JSF Update
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
JSF Update
Flight International:
....The UK is also conducting another analysis of the F-35C carrier variant (CV) for operation from its future aircraft carriers, having previously selected the STOVL variant. New USAF chief of staff Gen Michael Moseley has meanwhile reconfirmed the serviceīs interest in the STOVL JSF as well as the CTOL F-35A.....
For the UK, Lockheed is studying a rolling vertical landing capability that would allow the STOVL aircraft to return with a heavier load. "If we can get 40-50kt lift over the wing, we get more bringback"..... This could also interest the USAF, which, "does not have a vertical landing requirement". The air force also wants to put an internal gun - currently only in the F-35A - back in the F-35B.
The UKīs analysis of the STOVL and CV variants is tied to a decision next year on the size of its future carriers......
Lockheed has just begun laying out the F-35Cīs design and has recently increased wing area by 40 Sq Ft to cut approach speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implications are that the current bringback, even after the weight reduction program, is marginal. The addition of the gun for the USAF CAS role would add back in all the weight taken out - and they will only build one model of each variant. After the Typhoon gun saga I donīt see any weight saving in trying to remove it from the RN aircraft.
A rolling landing would seem to have implications regards carrier design, the CV version major implications. The growth in wing size also impact stowage space etc.
The article also states that Italy has decided to operate a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Cs, buying the As to replace some of their Tornados and increasing their buy from 130 to 200. Thus strengthening their hand in getting a final assembly and checkout line in Italy [as opposed to the UK, the economics not supporting 2 lines]
Further implications. Discuss.
....The UK is also conducting another analysis of the F-35C carrier variant (CV) for operation from its future aircraft carriers, having previously selected the STOVL variant. New USAF chief of staff Gen Michael Moseley has meanwhile reconfirmed the serviceīs interest in the STOVL JSF as well as the CTOL F-35A.....
For the UK, Lockheed is studying a rolling vertical landing capability that would allow the STOVL aircraft to return with a heavier load. "If we can get 40-50kt lift over the wing, we get more bringback"..... This could also interest the USAF, which, "does not have a vertical landing requirement". The air force also wants to put an internal gun - currently only in the F-35A - back in the F-35B.
The UKīs analysis of the STOVL and CV variants is tied to a decision next year on the size of its future carriers......
Lockheed has just begun laying out the F-35Cīs design and has recently increased wing area by 40 Sq Ft to cut approach speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implications are that the current bringback, even after the weight reduction program, is marginal. The addition of the gun for the USAF CAS role would add back in all the weight taken out - and they will only build one model of each variant. After the Typhoon gun saga I donīt see any weight saving in trying to remove it from the RN aircraft.
A rolling landing would seem to have implications regards carrier design, the CV version major implications. The growth in wing size also impact stowage space etc.
The article also states that Italy has decided to operate a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Cs, buying the As to replace some of their Tornados and increasing their buy from 130 to 200. Thus strengthening their hand in getting a final assembly and checkout line in Italy [as opposed to the UK, the economics not supporting 2 lines]
Further implications. Discuss.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I just don't buy the UK's requirement for STOVL.
The answer is surely to buy a proper carrier and then have the flexibility to operate a conventional airframe which, IMHO, would not only be less risky as a procurement but probably cheaper in the long run.
I suspect this would be the RN's preferred option ...
STH
The answer is surely to buy a proper carrier and then have the flexibility to operate a conventional airframe which, IMHO, would not only be less risky as a procurement but probably cheaper in the long run.
I suspect this would be the RN's preferred option ...
STH
Guest
Posts: n/a
CTOL Carriers
Force projection - brilliant, radius of action ?, unfortunately it requires skills and training backed up by operational experience, none of which is in great abundance in the RN of today.
Possibly with a large exchange program with Uncle Sam we might get some experience back but I think it's gone forever.
Imagegear
Possibly with a large exchange program with Uncle Sam we might get some experience back but I think it's gone forever.
Imagegear
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current CVF plan is for around 60,000 tons, fitted for but not with, an electro-magnetic catapult system. Aircraft will be STOVL JSF. Bringback is definately an issue, but is still way way better than GR7/9. The main layout for of the carrier is already finalised. The problem with changing the variant of aircraft is an automatic 3 year delay in the programme, with associated costs.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone really believe we will get the new carriers?
