats and traps” for the aircraft. No announcement is expected before Easter.

OK, this may be full of :mad:. But this is not the work of the guy who covers TOWIE the other four days a week:

Full profile | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2007/may/22/robert.fox)

Curiouser and curiouser.

Not_a_boffin

20th Mar 2012, 22:59

Hval

I understand your point. However, that level of refit/upgrade activity is not typical of what the RN has generally managed over the last 15 years of operating two CVS and one in reserve. The constraint is always the ships complement and (usually) not buying sufficient aircraft / aircrew to maintain 1CAG per ship.

Personally I'd be surprised if whichever of the two QEC doesn't enter service is actually sold. Partly because there are unlikely to be "acceptable" buyers and partly because if we manage to get both ships in the same configuration, you could run them as we do the LPD.

Additional T45 and Astute are of limited value if you don't have the full-spectrum capability (ie organic air) to do proper Fleet ops. This is the conundrum; either have the balanced fleet with the three core capabilities endorsed by every government over the last thirty years, or; build a small coastal fleet of FAC, OPV and MCMV and stay home. A posture that incidentally has similar implications for the Army & RAF.

hval

21st Mar 2012, 07:50

Not_a_boffin,

I agree that we need a complete range of systems to provide adequate defence, whether this be Navy, Army or Royal Air Force. This need includes aircraft carriers (with aircraft).

Unfortunately there are many items missing, including LRMP, sufficient ASW asets, sufficient air defence assets, sufficient submarines, manpower etc. It therefore comes down to what provides maximum protection for the money available. The system must be robust. I really don't feel that the aircraft carrier are it.

As for a coastal fleet. I do feel that we need to increase the size of this.

It will be interesting to see what does happen with the aircraft carriers and the aircraft that should go with them.

kbrockman

21st Mar 2012, 13:58

Read it and weep.
The good news keeps on coming
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/20/more-cost-overruns-delays-and-uncertainty-for-f-35/

F35B probation lift "meaningless"
Software, software, software
Helmet problems that just wont go away
Price inflation for the umptiest time
overall cost now close to 400billion (up from 382)
still design changes expected
testing still at a very low (but steady) pace
rework finished frames 372 million$ on already produced frames payed by government, total = 1 billion$
program now estimates that the number of changes will persist at elevated levels through 2019. Even with the substantial reductions in near-term procurement quantities, DOD is still investing billions of dollars on hundreds of aircraft while flight testing has years to go.

More specifically on the 'B'
While several technical issues have been addressed and some potential solutions engineered, assessing whether the deficiencies are resolved is ongoing and, in some cases, will not be known for years. According to the program office, two of the five specific problems cited are considered to be fixed while the other three have temporary fixes in place. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation reported that significant work remains to verify and incorporate modifications to correct known STOVL deficiencies and prepare the system for operational use. Until the proposed technical solutions have been fully tested and demonstrated, it cannot be determined if the technical problems have been resolved.

but most remarkable
So it’s another barrage of bad news for the Joint Strike Fighter, although the few House lawmakers who showed up for Tuesday’s brief hearing appeared mostly bored about it. Of the little discussion there was, no one broached cancellation. In fact, their outward lack of interest in the F-35 could be a sign of resignation — an ultimate acceptance that a program this big, this important, can endure almost anything.

teeteringhead

21st Mar 2012, 14:05

Personally I can't see why they didn't take the basic Harrier principle further by producing a supersonic airframe. ... they did!

http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/aircraft/virtraf/p1154/images/P1154-Seadart-Tychon-2m.jpg

P1154...cancelled in 1965 :ugh:

LowObservable

21st Mar 2012, 14:22

Cool what-if art... Sadly, though, the PCB (front nozzle reheat) on landing would have been a bit of a sodder in terms of ground environment. Even worse than the Bs back end!

teeteringhead

21st Mar 2012, 14:46

True LowObs, but they'd have had 47 years to sort it out ....... :ugh:

And IIRC was to have been a single-seater for the crabs, and a tandem for the WAFUs.

John Farley

21st Mar 2012, 15:29

Many people have asked me why we never did a supersonic Harrier. My answer to them all was that the Harrier layout did not allow it. To fly supersonically requires an engine specifically designed to produce a very high speed exhaust. In other words the nature of the thrust is important, not just the amount of it.

The physics behind this are remarkably simple. The thrust of a jet engine is calculated by multiplying together just two numbers M and V. M is the mass or amount of air passing through the engine in a given time (pounds per second using the units I was taught at school) while V is the speed increase that the engine imparts to the air as it passes through the engine (feet per second in my day).

With both the Harrier (a typical subsonic fighter) and the F-16 (a typical supersonic fighter) the product of M x V is about 20,000. However the difference between the two aircraft is that the Harrier engine gets its 20,000 by using a big value of M and a modest value of V while the F-16 engine uses a modest value of M but gives it a bigger V.

While 20,000 lb of thrust is plenty to get a small fighter supersonic, it will only do so if the V component of that 20,000 is big enough.

The Harrier engine deliberately uses a small V because a big V would have the ability to damage the surface below it during a VTO and, if not the surface then the under-surfaces of the aircraft itself. Additionally and very importantly, an engine that produces a big V can only do this by making the exhaust very hot. Immersing the bottom of a Harrier and its rubber tyres in such a hot environment would clearly not work.

Helicopters are subject to the same physics regarding thrust so, in the case of a large 20,000 lb helicopter, it uses a huge M (captured by the rotor) and gives it a very small V (the downwash we can feel or see blowing stuff about under a helicopter) but the product is still 20,000.

All this means that you need a different configuration of aircraft from that of the Harrier if you want to produce a practical supersonic vertical landing aircraft.

Finally, any succesful jet lift vertical landing design MUST as in ABSOLUTELY MUST keep efflux that has had fuel burned in it out of the intake during VTO or VL. The Harrier does this by having a front nozzle efflux that splashes reawards and stops the hot air coming forwards. The B does the same thing using the fan efflux.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/JSFexhaust.jpg

LowObservable

21st Mar 2012, 16:28

So true. Hot gas ingestion is bad. HGI into the lift fan would be doubleplus ugly.

hval

21st Mar 2012, 18:45

John,

Thanks for your response.

Do you know if research was carried out on variable pitch stators with variable pitch rotors, an infinitely variable gearbox and a variable inlet with respect to the Harrier?

I know that Pegasus 5 onwards had variable inlet guides.

I do know GE had variable pitch stators on the J-79

I am thinking about if the whole lot were looked at together.

Courtney Mil

21st Mar 2012, 19:16

P1154...cancelled in 1965

Isn't there enough 'bring back the Harrier that did make it into service' without starting on one that didn't? :cool:

Anyway, the RN version was going to be two seat, so would never have been acceptable to that Ward bloke. I guess, in a way, it lost out to the Phantom. Oh, well.

At the end of the day, none of this will change the F-35 at this stage.

Lowe Flieger

21st Mar 2012, 19:49

At the end of the day, none of this will change the F-35 at this stage. Indeed not. There was an opportunity to change when the B was put on probation, which I thought had effectively decoupled it from the other two versions. Reading more here of the technical complexities of STVOL, in a supersonic format to boot, it seems that developing this version separately from the A & C has a lot of merit. Admittedly the original concept of high commonality between all the versions would have been knocked sideways, but the whole programme is being knocked in every direction (barring fast-forward) anyway so what the heck?

