UK JSF. Why?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Cannot see the cat launch as a big training issue, thumbs up, whoosh and you are airborne. Trapped landing will require training but USN exchange tours etc will quickly re-build an experienced cadre. Frankly, the demands of regularly flying SRVLs plus the associated operating limits is likely to be much more of an issue.
lm
Cannot see the cat launch as a big training issue, thumbs up, whoosh and you are airborne. Trapped landing will require training but USN exchange tours etc will quickly re-build an experienced cadre. Frankly, the demands of regularly flying SRVLs plus the associated operating limits is likely to be much more of an issue.
lm
About 22 years ago...
The starting point for what became JSF, the first snowflake in today's mighty avalanche, was a US-UK agreement to work on a STOVL fighter to replace the Harrier, which was then reaching the end of its development potential. So part 1 of the answer to the first poster is "to replace the Harrier, particularly in its shipborne role."
In the US, STOVL became wedded to CV and CTOL requirements in 1993-96, to save money. This also meant that the jet would be stealthy, which was a non-negotiable US Navy/USAF requirement. The UK (BAE and RR) parlayed their STOVL experience into a large role in the program, teaming with LockMart, who won the competition.
Meanwhile, the 1998 Strategic Defence Review reaffirmed the need for two new aircraft carriers. This was made possible by the existence of JSF, which was then well under way, because at the time nobody was thinking seriously of a cat-trap solution.
The Harrier force also became "jointed", leading to the dumping of the SHAR. This results in an institutional base for a joint JSF force, which could in theory operate off ships or from short runways.
The F-35B has been the default choice for the new carriers (which are still regarded as necessary under UK defense policy) even though they have grown to the point where they could easily operate cat-trap fighters. Nobody ever stopped and examined that question.
So "why JSF"? 1. It's the chosen aircraft for the carriers and as time goes on it's increasingly expensive to change that choice. 2. It provides a true LO capability to the UK. 3. If all goes to plan
it provides lots of lovely lolly to UK industry because the UK buys 85-130 of the jets but gets almost 20 per cent of the program, when you count BAE's EW system.
If all goes to plan of course, which is when we refer you to other threads
The starting point for what became JSF, the first snowflake in today's mighty avalanche, was a US-UK agreement to work on a STOVL fighter to replace the Harrier, which was then reaching the end of its development potential. So part 1 of the answer to the first poster is "to replace the Harrier, particularly in its shipborne role."
In the US, STOVL became wedded to CV and CTOL requirements in 1993-96, to save money. This also meant that the jet would be stealthy, which was a non-negotiable US Navy/USAF requirement. The UK (BAE and RR) parlayed their STOVL experience into a large role in the program, teaming with LockMart, who won the competition.
Meanwhile, the 1998 Strategic Defence Review reaffirmed the need for two new aircraft carriers. This was made possible by the existence of JSF, which was then well under way, because at the time nobody was thinking seriously of a cat-trap solution.
The Harrier force also became "jointed", leading to the dumping of the SHAR. This results in an institutional base for a joint JSF force, which could in theory operate off ships or from short runways.
The F-35B has been the default choice for the new carriers (which are still regarded as necessary under UK defense policy) even though they have grown to the point where they could easily operate cat-trap fighters. Nobody ever stopped and examined that question.
So "why JSF"? 1. It's the chosen aircraft for the carriers and as time goes on it's increasingly expensive to change that choice. 2. It provides a true LO capability to the UK. 3. If all goes to plan
it provides lots of lovely lolly to UK industry because the UK buys 85-130 of the jets but gets almost 20 per cent of the program, when you count BAE's EW system. If all goes to plan of course, which is when we refer you to other threads
Cannot see the cat launch as a big training issue, thumbs up, whoosh and you are airborne. Trapped landing will require training but USN exchange tours etc will quickly re-build an experienced cadre. Frankly, the demands of regularly flying SRVLs plus the associated operating limits is likely to be much more of an issue.
Fitting a catapult to CVF 30 years in the future is deemed easy enough and cheap enough that it's sensible to leave space in the ship design. Basically because by then it will be someone else's problem. Doing it now would be problematic. Trapped landings do require more training compared to slowing down to a gentlemanly pace first. Fair enough, if push came to shove then of course UK pilots could do it but at the cost of vastly reduced aircrew availability and horrendously inefficient recovery rates when the deck starts moving a bit (no dedicated recovery tanker in the overhead. How much fuel do you want them to bring back to make sure they get on, eventually?). I'm not sure where you get your info on SRVLs from. Presumably you weren't on PA CDG last year comparing the success rates of the Rafale and SEMs with the electric nozzly jet.
So, why F-35B? Because it's invisible* and it can operate from the UK's planned cheap** carriers and from less-than-perfect*** runways.
*If you know how this works, you know the caveats.
**because the UK couldn't afford a pair of full-scale carriers in the 60s and certainly can't afford them now. Don't let the size of the things lead you astray, these are 40,000 tonne boats that have been allowed to grow so that breathing space is built-in, not 100,000 tonne boats that have been starved.
***as in: "Schtop! Thish runway ish not ready. Look at thisch schubschidensche! We can't bring our F-16s here. You Harrier guys will have to schtay."