Honestly?
I reckon that within 18-24 months the labour party will lose a vote of No confidence, the Tories will win power and the first thing they do is cancel the whole project.
Hmmm.....now, what happened to that Nimrod AEW ?
Honestly?
I reckon that within 18-24 months the labour party will lose a vote of No confidence, the Tories will win power and the first thing they do is cancel the whole project.
Hmmm.....now, what happened to that Nimrod AEW ?
What makes you think that? Both the main political parties are commited to CVF....which should be approaching the main gate stage soon........ish............sometime.........
it requires skills and training backed up by operational experience, none of which is in great abundance in the RN of today.
None of which will be helped by the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier, therefore I think a link to the Sea Jet thread to be appropriate.
Incidentally, Rolls Royce are having progress with the JSF propulsion system - see here.
it requires skills and training backed up by operational experience, none of which is in great abundance in the RN of today.
None of which will be helped by the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier, therefore I think a link to the Sea Jet thread to be appropriate.
Incidentally, Rolls Royce are having progress with the JSF propulsion system - see here.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feneris. The variant of F-35 has not been decided upon. The only people who want the STOVL variant are the politicians on behalf of industry. The carrier design has not been finalised, the French will have a big sway on that decision.
The carrier design is not dependant on the choice of F-35 and even the STOVL carrier variant, should that be the way we go, may not need a ramp. There is no direct link to a delay in the new carrier and the F-35 variant choice.
WE Branch Fanatic. There is more operational experience in the RN now than at any other time since the Falklands. Thanks yet again for your being pot half full and not having current knowledge of what our officers and ratings are achieving. And another link to that well flogged dead horse the Sea Jet thread.
The experience of the current fixed wing FAA pilots who will fill the key positions is at a peak and will remain that way with the development of the Mar Strike role. The demise of Sea Harrier is not going to effect the ability of the UK to operate CVF efficiently unless you are talking about transporting us back in time to the Cold War era with the great blue water battle.
Imagegear. Relax with the kevlar for the moment. I don't understand your point. Are you saying that STOVL is not as capable as the CV variant? Nothing radical about that statement, everyone agrees.
The carrier design is not dependant on the choice of F-35 and even the STOVL carrier variant, should that be the way we go, may not need a ramp. There is no direct link to a delay in the new carrier and the F-35 variant choice.
WE Branch Fanatic. There is more operational experience in the RN now than at any other time since the Falklands. Thanks yet again for your being pot half full and not having current knowledge of what our officers and ratings are achieving. And another link to that well flogged dead horse the Sea Jet thread.
The experience of the current fixed wing FAA pilots who will fill the key positions is at a peak and will remain that way with the development of the Mar Strike role. The demise of Sea Harrier is not going to effect the ability of the UK to operate CVF efficiently unless you are talking about transporting us back in time to the Cold War era with the great blue water battle.
Imagegear. Relax with the kevlar for the moment. I don't understand your point. Are you saying that STOVL is not as capable as the CV variant? Nothing radical about that statement, everyone agrees.
The demise of Sea Harrier is not going to effect the ability of the UK to operate CVF efficiently unless you are talking about transporting us back in time to the Cold War era with the great blue water battle.
Are you saying that there is no air threat in the littoral? Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
Are you saying that there is no air threat in the littoral? Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where on earth did you pull that question from? You took a thread from nowhere and got back to Sea Harrier; while, as always, not acknowledging the points I raise in reply to your previous shot gun blasts.
No. I'm not saying that there is no air threat in the littoral but the F-35 won't be sitting on a CAP in the overhead of the carrier. Just like the air threat in the littoral today is equally unlikely to be countered by a Sea Harrier but PLEASE, go back and read all the Sea Harrier comments I made about capabilities in that thread before making this another hybrid to rant about days gone by.
Are you sure you were in the RN? You are doing a tremendous job for the other two services.