Maybe the B would have to lose some Lo capability and perhaps even it's supersonic capability too, but that must be pretty limited already. Bit of a bugger that STOVL requirements had already complicated the conventional variants, but we are where we are.

Lowe Flieger is a bear of very limited technical brain, so if this is either hokum, or has already been commented by someone with greater knowledge, apologies for the interruption. And to Mr Farley, thank you for a very clear, concise explanation which even I could follow.

Milo Minderbinder

21st Mar 2012, 20:29

If you want to go down the route of alternative Harrier developments, take a look at this list of "what might have beens"
Kingston Projects (http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/projects.htm)

These two look interesting
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/images/p1214.jpghttp://www.harrier.org.uk/history/images/1216-2a.jpg

Ivan Rogov

21st Mar 2012, 21:14

The carriers are not going to 'cripple the Defence budget for years’. Let’s look at some NAO figures. Last cost to completion for QE2 class carriers was £5.1bn.

Engines, I'll concede that it may not cripple the Defence budget but it will take a significant portion from a dwindling pot. What neither of us knows is what the through life cost will actually be for running them for 30 or 40 years,
- refit every 2 - 3 years?
- Compatible aircraft and crews (Many Ppruners stressing how much training is needed to keep carrier current and how you can't have a break in it)
- Ships crew and other FAA staff
- thorough training to make it
- facilities large enough to dock and refit
- Escort ships, support ships and a sub (This will be target number 1 for any naval adversary)
- Additional maintenance of operating near salt water?
- Rescue helicopters
- Attrition is a hazardous environment
- etc.

£5.1 billion is the new starting figure, not the final cost.

I am a strong supporter of the RN and understand the value of deployed ships and the capabilities they can provide, but I think the new carriers will create an unbalanced force and divert money from where the RN should be spending it, we have only really needed the capability once in the last 50 or 60 years. Especially as the Carriers look rather weak in some areas of defence due no doubt to deleting items due to cost overruns.

Back to the F-35, IF we assume the B and C will work (given a blank cheque) the only reason for going B is because there is not enough deck to fly C from? The B compromises payload and performance and is for smaller Assault Carriers or those "Helicopter" Carriers you have just sneaked past your parliament :ok:

Why pay all that money to keep that much floating real estate where you want it and not provide the best bang for buck? If you have a day one strike aircraft surely you want to be able to reach all those day one targets which may well be further away, or move the ship closer to the threat :\

The company and various interested parties promise comic book capabilities and ignore any facts that don't suit the program, e.g: It will be a quantum leap in ISTAR and do the job of x, y and z. Question, what will do it for the other 23 hours of the day? It relies on LO to survive against emerging threats which will out speed, range, payload and manoeuvre it already. Question, to be useful after day 1 it needs an external fit increasing signature and further restricting speed and manoeuvre? (If the LO survives embarked Ops). The single pilot will have massive amounts of information, but it is fine the computer will do everything. Question, really? data fusion is never simple but always looks good on the sales video and in the Sim.
If they were at all realistic in what it was and where it fitted in I might trust them, but it seems the answer is F-35 we just need to write the requirement.

ORAC

22nd Mar 2012, 08:19

is this a PR campaign to prepare the ground for cancellation of the B and large curbacks in orders?

Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/)

Courtney Mil

22nd Mar 2012, 10:31

Hmm, doesn't look good, does it? I do like the use of the term, 'Safety Woes'. I can definitely see a military application as in:

Boss, I've got some safety woes to share with you = I just crashed one of your aircraft.

The MoD announced new Tristar safety woes this week = the fleet is grounded

XV234, Sir? Just some safety woes in the red lines = You probably won't make it back.

Just a couple of safety woes there, Bloggs = You've failed your IRT.

LowObservable

22nd Mar 2012, 10:56

ORAC - Looks like a hatchet job to me :8.

CM - American journos are trained to write like that, as well as using terms like "beleaguered", "troubled" or "embattled". I have often attempted to gauge whether those denote different degrees of severity. I did see a reference to "embattled golfer Tiger Woods", suggesting that the word is also a synonym for "horny".

Milo - The aft-swept twin-boom design is the P.1216, which has become an icon among fighter-tech geeks:

BAe P.1216: Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft ProjectTech Profiles: Amazon.co.uk: Michael Pryce: Books

LF - A few people (myself included) dragged up the idea of an "Airbus concept" for JSF, at a point when both X-planes were in trouble: that is, a lot of common subsystems, materials and processes, and a shared supply chain, but with airframes tailored to what was needed.

It was never considered with any seriousness because (1) the UK and Marines were agin it, because it would reveal how much STOVL would really cost, and (2) LockMart and the JPO were telling sweet, sweet porky-pies about how cheap and easy the whole thing would be to develop. build and operate.

glojo

22nd Mar 2012, 12:05

I am the first to accept the age of the Harrier is over... It is gone, it is deceased, It is an ex aircraft but by God there should be a serious, and honest inquiry into its removal from service. The biggest order for the F-35B is the US Marine Corps, and that organisation clearly saw issues with that aircraft and decided it is not going to arrive anytime soon so what do they do? They BUY our Harrier fleet at an embarrassing give away price. This was done just so they could keep an air presence. WHO IS ADVISING OUR GOVERNMENT MINISTERS regarding this fiasco???

Last year I stated I could not see us having an OPERATIONAL carrier complete with air wing before the early 2030's. that was said very much tongue in cheek but by crikey it is looking a more realistic date by the hour and I also ask do we still believe we will get ANY type of fast fixed wing jets for these carriers? I am just hoping all this hype, the journalistic frenzy is just hot air but if just 25% of what we read is true, then this is a huge cluster mistake... I do not believe for one milli-second that the software issue is only applicable to one model.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

22nd Mar 2012, 12:18

There will be no buyback of Harrier, or Harrier replacement. Given yesterday's budget, it would be the pensioners who seem to want it who will be asked to pay for it. Careful what you wish for. Mind you, that might be better than pensioners paying for George's mates' next bottle of bubbly.
Frankly, what happens to the B model is as likely to depend on US election PR as anything else this year - Obama has just pushed building half the XL pipeline whilst visiting Oklahoma having cancelled all of it to keep the Montana treehuggers happy. Given the state of US finances, I think the B model is dead.

Widger

22nd Mar 2012, 12:29

QUOTE]but I think the new carriers will create an unbalanced force and divert money from where the RN should be spending it, we have only really needed the capability once in the last 50 or 60 years. [/QUOTE]

Ivan Rogov,

I am afraid you are twisting the truth a bit here. The reason that the RN (FAA) have not been in more action since 1979, when HMS Ark Royal was de-commisioned, was due to the compromised capability of CVS.

Falklands Conflict - FAA heavily involved
First Gulf War - FAA contribution compromised due to performance of SHAR operating in hot weather conditions off a short deck
OP Deny Flight Bosnia - FAA Heavily involved including SHAR where the aircraft flew CAP, RECCE, CAS - Compromised operation due to capacity of the CVF (numbers of aircraft it could carry). FAA fully contributed to the NATO effort, particularly when shorebased assets were cancelled due to fog.
Sierra Leone - FAA haevily involved
Second Gulf War - FAA heavily involved in assault on Al-Faw. HMS Ark Royal spent 190 days at sea. Harrier Force limited involvement due, once again compromise of capability when operating off a short deck, in hot conditions with limited numbers.
Afghanistan - FAA heavily involved but as land bases were available, quite rightly operated ashore. USN regularly provided support from a Carrier stationed west of Pakistan (up to 30%). CVS capability compromised.
Libya - FAA involved except for fixed wing as capability had been removed thereby removing the ability to CONTRIBUTE to the combined effort.