Some of which is true, apart from :
1. CV requires organic tankers, STOVL (or SRVL) do not. More to do with the size of gaggle rather than mode of recovery above a certain point. Oh and don't think that deck movement does't affect SRVL (see below.....)
2. IIRC, CdG and the VAAC SRVL were undertaken in near perfect weather conditions and (for VAAC obviously) as single-ship.
3. CVF is not a 40000 te ship with some through-life growth - nor is it a constrained 100000 tonner. The 40000 te ship was the original concept study before a sortie gen requirement (and hence flypro or deck management studies) even existed. It's a 60000 te ship with upwards of 10000 te growth potential (and that is really giving some issues, though not the ones you might expect) built in.
1. CV requires organic tankers, STOVL (or SRVL) do not. More to do with the size of gaggle rather than mode of recovery above a certain point. Oh and don't think that deck movement does't affect SRVL (see below.....)
2. IIRC, CdG and the VAAC SRVL were undertaken in near perfect weather conditions and (for VAAC obviously) as single-ship.
3. CVF is not a 40000 te ship with some through-life growth - nor is it a constrained 100000 tonner. The 40000 te ship was the original concept study before a sortie gen requirement (and hence flypro or deck management studies) even existed. It's a 60000 te ship with upwards of 10000 te growth potential (and that is really giving some issues, though not the ones you might expect) built in.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's this 'important' woman in Argentina who very recently claimed she 'want's' the Falkland Islands under Argy control..
Will she delay until we get our new carriers and a/c, so as to ensure a fair fight ?
Will she delay until we get our new carriers and a/c, so as to ensure a fair fight ?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's this 'important' woman in Argentina who very recently claimed she 'want's' the Falkland Islands under Argy control..
Will she delay until we get our new carriers and a/c, so as to ensure a fair fight ?
Will she delay until we get our new carriers and a/c, so as to ensure a fair fight ?
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's this 'important' woman in Argentina who very recently claimed she 'want's' the Falkland Islands under Argy control..
Will she delay until we get our new carriers and a/c, so as to ensure a fair fight ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pah, a women? How on earth would a women be able to take the Falklands?
Anyway.
Just make it well known that a couple of SSN's are patrolling the FI's and will sink on site any incoming ships, also have Rapier ready to drop any troop carriers inbound.
Anyway.
Just make it well known that a couple of SSN's are patrolling the FI's and will sink on site any incoming ships, also have Rapier ready to drop any troop carriers inbound.
Just make it well known that a couple of SSN's are patrolling the FI's and will sink on site any incoming ships....
If only SSN numbers hadn't been cut by a third since 1998, at the same time as they are commited to operations more and more....
The above posts regarding tankers make me think of Osprey with a limited AAR fit.
What hole does this capability really fill?
How about fleet air defence, a rather serious capability gap post Sea Harrier?
If only SSN numbers hadn't been cut by a third since 1998, at the same time as they are commited to operations more and more....
The above posts regarding tankers make me think of Osprey with a limited AAR fit.
What hole does this capability really fill?
How about fleet air defence, a rather serious capability gap post Sea Harrier?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we're not buying the JSF for 'fleet air defence'. Leaving aside the issue that if the claims for T45 are to be believed, the fleet is already better defended than any other element of UK forces, according to SRO(C) the whole point of the carrier is to have a stand-alone MarStrike asset, not a flagship that needs the rest of the navy to defend it.
The question stands - why JSF, rather than Rafale of F18?
The question stands - why JSF, rather than Rafale of F18?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Jacko answered that one. Don't underestimate the cost of keeping CTOL pilots current - its significant. A huge amount of training and effort is required. Note how French jets and pilots have needed the USN to help them out while CdG is getting an MOT, and I think I am right in remembering that French pilots do a hell of alot of training in the US too.
The F18s and RifRafs are one trick ponys. When they're not doing CV CTOL ops they practising CV CTOL ops.
The UK doesn't want the cost of a dedicated carrier group, and Dave B allows that flexibility. As is the case now with the Harriers, the B's might be busy tasked on land based operations, but in an emergency all those jets and pilots could be switched back to the CV without a huge amount of training.
The B also allows initial operations from the CV to be followed by FOB operations from a rough strip or matting - cutting response times.
We can argue till we are blue in the face about whether CVF is necessary or not. But if you do conclude the answer to that is yes I think, as long as the B model does what it is supposed to do, it is a very good fit to UK requirements.
Add in the economic benefits, and it's a no brainer.
The F18s and RifRafs are one trick ponys. When they're not doing CV CTOL ops they practising CV CTOL ops.
The UK doesn't want the cost of a dedicated carrier group, and Dave B allows that flexibility. As is the case now with the Harriers, the B's might be busy tasked on land based operations, but in an emergency all those jets and pilots could be switched back to the CV without a huge amount of training.
The B also allows initial operations from the CV to be followed by FOB operations from a rough strip or matting - cutting response times.
We can argue till we are blue in the face about whether CVF is necessary or not. But if you do conclude the answer to that is yes I think, as long as the B model does what it is supposed to do, it is a very good fit to UK requirements.