No. I'm not saying that there is no air threat in the littoral but the F-35 won't be sitting on a CAP in the overhead of the carrier. Just like the air threat in the littoral today is equally unlikely to be countered by a Sea Harrier but PLEASE, go back and read all the Sea Harrier comments I made about capabilities in that thread before making this another hybrid to rant about days gone by.
Are you sure you were in the RN? You are doing a tremendous job for the other two services.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly I think it's all too easy to see CVF being pulled. We have a govt which is committed to downsizing the military ship by ship, tank by tank, airframe by airframe. At the same time placing massive strains on the standing infrastructure it is reducing our overall capability. Size DOES matter.
For the last few years we've had 2 CVS available for ops at any one time, and one in docks - now we only have 2, since INVINCIBLE has been or will be (update?) paid off. And it's almost certain that before 2012, some pen-pusher will decide to mothball ARK ROYAL or ILLUSTRIOUS too. I still hear ambient rumours from friends in Whitehall about future cuts, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I'm sorry, but CVF is such a massive capability leap away from the battered RN's current abilities that I do not see where we will find the personnel or the justification for manning 2 of them (unless we ditch a couple more T45s to generate the required manpower, that is). I agree that we NEED greater capability, but I simply do not see how we can expect the govt to maintain its current enthusiasm for CVF.
Same applies to the Tories, of course. I think one of the most disingenuous claims they made during the last election campaign was that they would stop the cuts. In fact, Fatty Soames said, "I'll save 3 out of the 6 warships Mr Hoon intends to dispose of". Yeah, REALLY committed to the military, aren't they?
For the last few years we've had 2 CVS available for ops at any one time, and one in docks - now we only have 2, since INVINCIBLE has been or will be (update?) paid off. And it's almost certain that before 2012, some pen-pusher will decide to mothball ARK ROYAL or ILLUSTRIOUS too. I still hear ambient rumours from friends in Whitehall about future cuts, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I'm sorry, but CVF is such a massive capability leap away from the battered RN's current abilities that I do not see where we will find the personnel or the justification for manning 2 of them (unless we ditch a couple more T45s to generate the required manpower, that is). I agree that we NEED greater capability, but I simply do not see how we can expect the govt to maintain its current enthusiasm for CVF.
Same applies to the Tories, of course. I think one of the most disingenuous claims they made during the last election campaign was that they would stop the cuts. In fact, Fatty Soames said, "I'll save 3 out of the 6 warships Mr Hoon intends to dispose of". Yeah, REALLY committed to the military, aren't they?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ASTOVL vs CV argument continues to amuse (and sadden) me. I am not an aircraft designer, but can only assume that if you want to carry a lift fan, then you have to trade in some bombs and fuel. This, to my simple mind, means that when viewed against the bloke flying the CV variant you will be riding a less capable strike fighter.
Again I have not read the catalogue but one assumes that the more spinning machinery you put in the thing , the more expensive it gets. I do appreciate that Cat and Trap costs probably more than offset this.
The one thing that is a given for naval air power, and particularly Marstrike, is that if you do it on the cheap then you create compelling arguments for not doing it at all.
If we want a Maritme Strike capability then we should pay the going rate for one, which means affording CV aircraft flying from a CVF. Of course, most people reading this will be in the 'Yes, i agree we would welcome the capability, but there's only so much money in the pot' camp. So for 'we' read our chap Tony, who seems quite keen on having the things.
Whilst i have some sympathy for the 'It's a Harrier replacement so is therefore a success if it carries more than the Harrier' argument - i can't help but think that this would be akin to arriving at the Battersea Dogs' home and whilst being able to take home an Alsatian.....settling for a Poodle on the grounds that you were replacing a gerbil! (All figuratively speaking with no intended slight on drivers of the GR7).
Again I have not read the catalogue but one assumes that the more spinning machinery you put in the thing , the more expensive it gets. I do appreciate that Cat and Trap costs probably more than offset this.
The one thing that is a given for naval air power, and particularly Marstrike, is that if you do it on the cheap then you create compelling arguments for not doing it at all.
If we want a Maritme Strike capability then we should pay the going rate for one, which means affording CV aircraft flying from a CVF. Of course, most people reading this will be in the 'Yes, i agree we would welcome the capability, but there's only so much money in the pot' camp. So for 'we' read our chap Tony, who seems quite keen on having the things.