There are other examples. The RN has, learnt over the last 30 years the cost of not having a large enough deck to operate aircraft off. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are attempts to correct that situation. Whilst the Invincible class through deck cruisers were a good attempt to make the best of a bad job, they were and are, compromised because of their size. Those who argue that replacement of these assets with something of a similar size are missing the point.

If the RN is, in the future, to contribute towards the UK's strategic and operational objectives, it has to have the tools to exert influence, which does not just include boots on the ground or the Red Arrows.

QE and POW, with whatever jet (plus MASC and lift) will be able to:

Exert Defence Diplomacy
Provide the UK with the ability to exert pressure without actually setting foot in a country and exert that influence over a long period of time.
Promote UK trade and Business
Make a full contribution to NATO and our other allies
Improve interoperability particularly with the French
Protect those little bits of rock we still have around the world that are surrounded with Oil/Gas/Fish etc.
Protect troops on the ground
Provide a platform for future UAV operations
Conduct Ship to objective manouvre (over long distances)
Provide engineering, medical and support facilities
Support the RAF ashore
Help retain the UK's claim to British Antarctic Territory
Provide disaster relief
Provide non combatant evacuation
Support other nations with whom we have strategic agreements.

Etc Etc Etc

No other UK asset will be able to fulfill all these tasks, some can individually but, QE and POW will be a huge asset for the UK in both peace and war. When all that is considered, those ships will be very much well worth the investment. The only question is:

WHAT AIRCRAFT CAN WE AFFORD TO OPERATE?

Finningley Boy

22nd Mar 2012, 13:01

I've just been watching the Politics show and Tim Collins and Andy Murphy have both been on speaking admirably of the need for aircraft carriers and with the original B variant JSF; because, as Jim Murphy says, the Harrier is seen as a traditional carrier design and then spoke disparagingly about the SDSR move toward, a he sees it, Top Gun American style conventional carrier operated F35Cs. Colonel Collins, a strong believer in an Expeditionary Army being maintained and seemingly forever more in Afghanistan, also thinks that carriers are indispensible. This is the same Tim Collins, who back in 2006 called for the disbandment of the R.A.F.:*

FB:)

Lowe Flieger

22nd Mar 2012, 13:26

Widger,

You have extolled the virtues of a UK carrier capability. I would love for us to be able to return to the days of my youth when we had proper fighters launched from proper carriers, capable of doing the things you've expounded.

The question is, can we afford to do carrier capability and do it justice? There is already comment in this thread about the supporting capabilities and assets necessary to screen and protect your carrier from all the venom that will be focused on it in a hostile situation: from aircraft, missiles, ships large and small, submarines and everything else the bad guys have available. So even if the capital and sustainment costs of the carrier are manageable when spread over 40+ years, what about the MPA, AEW, EW, destroyers, frigates, submarines, support ships, crews and so on? Can we afford enough, capable, offensive and defensive airframes (estimated 12 F35s by 2025 e&oe)?

If we have the money and political will to fund the full suite of carrier capabilities, I'm with you all the way.

If we don't (which is the miserable reality) let's not risk valuable lives and expensive kit by sending them into danger with half the capability needed to effectively project and self-protect. We may get away with it if acting in concert with someone who can fill the gaps, but if we're on our own, any missing capabilities could be disastrous.

Right now, we are at very real risk of a carrier (singular) with no fighters, or none in the foreseeable future, that can do the job that is a carrier's primary reason for being there.

Since the carriers were first a twinkle in Gordon's (electorate-focussed) eye, I have held the view that I will turn up my toes long before I am in any danger of stubbing them on a fully capable, full-sized, fixed-wing, operational British aircraft carrier. 14 years on, and I am closer to one of these eventualities. It is with a heavy heart and a deep sigh that I am not considering buying protective footwear, so I am being totally truthful when I say I want to be very, very wrong, very, very much.

Bismark

22nd Mar 2012, 13:58

A. The size of a carrier is driven by the required daily sortie generation rate. The higher the SG rate the bigger the carrier and more catapults are needed, vv is true. SG rate drives deck size (for parking, launch and recovery), hangar size for re-generation, magazine size and lift etc etc. There is no special reason for the QE class being 65000 tons excepting the planned SGR.

B. What is the point in having a ship the size of QE if you can't operate allied a/c as well as your own?

C. If we revert to Dave B there is no Plan B. Stick with Dave C and Plan B can be Rafale, F-18 etc etc.

D. Vulnerability of QE is a red herring espoused usually by non-naval types.

E. The alternative of shore based FW is at least as great and expensive - assuming you have permission to operate in the first place, it is also unlikely to be a day 1 capability unless weeks/months of preparation have happened. QE will offer day 1 capability without the politics. Why else does the USN see the CVN as the most important capability in their arsenal.

Jackonicko

22nd Mar 2012, 14:09

I always liked the looks of the P103.

http://prototypes.free.fr/vtol/tilt-jet/BaeP.103_03.jpg

http://prototypes.free.fr/vtol/nouv1/baeP.103_01.jpg

Until I start to think.....

Mickj3

22nd Mar 2012, 14:09

I suspect its "here wego again" with the F35 (whichever variant you choose). Here's hoping my memory doesn't fail me. Back in the very early 60s when I was a veryyoung SAC air radar mechanic (E) skill, (anyone remember them?) on a days dutytrip to the manufacturers airfield recovering black boxes from a Mk1 Vulcan thatwas going to be upgraded to a Mk1A. By sheercoincidence the then leader of the opposition ( well known for the "poundin your pocket" statement some years later) assured the workers at therally that was being held at the same time and same airfield (I was lurking inthe background with the rest of the team) that the then, under development,TSR2 (much enhanced and capable Canberra replacement I believe) would not becancelled should the electorate vote his party into power at the up and comingelection. Indeed he added "Thecancellation of the TSR2 has not been discussed by my party and there are noplans to terminate its development". Well we all know what happened next.:confused:

As an alternative to the now scrapped TSR2 the new governmentpromised that as a replacement the RAF would get the American F111 which, when,entering squadron service would be cheaper and more capable than the defunctTSR2. The F111 was under development inthe US. It was the first major swing wing aircraft tobe developed and the Americans werehaving problems with it, a couple had crashed and costs were escalating. The pound in your pocket government then gota severe attack of cold feet, cancelled the F111 and bought the Phantom. Incidentally, a surviving TSR2 is on displayat the museum at Cosford (and a beautiful mean machine she looks to). The F111 proved a most capable multi roleaircraft and is still in service with the USAF 40/50 years later having seenactive service from the Vietnam war onwards . The Phantom is long gone.

Fast forward to the next century and son of pound in yourpockets government announces that the RN is to get two 60,000 aircraft carriers(I looked across my desk at a serving wing commander, shook my head, andmuttered well that will never happen, he agreed). We then go through a period of costescalations, timescale amendments, one carrier or two questions, cats and trapsand VTOL/STOL? All very predictable andtrue to form. Then just when I thought I'd seen it, done it and heard it allthe successor of pound in your pocket government (lets call it "grandsonof never had it so good government") withdraws the Harriers and sells themto the USMC who I now suspect have an insurance policy should the F35B programmego the same way as the TSR2.

