F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales
In case you're unfamiliar with the niceties of British English, HMS stands for Her Majesty's Ship, and it's nonsense to say 'the Her Majesty's....' But sad to say, it's all too common amongst journalists (and others) who should know better.
[/PEDANT HAT]
George,
I fully agree, if the B answers Naval requirements, then why did the USN go for the much more able C? I believe the B to be as originally intended, a Harrier replacement. There is no reasonable argument for advancing B over A or C.
Ok, algebra lesson over!
FB
BBC - A multimillion-pound contract to support the new fast jets at RAF Marham in Norfolk has been unveiled.
The Ministry of Defence is investing £135m in new facilities in preparation for the arrival of the F-35B Lightning II aircraft next year.
The money will pay for a new hangar to house 12 of the jets and and provide vertical landing pads.
Two existing runways and taxiways will be resurfaced.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: "This contract will ensure that RAF Marham has the facilities to match this world-class aircraft when it arrives next year.]The Ministry of Defence is investing £135m in new facilities in preparation for the arrival of the F-35B Lightning II aircraft next year.
The money will pay for a new hangar to house 12 of the jets and and provide vertical landing pads.
Two existing runways and taxiways will be resurfaced.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: "This contract will ensure that RAF Marham has the facilities to match this world-class aircraft when it arrives next year.
The money will pay for a new hangar to house 12 of the jets and and provide vertical landing pads.
Two existing runways and taxiways will be resurfaced.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: "This contract will ensure that RAF Marham has the facilities to match this world-class aircraft when it arrives next year.]The Ministry of Defence is investing £135m in new facilities in preparation for the arrival of the F-35B Lightning II aircraft next year.
The money will pay for a new hangar to house 12 of the jets and and provide vertical landing pads.
Two existing runways and taxiways will be resurfaced.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: "This contract will ensure that RAF Marham has the facilities to match this world-class aircraft when it arrives next year.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
The B does answer naval requirements (allegedly...), just not the USN's, who still use conventional cat and trap carriers so they have no need of the B, which is why the C is tailored to their needs, the B is tailored to (at the time the design was laid down) the Royal Navy and USMC's needs, pretty simple to understand really...
-RP
-RP
FB
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB and others,
Perhaps I can help a little here, as there seems to be a bit of confusion over how the UK got the B variant.
In the first place, the original UK requirement for a Harrier replacement was a Naval Staff Target (NST) in the 80s for a Sea Harrier replacement, later called Future carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). It certainly wasn't envisaged as a battlefield support aircraft. The RAF weren't remotely interested at the time as they were concentrating on Eurofighter and a long range stealthy Tornado replacement. FCBA was required to provide fleet defence, reconnaissance and strike capability from small decks (invincible class) and the driving requirement was supersonic dash to intercept incoming targets. That ruled out a Harrier type solution with a single centrally mounted engine.
In the late 80s, after the end of a long running UK/US collaborative programme, the US had continued work (in some cases via black programmes) on advanced STOVL (ASTOVL) concepts. As a number of costly tactical aircraft programmes faltered and died, the DoD (not the services) launched the JAST programme to get a better handle on what a single seat, single engined ASTOVL combat aircraft could do with future propulsion technology. That led to JSF, and some smart footwork by some excellent people gave the UK a chance to join the programme, with the aim of meeting the FCBA requirement. The UK joined as (to this date the only) Tier 1 participant, via a separate document called the 'STOVL MoU'. The whole point was that the UK could bring decades of STOVL design, manufacture and operating expertise to the JSF programme that the US lacked.
Key point - the only reason the UK is in JSF (now F-35) is because of STOVL.
The JSF programme included years of requirement development - trading off various attributes against literally hundreds of operational scenarios. The B model design is driven by one clear and simple requirement -to be launch from and recover to small decks (USN LHAs and LHDs and UK Invincible class). The penalties in performance and capability were understood from day one - that's why the B's performance and payload requirements were, from the outset, lower than for the A or the C.
In the UK, a couple of years afterwards, 'Joint' became the name of the game, and FCBA became Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA). By this time (around 2000) the RAF had realised that the only affordable way to replace Tornado was to use JSF. Joint Force Harrier was to be the 'hothouse' where future STOVL combat concepts and organisations were to be developed. Unfortunately, in the 'noughties' the UK end of things became seriously unravelled. Firstly, forced retirement of the Sea Harrier (the younger half of the Joint Force) undermined any serious ideas of joint force doctrine development. Meanwhile, the MoD was unable to decide whether it wanted the new carriers to actually be STOVL ships. It had already been hard to explain to our US partners on JSF that, yes, we were in JSF to get the STOVL aircraft but, no, we might actually want the C model. Or the F/A-18. Or the Rafale. Or even, the Good Lord help us all, a navalised Typhoon. But then it got worse.
The 2010 SDSR, which has to be one go the most incompetent bits of work ever carried out by a UK Government (sorry, my opinion there) decided that the UK would, after 15 years of working on JSF to get a STOVL aircraft, switch course to cats and traps. Not that the Defence Secretary's 'experts' had actually asked the Carrier Team how much it would cost to convert the carriers before making their amazing decision. (Seriously, they hadn't been asked). Come 2012, and it was 'off the train, on the train' and back to STOVL and the F-35B. And that's where we are today. We've got an aircraft that meets the KPPs set at the outset of the programme, which the UK signed up to in detail. We will have ski jumps and are working towards SRVLs, which will allow us to wring more capability out of the B.