Whilst i have some sympathy for the 'It's a Harrier replacement so is therefore a success if it carries more than the Harrier' argument - i can't help but think that this would be akin to arriving at the Battersea Dogs' home and whilst being able to take home an Alsatian.....settling for a Poodle on the grounds that you were replacing a gerbil! (All figuratively speaking with no intended slight on drivers of the GR7).
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'It's a Harrier replacement so is therefore a success if it carries more than the Harrier' argument
This inevitably equals more expensive, more complex...with the downside of fewer units and more down time, and/or greater maintenance requirements (e.g. Merlin)
The advantage of a more capable item, can easily be offset by the reduction in numbers you can afford. I read somewhere that, in comparitive terms, the cost to the USAF of a single F16 was the same as over fifty P51s... pitch 50 Mustangs against a single F16 in a dog fight and you're going to lose a few, but I think we all know the probable outcome?
(facts not checked... but it makes a good story and illustrates my point perfectly)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Now add in the number of engineers to maintain and pilots to fly them plus fuel etc. Then the difficulty in getting where you want them when you want them, unless you buy a corresponding number of tankers etc.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC... Do you really think the reason your lords and masters buy fewer toys for the boys is because they'll need less pilots/engineers/tankers etc?... I don't think so? Besides fewer pilots, for example, means less flexibility when they have run out of crew duty time/run-off to join the airlines... and you still need someone for SDO... (same arguement y'see?)
Sure, these factors come into the procurement big picture? My dit was only a illustration...? Please re-read my first two paragraphs to see my point.... what I'm saying is, if you want to replace something replace it, don't upgrade unless you can afford too?
Sure, these factors come into the procurement big picture? My dit was only a illustration...? Please re-read my first two paragraphs to see my point.... what I'm saying is, if you want to replace something replace it, don't upgrade unless you can afford too?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Major cost item is personnel, wages, support, pensions etc. Pays to reduce the maintenance time per flying hour, pays to reduce multicrew to twin, twin to single etc.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pays to reduce multicrew to twin, twin to single etc
Agree with your cost arguement... for the right reason. At the end of the day, cutting costs to buy fewer, but more advanced aircraft may mean an overall reduction in capability. One aircraft on a mission might get shot down, two aircraft, with half the number of bombs on each, means one may get through etc, etc? What yardstick for success are you using, ORAC... Cost saving, never won a conflict yet (to my knowledge?)
Last edited by Pierre Argh; 27th Sep 2005 at 14:53.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the cost argument should be something like cost per target kill. That should give a clear picture of which is the more effective system and it follows that you will get more bang per buck.
The only difficult part is the assumptions made and that's the bit you have to get right.
The only difficult part is the assumptions made and that's the bit you have to get right.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tablet_eraser and ....
Perhaps someone in dark blue may be able to answer, but I am under the impression that although we still have two CV in the RN, we now have only one crew, and they will transfer from one ship to the other as required.
If this is indeed the case, then I too also feel that it is very unlikely that we will end up with two shiny new CV, and the two crews required to man them.
It is also a very sad state of affairs that the RN can sign up to buy two carriers without knowing what top they want on them, or what aircraft they are going to operate from them.
While all the navies of western Europe are bringing new ships into service, the RN seem to be struggling on with ageing T42's, and slowly but surely the government are doing their best to reduce numbers all the time.
And finally, can someone please explain to me why one of the T45's will be called Duncan??
Y_G
Perhaps someone in dark blue may be able to answer, but I am under the impression that although we still have two CV in the RN, we now have only one crew, and they will transfer from one ship to the other as required.
If this is indeed the case, then I too also feel that it is very unlikely that we will end up with two shiny new CV, and the two crews required to man them.
It is also a very sad state of affairs that the RN can sign up to buy two carriers without knowing what top they want on them, or what aircraft they are going to operate from them.
While all the navies of western Europe are bringing new ships into service, the RN seem to be struggling on with ageing T42's, and slowly but surely the government are doing their best to reduce numbers all the time.
And finally, can someone please explain to me why one of the T45's will be called Duncan??
Y_G