Predictions:-

a. Should the RN receive the two 60,000 aircraft carriers (which I very much doubt) they will be without cats & traps.

b. The F35B will be cancelled.

c. The USMC having further upgraded the ex British harriers refuses a lend lease agreement unless the British acknowledge that it was the US alone that broke the Enigma code and manned Bletchley Park.

d. The two carriers will (thanks to the miracle of politics) overnight become the long awaited and planned helicopter/commando carriers.

Alternative Prediction:-

The Indian and Spanish navies will each acquire a new Harrier capable flagship.

LowObservable

22nd Mar 2012, 14:36

The auto-eject on that design would have been on a hair-trigger.

Jackonicko

22nd Mar 2012, 14:44

Which is, I guess, why Warton's STOVL dreams moved on to the pretty but more conventional looking P.112 and P.116

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l206/Overkiller_2006/Vertically%20Challenged/1988_12784L.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3087/p112116yu9.jpg

glojo

22nd Mar 2012, 15:00

Glojo, this is an honest question - why do we need any kind of enquiry in the removal of the Harrier? It's rubbish that it's gone but it was one or the other & it went.

What would an enquiry hope to achieve? When the price the US Marines were paying for these aircraft was announced I was amazed at this so called deal but was told we could only get what the buyer was prepared to pay! Now to my simple way of thinking, if there were going to be ANY delays in the F-35B those nations that are still operating the harrier are going to require more spares to keep their aircraft flying plus replacement aircraft for those that are no longer serviceable. Can I suggest that the stocks we had would therefore not devalue and the speed of disposal was not the best option?

I am NOT using hind sight when I make this comment, the F-35B was having problems LONG before we sold these aircraft the B was on probation because of problems but we sold those Harriers at a give away bargain basement price!! Hence my comment to perhaps have a re-look at this sale :O

glojo

22nd Mar 2012, 15:50

Hi Course_profile
I have tried to keep my answer on topic regarding issues with the F-35 program as I am in TOTAL agreement with these wise words.
Isn't there enough 'bring back the Harrier that did make it into service' without starting on one that didn't?From a solely fiscal position could it be suggested that these assets were a gold mine whose value might only RAPIDLY increase? We get fobbed off with claims that these aircraft were old, or they were only going to be used as spares but the reality is:

Compare the UK version of the sale to the US version

UK

Mr Luff told parliament: "We have agreed the sale of the final 72 Harrier aircraft frames and associated parts which will be used as a major source of spares for the US Marine Corps Harrier AV-8B fleet of aircraft."Compared to the US who purchased this major source of spares for the US Marine Corps
The sale of the Harriers is bound to raise fresh questions about the wisdom of retiring the much-admired aircraft, which the Americans intend to use until 2025.
Speaking to the NavyTimes, Rear Admiral Mark Heinrich, chief of the US Navy's supply corps, said buying the Harriers made sense because many of the jets had been recently upgraded, and the US already had pilots who could fly them.
"We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them," he said. "It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it. These are very good platforms."
The reported price we got for those SEVENTY TWO (72) aircraft plus alleged hangers full of spare parts varies from between £34m to £116m and is that a good return or any type of value for money?

Yes I do have views on keeping those aircraft but as I say that has been flogged to death and is over....

APOLOGIES for the thread drift and back to the F-35B

Fox3WheresMyBanana

22nd Mar 2012, 15:59

Trying to put myself in the position of the MoD re Harrier sale.
The only likely buyer is the USMC.
They offered us more than scrap.
They are going to an ally.

Did not the same situation exist in 1940 when we got those 50 destroyers off the Yanks?

and MoD is not in the business of speculating on the possible delays to the F-35B, especially as that would be betting against current policy.

Keeping it on the F-35B, I would now expect the US to be a bit more favourable towards us over it's future. It looks like that may have happened with Barak giving Dave a quiet word in his shell-like over current difficulties. They still seem to be keeping the Canadians in the dark over F-35 costs.

John Farley

22nd Mar 2012, 16:12

I think the simple answer to all your questions is no. In the early days engine reilability was seen as vital to the future of jet VSTOL. Usually reliability gets better as you avoid complexity. In 1964 the Pegasus I flew had a 1 hour life with the nozzles deflected (25 hrs nozzles aft). Whenever it was pulled after the hour was up and went back for a strip overhaul there was always one blade missing in the hot end so the life allowance was hardly ultra-conservative. I don't know what thrust that engine would have produced at 50 deg C but I would guess about 8,000lb. Today's donk offers over 24,000 plus goodness knows what life - I lost interest once it passed 1000 hrs years ago.

There was continued development of the front end blade shapes and much more importantly big improvements to the hot end. In the end the Pegaus was FLAT RATED to 50deg C ambient. Or if you are not familiar with the significance of that in plain English it translates to the pilot only had RPM limits and could turn his back on JPT instead of checking that with evey third breath as was the case in earlier times.

With a powered lift aircraft you must control the thrust centre in the hover in the same way as the CG in normal flight. (sorry if I am teaching granny to suck eggs)

GreenKnight121

23rd Mar 2012, 00:44

The F111 proved a most capable multi roleaircraft and is still in service with the USAF 40/50 years later having seenactive service from the Vietnam war onwards . The Phantom is long gone.

Not quite... The USAF retired the last bomber-version F-111 in July 1996, and the last EF-111 in May 1998.

The only other user in the world, Australia, retired theirs in December 2010.

So the USAF only used the F-111 for 30 years, and the RAAF used them for 37 years (delivered 1973).

Mickj3

23rd Mar 2012, 06:21

Apologies Green Knight, I stand corrected.

LowObservable

23rd Mar 2012, 10:10

JF - "Usually reliability gets better as you avoid complexity."

So true. Thank goodness that the F-35B is a nice, simple system with two propulsion units, a clutch, 90-degree 20MW reduction gears, four thrust nozzles, a blocker valve, a set of cascades and nine cover doors. :E

Actually, I tend to agree with Engines that making all this work is a miracle of engineering. I do worry that it will always be a bit of a bear from the maintenance aspect.

Milo Minderbinder

23rd Mar 2012, 10:33

I do worry that it will always be a bit of a bear from the maintenance aspect

I read somewhere that one particular inspection hatch has 20 different screws, all of different lengths. Just to save weight
Can that make sense??? If its true, and typical, the possibility of a screw-up in maintenance must be considerable

Engines

23rd Mar 2012, 14:16

Milo,

The aircraft with a hatch with 20 plus different lengths of screws is - Typhoon. That aircraft had an equally massive (but unreported) weight problem during development. Actually, most combat aircraft have a weight problem at some time. STOVL brings it into sharper focus as the weight vs. thrust equation is fairly black and white.

I can tell you that every panel on JSF was carefully looked at to get weight out, and the teams doing this had a lot of input from highly skilled and experienced maintainers.

The best solution from a maintenance aspect would be one size of fastener over the whole aircraft. Not practicable, so the next best choice is one size in one panel. If you can't bear that weight, things are more complicated and you end up trading fastener size and length - neither the best choice.

On one JSF panel I remember we ended up going for two different fastener sizes, far enough apart to make it harder to use the wrong tool. JSF has lots of panels (good for access) so lots of fastener issues to address.

As far as the multiplicity of nozzles, hatches and covers go, well that's what you get when you ask an LO supersonic aircraft to have a minimum flying speed of zero. I have to admit to getting ever so slightly miffed when people get sarcastic over that truth.