Add in the economic benefits, and it's a no brainer.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hulahoop, thanks, that's probably the clearest post yet on this thread!
I do wonder though whether we are getting ourselves unneccesarily wound around the axle about how difficult carrier ops are. I know very little about what makes a ship tick and how much skill goes into running the decks etc, but I am surprised that we can't look forward to a time when the actual flying on to and off a ship can be partially or completely automated. How old is ACLS?
Surely technology can make lots of these things easier for us - I know SRO(C) is presenting the picture of a JSF pilot pressing the 'autoland' button before she gets out of the jet and goes to the same debrief facility she'd have on land - is he aiming for the right thing or is he deluded?
I do wonder though whether we are getting ourselves unneccesarily wound around the axle about how difficult carrier ops are. I know very little about what makes a ship tick and how much skill goes into running the decks etc, but I am surprised that we can't look forward to a time when the actual flying on to and off a ship can be partially or completely automated. How old is ACLS?
Surely technology can make lots of these things easier for us - I know SRO(C) is presenting the picture of a JSF pilot pressing the 'autoland' button before she gets out of the jet and goes to the same debrief facility she'd have on land - is he aiming for the right thing or is he deluded?
Good points neatly summed up, Hulahoop.
You could also add that all that cat and trap work eats into lifetime. There are a lot of 20-year-old-plus landbased fighters around, but few if any in the USN. The USN is projecting a 2030 out-of-service date for the E/F, corresponding to a service life around 18 years.
One thing could make a huge difference: the successful demo of a carrier-based UCAS. But that's a few years down the line.
I'm also dubious about Dave Bs operating off mats and roads. A Harrier it ain't. But we'll see.
You could also add that all that cat and trap work eats into lifetime. There are a lot of 20-year-old-plus landbased fighters around, but few if any in the USN. The USN is projecting a 2030 out-of-service date for the E/F, corresponding to a service life around 18 years.
One thing could make a huge difference: the successful demo of a carrier-based UCAS. But that's a few years down the line.
I'm also dubious about Dave Bs operating off mats and roads. A Harrier it ain't. But we'll see.
Occasional Aviator
But we're not buying the JSF for 'fleet air defence'.
No, we're buying it as a multirole aircraft. With a powerful radar with air to air modes, both Sidewinder and AMRAAM, data links, a reduced RCS and maybe even a gun(?) it will be capable of air defence, far more so that the Harrier GR9 that it will replace in UK service.
JJ
It quite simple, as soon as you get a carrier, you have to have a fleet to defend it...
Err, sometimes the opposite is true. Believe it or not, the Navy does do things other than support carrier operations, some of which mean exposing ships and helicopters to enemy airpower, for example amphibious operations, naval gunfire support, dealing with enemy submarines, or missile boats, or clearing mines. Carrier based fighters are likely to be rather useful then.
But we're not buying the JSF for 'fleet air defence'.
No, we're buying it as a multirole aircraft. With a powerful radar with air to air modes, both Sidewinder and AMRAAM, data links, a reduced RCS and maybe even a gun(?) it will be capable of air defence, far more so that the Harrier GR9 that it will replace in UK service.
JJ
It quite simple, as soon as you get a carrier, you have to have a fleet to defend it...
Err, sometimes the opposite is true. Believe it or not, the Navy does do things other than support carrier operations, some of which mean exposing ships and helicopters to enemy airpower, for example amphibious operations, naval gunfire support, dealing with enemy submarines, or missile boats, or clearing mines. Carrier based fighters are likely to be rather useful then.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
I don't dispute that - but you do yourself, the RN and the carrier project no favours by going on about 'fleet air defence' - this will be, at best, a minor role for JSF. If you are trying to justify carriers on this basis you give the naysayers an easy route to the 'self-licking lollipop' argument.
I don't dispute that - but you do yourself, the RN and the carrier project no favours by going on about 'fleet air defence' - this will be, at best, a minor role for JSF. If you are trying to justify carriers on this basis you give the naysayers an easy route to the 'self-licking lollipop' argument.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a carrier taken out leaves your aircraft nowhere to land, a couple of thousand people in the water, a huge loss on the balance sheet that everyone now realises could have paid for several smaller ships/subs, a massive PR/morale issue, and a fatal reduction in the ability to project power.
Fleet air defence is provided by organic AAW assets, and - self licking lollipop it may be - you (almost) only need it if you want to deploy AAW assets with the fleet....
You ALSO get a carrier based strike package, but you only need that if you want to project power beyond the range of landbased aircraft.... It isn't the aircraft choice that's the problem, it's the decision to have carriers.
Dave
Fleet air defence is provided by organic AAW assets, and - self licking lollipop it may be - you (almost) only need it if you want to deploy AAW assets with the fleet....
You ALSO get a carrier based strike package, but you only need that if you want to project power beyond the range of landbased aircraft.... It isn't the aircraft choice that's the problem, it's the decision to have carriers.
Dave
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear - I wasn't for a moment suggesting the carrier wouldn't need air defence - merely that this is a minor role. (nominally only 4 ac on board assigned to it according to SRO(C)?)