I suppose what I'm trying to put over is that the JSF team have done their level best to cover all the angles and meet the specs. The most onerous specs were in the areas of logistics and maintenance and they have spent a shedload of time and money to get to the best answers they can. They have also used highly talented people. Have they got everything just hunky dory? No. Have they done damn well? Hell, yes.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

Lowe Flieger

23rd Mar 2012, 17:14

Why Major Acquisition Programs Fail | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2012/03/01/DT_03_01_2012_p30-427618.xml&headline=Why%20Major%20Acquisition%20Programs%20Fail)

The link takes you to an Aviation Week item from a few weeks back. Not a technical piece but easy reading, and I could certainly recognise the traits discussed in military programmes I have observed over many years. It isn't F35-specific and it's short on answers, but then so are we all. While finances stay tighter than a duck's posterior, it's very important we do things different next time. If we are awash with cash then you just keep spending it until it does what you said it would, but it's hard to see when those days might return. I see the USAF have also recently said their budget for F35A will not increase, so if the price goes up, the units purchased will come down.

It's part of F35's woes that it is facing unprecedented (in recent times) global financial headwinds. In other times, it might have raised much grumbling but the bills would have been paid. Equally, there seems to have been some very optimistic assumptions. Over-confidence in CAD for instance, that has delayed the programme to the point where it has been caught in a financial storm it might otherwise just have sneaked in front of and missed the worst.

I have no doubt that lots of people are now shedding blood sweat and tears - and then some more - to try and get it back on track. The cost is now out of the window and it's too late for it to be anything other than really ugly (not that it's the first military procurement to suffer from that). The acid tests now will be that the output matches or exceeds the input ie it meets the KPP's, and that it is still relevant when we get there. I wish the people charged with the responsibility for the first bit the luck to match their efforts. The second bit, I just wish all the users waiting for it all the luck in the world too.

JFZ90

23rd Mar 2012, 18:50

Engines, nice post - as was your call to celebrate the uk engineering contribution to JSF earlier.

Was the typhoon panel you mention the avionics bay panel? Wasn't this also structural? Were the bolts captive?

LowObservable

23rd Mar 2012, 20:05

"That's what you get when you ask an LO supersonic aircraft to have a minimum flying speed of zero."

Very true. I don't think anyone could have done much better, except perhaps the Macs design with a main-engine blocker and pop-out nozzles and a lift engine.

But nobody said in 1995: "Errrmmm... it's taken 30 years and the testing of all kinds of weird-looking aircraft to get where we can think of supersonic STOVL - and now we want LO as well?"

Or, quite possibly they did, and were told: "Don't bother your head about it, sonny, because it all has to do with stealth, and all you're cleared to know about that is Oooh-ee Oooh-ha-ha Ping Pang Walla Walla Wing Wang. Now :mad: off."

Obi Wan Russell

24th Mar 2012, 10:12

Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164155/Aircraft-carrier-costs-will-be-half-what-you-think-US-tells-ministers.html)

The septics are stepping in to the argument to tell us to stop messing around!

Heathrow Harry

24th Mar 2012, 10:20

Well that changes everything!

if the US are willing to GUARANTEE the cost will only be £ 400 miilion its an easy decision (tho the rip-off merchants building the crarriers will have to find another way of charging squillions for their bottom line)

if the US are saying their best estimate is £ 400mm then I think we'd look at their own record of forecasting costs on the B-2, F-22 and F-35.....................

LFFC

24th Mar 2012, 10:21

Referring to the spirilling cost of conversion a few days ago, Not_a_Boffin noted:

From what I've seen, this isn't the shipbuilder. The contract to do the detailed conversion design and estimate was only let in Oct 2011, so I doubt they have any real numbers to hand.

This smells like a programme office risk-on-risk forecast or worse a MB estimate but including all the other things people can think of adding on. You'd almost think some people wanted to go back to the B for some reason......

After today's revelation in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164155/Aircraft-carrier-costs-will-be-half-what-you-think-US-tells-ministers.html), it looks like he may be correct and the programme office are finally stepping away from the "Conspiracy of Optimism" that has underpriced this, and many other projects, for the last few years.

kbrockman

24th Mar 2012, 10:28

Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers - Telegraph

The septics are stepping in to the argument to tell us to stop messing around!

This must surely silence the sceptics for now, let alone the septics.

Lowe Flieger

24th Mar 2012, 12:47

Well, well, well. I wouldn't have put 'Spreadsheet Phil' down as a natural proponent of the Hokey Cokey. Perhaps he will give us a verse or two when he comes to make his announcement to the House Of Commons. Well done, Not_a_Boffin. Seems you got there before the USN did.

Meantime, Norway is gagging for F35 (helps if you have one of the few remaining strong economies in the West, underpinned by buckets of oil) Norway May Speed F-35 Buy | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120323/DEFREG01/303230003/Norway-May-Speed-F-35-Buy?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE), and Mr Kopp and Mr Sweetman, well-known F35 antagonists, would have it that the 'injuns' are already lying in wait in the rocks above the pass, armed with new bows and arrows and waiting for the coyboys to arrive. Fighters, Missiles For Countering Stealth | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p64-434177.xml&headline=Fighters,%20Missiles%20For%20Countering%20Stealth)

Finningley Boy

24th Mar 2012, 12:56

Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164155/Aircraft-carrier-costs-will-be-half-what-you-think-US-tells-ministers.html)

Another interesting development reported in the Telegraph. Who knows perhaps good ol' American common sense will prevail and prevent the UK Government from another supreme act of folly?!:}

FB:)

LowObservable

24th Mar 2012, 13:11

LF - Some wacky translation in that Noggy WP. Generally speaking, "speed" (v.) does not mean "delay by four to six years versus the program of record", to wit:

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/JSF_PSFD_MOU_-_Update_4_2010.PDF (page 88)

The PSFD memo is old, of course, but there have been no official changes communicated to the US since then. This may explain why the Norwegian defense minister was characterized as "weasely" by US government people dealing with JSF (thank you Wikileaks).

The UK's "better pull a quick 360 and get the hell outta here" maneuver follows some interesting comings and goings - let's just say that there's more involved than USN pilots looking forward to exchanges on ships with more beverage options than Coke - and the Torygraph echoes the Standard's story cited a couple of pages back.

And may I echo the fact that Mr Boffin was right as usual. The horrors of SRVL may be avoided, and (for Mr Boffin) the even greater horrors consequent on the adoption of SRVL as routine procedure, on account of rash commitments made on these pages by said Boffin, recede into the dark corners of nightmare.

John Farley

24th Mar 2012, 16:25

Somebody told me that mixed up in this whole sorry B/C story is that the power supplies of the boat will have to be changed (whichever type of cat) and there is some concern about the modest top speed of the class as well.

Bastardeux

24th Mar 2012, 16:34

If the power supplies do have to be replaced, does that not negate the argument, put forward by the manufacturers, that the ships are easily convertible into one configuration or another? I should think, getting power supplies out of a ship, once it's already been built, is a potentially prohibitive operation...though I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about here.

Lowe Flieger

24th Mar 2012, 17:09

Yes, sorry about the 'wacky' language LO. I got a bit carried away by a beautiful spring morning and I have now had my medication. Anyway, Lockheed Martin started it by calling the F35 'Lightning'.

I am now totally confused as to what is or is not going to be announced, if anything, about carriers, cats, Bs or Cs.

The cost of a catapult is prohibitive... or not
The B is cheaper....or not
The US is going to cancel the B...or not
The QEC engines can take it....or not
We can afford it - well that's not or not either way
We are going to buy the more capable C...or not.

It's all getting so muddled that I am almost resigned to waiting to hear what Phil has to say...or not.

Squirrel 41

24th Mar 2012, 17:19

The other angle of this is La France - and the cooperation Treaty we signed with them last year on matters naval and nuclear. If we go back to Dave-B (and pls God, make this stupid idea stop) then La France is rather stuff-ed whenever Port-Avion CdG needs to be fixed.

So according to the last rumor I heard, Dave is getting it from Barack and from Sarko: Dude, don't do the stupid thing....!

S41

LowObservable

24th Mar 2012, 17:38

Mr Boffin says that there enough volts to do the job. It needs software changes and cables. And a bloody great plug.

Willard Whyte

24th Mar 2012, 17:47

Lockheed Martin started it by calling the F35 'Lightning'.

What of it, if you don't mind me asking?

Lowe Flieger

24th Mar 2012, 18:03

Quote:
Lockheed Martin started it by calling the F35 'Lightning'.
What of it, if you don't mind me asking? 24th Mar 2012 17:38
WW,

Simply that I associate 'Lightning' with something that arrives very, very quickly. F35 is, at a guess, 10 years away, maybe more, and some versions it seems may never arrive at all.

kbrockman

24th Mar 2012, 18:03

Don't shoot the messenger
Somebody told me that mixed up in this whole sorry B/C story is that the power supplies of the boat will have to be changed (whichever type of cat) and there is some concern about the modest top speed of the class as well.

Mr Boffin says that there enough volts to do the job. It needs software changes and cables. And a bloody great plug.

from all I've heard and saw this catapult is essentially nothing more than an, albeit complex, linear electromotor not unlike the system used for a MAGLEV.
Therefor it is not without logic to think that it will draw its power for each shot from a buffer aka a set of capacitors, this would not require an overwhelmingly large dimentioned powercable from the generator to the capacitors, it'll probably have ample of loadtime (30-45 sec) to prepare for the next shot.
Therefor high peakpower from the generator is probably not required even with 2 (and in the case of the US NAVY 4) CAT's in constant use at its highest possible rate.

AKAIK the US NAVY CVN's must be able to launch 4 planes every 90 seconds at the least, but probably don't better 4 every minute which gives about 1 minute between every launch per CAT.

LowObservable

24th Mar 2012, 18:32

The current configuration is a bit more steampunk. The juice spins up a bank of seriously big-a55 motor-flywheel-generators which store energy kinetically. Throw switch, dump energy rapidly into cat. SHAZAM! Capacitors are under study, not ready for Ford or PoW.

As for the name Lightning - it reminds me of the scene in To The Manor Born where DeVere tells Audrey (Penelope Keith) that his new horse is named Fearless, and she responds:

"He's a coward. Horses are always named for the opposite of what they actually are. If you ever find a horse called Utter Rubbish, buy it."

Ms Keith was superb in The Good Life, too, but was always upstaged by the dynamic phenomena occurring in Felicity Kendal's shirts.

Not_a_boffin

24th Mar 2012, 19:35

Mmmmmm, Felicity Kendall........

Right - back to electrickery. The link below gives the details on the EMALS system.

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) (http://atg.ga.com/EM/defense/emals/index.php)

The main difference twixt the CVN78 fit and the QEC fit is that for CVN, you have a power generation grid that is separate from the propulsion system, ie the kettle generates electrical power via turbo-generators, but the main propulsion system is geared steam turbines. On QEC, the main engines (two Trent GTAs and 4 Wartsila diesels) generate electrickery (about 110MW) that powers both the ships propulsion system (four 20MW electric motors, scaled up from the T45 plant) and the ships service load. The only difference I can think of is that CVN probably distributes electrical power at 450V AC 60hz, which is what the "Prime Power Interface" will see, whereas QEC distributes shipwide at 11kV AC, but steps down to 440V 60hz for zonal power supplies.

I'm far from being an expert in electrickery, but would have thought that the PPI shouldn't be too difficult to modify to accept 440V. As noted previously, there will have to be work done on the QEC power management system, but it should only be accepting another pair of loads (cat 1 and cat 2) of some small MW. That will cause some balancing issues but nothing that shouldn't be possible to overcome.

As far as "convertible" goes, there appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding. The meaning of the term was always that if during the design, build or service life of QEC, the STOVL option became a non-starter or was superseded by a CTOL aircraft or UCAV, then the design of teh ship was such that cats n' traps could be accommodated. What this actually means is that there is enough space to accommodate cats, recovery deck and safe parking areas, there is enough spare volume in the gallery deck to fit cats n traps of whatever flavour and that there is sufficient weight provision in the stability and structural calculations. It was never intended that you could just plug and play - what it meant was that the ship was essentially capable of conversion without starting again.

IMO opinion the limited speed of QEC (which was one of the early performance trades) might have an impact, but not due to EMALS, more an operational issue when trying to recover aircraft with light winds from astern on the MLA. That basically means you have to turn away from your desired course and work up to a fair speed to have sufficient wind over deck for the cabs to land. You pays your money and takes your choice, it's a minor PITA, rather than a real showstopper.

kbrockman

24th Mar 2012, 20:53

About the EMALS, I was just attempting a best guess how it is set up,
Capacitorbanks or flywheel as a buffer, it doesn't really matter I guess but still,
thx for clearing things up.

BTW, I'm certain that I've read somewhere ,over here or on the keypublishing
forums or somewhere else, that the speed of the carrier is supposed to be a lot less important for the use of the EMALS-CAT, even the heaviest planes at MTOW can take off with 0 wind over deck.
The more gradual acceleration and higher total power is supposed to make the EMALS superior in those regards vs the old C11 and C13 steam cat.

ALso the speed for landing is high enough for CDG to work with all its planes, also only 28-ish knots and that is even smaller than the future UK CVF.

kbrockman

24th Mar 2012, 21:15

just a follow up question.

All this made me wonder, why doesn't the RN opt for a Nuclear propulsion
for their carriers?
Sure it must be a little more expensive to install (200 million $ per reactor acc. to US NAVY) but so is fuel I would guess, also it would have gotten rid of the exhaust, made for a better smalller island , and limitless 20 year full speed, I would think?

Not that it would need to be a British design, but an American of the shelf reactor like the new A1B on the CVN78 would have done the job , no?
+150000HP is about what you get now with the complex setup of no less than 6 powersources, all of different size and even different fueltypes (GAS and diesel).

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Nuclear%20Marine%20Propulsion.pdf

Or is this just a dumb question on my behalf ?

typerated

24th Mar 2012, 22:11

It seems to me JSF is flawed by trying to be too many things-

Replacing F-111s for the RAAF at one end of the spectrum to Harriers and A-10s at the other. oh, by the way, can you also make it to be the second best fighter around (after F-22) for the next 30 years. I'm half surprised it was not pencilled in for tac airlift too.

It seems to me the B model should have been a seperate machine - a Harrier 3? Perhaps then we would have two winning machines on the verge of entering service.

Can anyone enlighten me what plans were afoot for a next generation Harrier before it got swallowed up into JSF?

I would also be interested to know - was differential vectoring of thrust ever tested on a Harrier? By that I mean keeping the aft exhausts pointing backwards and rotating the front ones down (slightly). I always thought it would give a massive boost to turning performance - although at the cost of another button to switch between 2 and 4 nozzle vectoring.

Not_a_boffin

24th Mar 2012, 22:26

The carrier speed doesn't affect EMALS which is indeed a zero wod system. Nor does it prevent recovery. Low speed just adds a level of operational embuggerance in certain scenarios , that's all.

As for a kettle powered ship, you have to realise that the decision was taken in the mid-90s, when all of a sudden the decommissioning costs of nuclear ships began to look scary (see the sixteen or so old subs we still have floating in Rosyth & Devonport). The lack of somewhere to store the waste at end of life and the high costs basically killed it without much in way of detailed study.

Given the current debate about PWR3 and UK reactor design capability, a few years later might have brought a different conclusion. Difficult to say really.

Finnpog

24th Mar 2012, 22:56

Lockheed Martin started it by calling the F35 'Lightning'.
What of it, if you don't mind me asking?

Wasn't the F-22 going to be the Lightning II as well, until someone thought that Raptor sounded cooler?

sycamore

24th Mar 2012, 23:37

At appx £200m an aircraft ,with Spitfires /Seafires on the market at £2m each,I think it would be much better if this F-35 was ditched and we bought some quality aircraft instead....Much better for the anoraks,sound better,look better,quantity over perhaps quality;;; As the USAF blame the pilot for the loss of an F-22,because of a design failure,what will happen when someone ditches one of these `wonderful`5th generation warbirds..... What a `waste of space`; who are we presumed to be going up against anyway..? China..? NKorea..? bunch of Somali pirates ?

TURIN

24th Mar 2012, 23:57

Fascinating thread-thanks all.

What a `waste of space`; who are we presumed to be going up against anyway..? China..? NKorea..? bunch of Somali pirates ?

Now that does beg the question, did anyone presume in say, 1980 that a war with Argentina would be on the cards within a couple of years?

Bastardeux

25th Mar 2012, 01:18

With regards to the nuclear propulsion; the only conclusion that I can come to, is that non-nuclear propulsion looked good for short term finances for both its construction years and the years following the end of its service life...the labour government was all about making the numbers look good, even if the underlying truth wasn't good!

kbrockman

25th Mar 2012, 02:09

Windspeed, a question.

The F35C doens't need any windspeed to get launched at MTOW with the new EMALS, that much seems to be clear now.
What about the F35B, could that lift off with a skijump at MTOW but without
windspeed over deck ?

Not_a_boffin

25th Mar 2012, 07:06

The non-nuclear decision predated the election of the Smiling Menace and his mate the Financial Genius, believe it or not, when the ship was called CV(R). Yes, the gestation has been that long!

As for whether the B will do MTOW with zero WoD/ski-jump, I don't know. ISTR the requirement may have been for that, but don't know whether that stuck. Engines will probably know, but not sure whether it's releasable or not.

John Farley

25th Mar 2012, 14:46

Windspeed over deck is a landing problem for a trap. Too little and you have the hook out or break the wires.

kbrockman

25th Mar 2012, 17:17

That's how I figured it would be, I was specifically talking about the
take-off fase.
However, your remark got me thinking, would the 25 knot speed of the new CVF's be to little, to slow ?

As far as I know, the French carrier sails at max 27 knts and it seems to do ok, also with E2 , C2 and the heavy superhornets, no?
Also don't the Naval aviators usually also practise landing on a simulated
portion of dedicated airfields that have a Carrier deck layout incl complete Arrestor wire systems ?
They don't move forward and therefor don't have an extra windcomponent, granted the planes are probably at or close to minimum weight when landing meaning lower app speed and lower stress on the frame , but still ?

Somewhere in Russia;
http://www.9abc.net/wp-content/uploads/ta-thumbnails-cache/TAdownload/2011/8/2922-1.jpg

Obi Wan Russell

25th Mar 2012, 17:27

It's the NITKA facility in the Ukraine actually, and they are rumoured to be about to rent it out to the Chinese and/or the Indians in the near future as well as the Russians!

As to the CVF speed, officially 25+ knots. The 'plus' bit is telling to me. The RN has a track record of understating the top speed of it's warships, for years the Invincibles were quoted as being capable of 28 knots, but in the last decade the figure seems to have been revised to 30 knots... I iwould personally be surprised if the CVFs could only do 25 nots in service, but it should also be remembered that Wind-Over-Deck is normally composed of ship speed and local wind, hence the order to 'turn the ship into the wind' before flying operations commence. Nil wind conditions certainly are a factor, but by no means the norm for carrier ops.

kbrockman

25th Mar 2012, 17:31

***double post***

LowObservable

25th Mar 2012, 17:36

New delay over fighter jet choice - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164950/New-delay-over-fighter-jet-choice.html)

You put your STOVL in, you take your STOVL out
You whip out your Catobar and shake it all about

Can we get some :mad:ing adult supervision around here?

/weeps softly, bangs head on desk

Actually, what this looks like is a retaliatory leak for the Stackley letter leak.

Easy Street

25th Mar 2012, 18:27

I don't have any pearls of wisdom or insider knowledge to offer here so forgive me while I vent my spleen in a possibly-uninformed way...

How on earth can converting the carriers to CATOBAR cost £2bn? The possibility of converting the carriers at a later stage in their life had been discussed several years ago, so one would think there would have been at least a 'nod' to possible conversion in the basic design. Given that a whole Type 45 destroyer costs 'only' £1bn all-in - and the biggest liners in the world come in around the £0.75bn mark - the £2bn quote is a :mad::mad::mad: outrage. If it is true, then BAE should be ashamed of themselves for taking such ridiculous advantage of their captive market - some degree of premium is inevitable but this is just obscene! If this is the price of having an "indigenous defence capability" then I'm not entirely convinced it's worth it... :*

Rant over.

Finningley Boy

25th Mar 2012, 18:38

The latest headline on the Telegraph website says that "Defence Chiefs" are the ones in favour of reverting to the F35B and simply because of the cost of converting the carriers. This seems odd to me, I would have thought the professional opinion would have been full y in favour of the F35C, for all the obvious reasons. This whole F35 saga is really developing into the greatest defence procurement fiasco since the MRA4.:}

FB:)

Courtney Mil

25th Mar 2012, 18:38

Good rant, Easy. And in my uninformed way, I agree with you. As for BAES taking advantage, what's new?

LowObservable

25th Mar 2012, 20:25

According to Boffin, it's not GBP2 billion... The problem is the absence of a good estimate, which is allowing those who want to stampede the decision-makers to make up their own.

Also missing is any serious evaluation of the through-life cost of Bs and Cs. The B can't help being more expensive to maintain, on account of its many extra moving parts, but then you may need more training cats/traps with the C.

I say "may" because automated carrier landing is already being demoed with some success and will (or at least should) be standard, well within the lifetime of QEC and JSF,

SpazSinbad

25th Mar 2012, 22:02

Nice Su NITKA pic 'kbrockman' - thanks. A lot more 'carrier landing' info can be found from an URL in a previous entry on this thread.

F-35C carrier approach info: VX-23 'Salty Dogs' Joint Strike Fighter Update -LCDR Ken “Stubby” Sterbenz VX-23 Ship Suitability Department Head in Paddles Monthly - Sept 2010

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlySeptember2010.pdf (1.3Mb)

"The F-35C is 51.5 ft long and has a wingspan of 43 ft and 668 ft2 of wing area (7 ft longer wingspan and 208ft2 more wing area than the Air force or Marine versions.) It also carries 19,800 lbs of internal fuel - 1000 pounds more gas then the Air Force version. It is powered by a Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that produces 28k lbs and 43k lb of thrust in MIL and AB respectively. The max trap weight will be around 46k lbs, with an empty weight of about 35k lbs. It will fly an on-speed AOA of 12.3° at 135-140 KCAS [Optimum Angle of Attack or Donut]...."
____________

Some info from the F-35C 'drop testing':

Lightning shock: key.Aero, Military Aviation (http://www.key.aero/view_feature.asp?ID=71&thisSection=military)

“…The tests were successfully carried out between March and April [2010], and included dropping CG-01 95 inches at 20 feet per second, with an 8.8 deg pitch [near Optimum AoA 12.3], two degree roll, and 133 knot wheel speed, simulating a carrier-deck landing.…”

Perhaps from this information some approach conditions to CVF can be inferred - at NIL WOD for CVF but even knowing 'wheel speed' from above link it is not known if this is the maximum wheel speed for a carrier landing. We know I believe that the runway wheel speed is much higher for takeoff while F-35A landing speed is said to be 25 KIAS higher than F-35C approach speed (with a flare reducing final touch down speed for A model : The Joint Strike Fighter: A plane for all reasons | Machine Design (http://machinedesign.com/article/the-joint-strike-fighter-a-plane-for-all-reasons-0307))) but how that applies to a carrier landing given the other unknowns about the capacity of the arrestor gear (weight of aircraft and engaging speed limits) I'll just have to scratch my nose.
_______________

Some more grist for the mill with a higher landing speed mentioned:

Vought Test Lab Performs Series of Drop Tests on F-35C for LM (http://www.asdnews.com/news/27850/Vought_Test_Lab_Performs_Series_of_Drop_Tests_on_F-35C_for_LM.htm)

"...This “drop test” is done to simulate a landing on an aircraft carrier. As a fighter jet approaches the deck of a carrier, forty-six thousand pounds of airplane is traveling at 138 knots and hitting the deck with a thud, stressing the airframe and especially the jet’s landing Vought Test Lab Simulates Jet Landing on an Aircraft Carrier gear with thousands of pounds of pressure. Every part of the gear must withstand that tremendous stress time after time with no structural failure...."
_____________________

JSF Carrier Variant Meets First Flight Goals Jun 8, 2010 By Graham Warwick

JSF Carrier Variant Meets First Flight Goals | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/06/07/awx_06_07_2010_p0-232376.xml&headline=JSF%20Carrier%20Variant%20Meets%20First%20Flight%20 Goals)

“Handling with landing gear down was a key focus of the first flight as the F-35C has a 30% larger wing and uprated flight controls to reduce takeoff and landing speeds compared with the other F-35 variants. Knowles says the aircraft approached at 135 kt., compared with 155 kt. for the smaller-winged F-35A and B variants at the same 40,000-lb. gross weight. Takeoff rotation speed was 15-20 kt. slower, he says...."
_______________________

From the above my back of envelope calculations are: CVF at 10 knots in NIL wind can arrest at Maximum Landing Weight F-35C at Opt. Angle of Attack Approach (140- KIAS) within limits of the USN Mk.7 Mod 3 or better Arresting Gear (I'll presume that the new Advanced Arresting Gear - AAG has better capability). LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL (REV. B) with Arrest Gear Stats here: http://63.192.133.13/VMF-312/LSO.pdf [no longer available] OR [will advise of new location when found]

OR USN Mk.7 Arrestor Gear info here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/cv-alre-a_2002.pdf

NB: The above 'back of postage stamp' calculations did not take into account the speed definitions and factors here: 'REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT PHASE I; FINAL REPORT'

SPEED DEFINITIONS:

http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/NAVAIR_2002_71.pdf

"The relationship between Vpa, WOD, and engaging speed is significant to the discussion of approach requirements. Touchdown speed is defined as 105% of Vpa. The 5% factor added to the touchdown speed is not arbitary. It is based on actual ship survey data and the statistical variation seen in the actual touchdown speeds. The percentage varies with each aircraft. However, for design purposes, a 5% factor is used as a nominal value to define touchdown speed. Engaging speed is defined as touchdown speed minus WOD. Closure speed is the relative speed between the aircraft and the ship. The engaging speed limit is the minimum of the arresting gear limit speed, hookload limit speed, or limiting sink speed. The engaging speed must not exceed the engaging limit speed for safe recovery. WOD is generated by the combination of natural wind and/or ship speed.
+ [from diagram in PDF]
Engaging Speed Factor (0.06 x Approach Speed)"
_______________

For various 'speed' definitions and other assortments:
REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT PHASE I; FINAL REPORT

http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/NAVAIR_2002_71.pdf

There are adverse effects if the 'ideal' WOD is not achieved with too much Wind Over the Deck having unintended consequences. Info on this aspect here: Effect of Wind Over Deck Conditions on Aircraft Approach Speeds for Carrier Landings 1991

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA239511
_______________________

F-35B Key Performance Parameter - KPP conditions (not certain if current because the distance has recently been increased from 550 to 600 feet on a flat deck):

"The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) and with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile."

Download a 0.4Mb PDF here: Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html

Easy Street

25th Mar 2012, 23:24

Having calmed down somewhat from my previous rant, I am struggling to think who in MoD favours the -B over the -C model. Outside the MoD the key STOVL protagonists are presumably the USMC and Rolls-Royce, and possibly BAES if earlier posts are to be believed - but none of these explain why the UK military chain of command appears to be recommending the -B. The only military people I can conceive of preferring the -B model are senior ex-Harrier pilots who might be struggling to let go of their unique selling point.

Surely that is not enough of a reason for all this messing about? Something I heard a long while ago, but dismissed as being too cynical for words, was that the Air Staff preferred F-35B as its shorter range would reduce the radius of influence of the carrier group... please tell me this is indeed too cynical for words, otherwise my despair for the future of our services will get even deeper.

kbrockman

26th Mar 2012, 00:18

Like some here said before, the logic for a serviceman to opt for the B over the C seems illogical , most seem to prefer the conventional F35C model over the exotic VTOL B model.
However there must be some advantages to choose the B version, like a famous Dutch soccerplayer once said "every disadvantage has its advantages".

Apart from the apparent advantages of going with VTOL
-Useable on land without a proper runway at hand, close to the frontline.
-no arrestor wire and cat necessary
-looks megacool.

the only other things I could come up with, and I'm not sure if they are true;

-Someone once told me that the launchrate and recover-rate are potentially much higher with a Harrier/F35B like plane.
-The use of improvised carriers is possible at last notice (eg Atlantic conveyor)
http://www.combatreform.org/harrieroveratlanticconveyorcontainership.jpg
-When in trouble , the plane can land pretty much everywhere, on almost any ship large enough or small patch of land, as long as the engine runs
http://keep4u.ru/imgs/b/080319/a5/a514ae125fe27eeaf1.jpg

-When needs be, can operate a bid like a helicopter in a dangerous enemy fighter infested airspace, meaning; it can land and hide for a while before reengaging the target/enemy <== okay a bit far fetched, but still a possibility.
-If need be can resuply fuel+weapons not necessaraly alone from carrier but also from any ship with a large enough deck and the right equipment to deliver fuel and weapons.
-possibly a much wider flight envelope, certainly at low and very low speeds.

Are there any other advantages it has (operationally) over the conventional fighters ?