In one important area, I fully agree with FB and others - the A model would be a better bet for the RAF's requirements (possibly the C model if range is the driving requirement). I don't think a buy of 138 Bs is the right option for the UK - I'd go for something like 55 Bs to be operated at sea by the RN and 85 As (or Cs) for the RAF to fly from land bases. But hey, what do I know. A split fleet need not be the cost disaster some describe - the avionics (big cost driver) are common, there's commonality within the engine and the aircraft systems as well. A common training and support system could deliver both STOVL and CTOL capability.
Hope this helps guide the discussion here - but let's keep the opinions and ideas coming - that's what PPrune is about.
Best Regards as ever to all those working d**n hard to bring the Lightning II into service,
Engines
Perhaps I can help a little here, as there seems to be a bit of confusion over how the UK got the B variant.
In the first place, the original UK requirement for a Harrier replacement was a Naval Staff Target (NST) in the 80s for a Sea Harrier replacement, later called Future carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). It certainly wasn't envisaged as a battlefield support aircraft. The RAF weren't remotely interested at the time as they were concentrating on Eurofighter and a long range stealthy Tornado replacement. FCBA was required to provide fleet defence, reconnaissance and strike capability from small decks (invincible class) and the driving requirement was supersonic dash to intercept incoming targets. That ruled out a Harrier type solution with a single centrally mounted engine.
In the late 80s, after the end of a long running UK/US collaborative programme, the US had continued work (in some cases via black programmes) on advanced STOVL (ASTOVL) concepts. As a number of costly tactical aircraft programmes faltered and died, the DoD (not the services) launched the JAST programme to get a better handle on what a single seat, single engined ASTOVL combat aircraft could do with future propulsion technology. That led to JSF, and some smart footwork by some excellent people gave the UK a chance to join the programme, with the aim of meeting the FCBA requirement. The UK joined as (to this date the only) Tier 1 participant, via a separate document called the 'STOVL MoU'. The whole point was that the UK could bring decades of STOVL design, manufacture and operating expertise to the JSF programme that the US lacked.
Key point - the only reason the UK is in JSF (now F-35) is because of STOVL.
The JSF programme included years of requirement development - trading off various attributes against literally hundreds of operational scenarios. The B model design is driven by one clear and simple requirement -to be launch from and recover to small decks (USN LHAs and LHDs and UK Invincible class). The penalties in performance and capability were understood from day one - that's why the B's performance and payload requirements were, from the outset, lower than for the A or the C.
In the UK, a couple of years afterwards, 'Joint' became the name of the game, and FCBA became Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA). By this time (around 2000) the RAF had realised that the only affordable way to replace Tornado was to use JSF. Joint Force Harrier was to be the 'hothouse' where future STOVL combat concepts and organisations were to be developed. Unfortunately, in the 'noughties' the UK end of things became seriously unravelled. Firstly, forced retirement of the Sea Harrier (the younger half of the Joint Force) undermined any serious ideas of joint force doctrine development. Meanwhile, the MoD was unable to decide whether it wanted the new carriers to actually be STOVL ships. It had already been hard to explain to our US partners on JSF that, yes, we were in JSF to get the STOVL aircraft but, no, we might actually want the C model. Or the F/A-18. Or the Rafale. Or even, the Good Lord help us all, a navalised Typhoon. But then it got worse.
The 2010 SDSR, which has to be one go the most incompetent bits of work ever carried out by a UK Government (sorry, my opinion there) decided that the UK would, after 15 years of working on JSF to get a STOVL aircraft, switch course to cats and traps. Not that the Defence Secretary's 'experts' had actually asked the Carrier Team how much it would cost to convert the carriers before making their amazing decision. (Seriously, they hadn't been asked). Come 2012, and it was 'off the train, on the train' and back to STOVL and the F-35B. And that's where we are today. We've got an aircraft that meets the KPPs set at the outset of the programme, which the UK signed up to in detail. We will have ski jumps and are working towards SRVLs, which will allow us to wring more capability out of the B.
In one important area, I fully agree with FB and others - the A model would be a better bet for the RAF's requirements (possibly the C model if range is the driving requirement). I don't think a buy of 138 Bs is the right option for the UK - I'd go for something like 55 Bs to be operated at sea by the RN and 85 As (or Cs) for the RAF to fly from land bases. But hey, what do I know. A split fleet need not be the cost disaster some describe - the avionics (big cost driver) are common, there's commonality within the engine and the aircraft systems as well. A common training and support system could deliver both STOVL and CTOL capability.
Hope this helps guide the discussion here - but let's keep the opinions and ideas coming - that's what PPrune is about.
Best Regards as ever to all those working d**n hard to bring the Lightning II into service,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 22nd Jun 2017 at 18:02.
Engines, what a great summary in a few paragraphs. Really well done in getting such a complex history in a readable format.
Remind me again, was the size of the Invincible lifts/elevators a hard requirement influencing JSF dimensions?
Remind me again, was the size of the Invincible lifts/elevators a hard requirement influencing JSF dimensions?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Thanks for the potted history 'Engines' - one hopes the crabs get a land version of the F-35 and leave the UK naval aviation to the RN Fleet Air Arm. Meanwhile here is a non UKian view of fings.
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter 26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter 26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg
“...UK OPERATIONAL NEEDS
The UK requires a Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) that will be a stealthy, multi-role aircraft to follow on from the Sea Harrier FA1, Harrier GR7, and Harrier T10 operated by the Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Air Force (RAF). The aircraft must be capable of sustained air defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, combat search and rescue, reconnaissance, and anti-surface warfare missions. While the STOVL JSF is to be evaluated for basic compatibility with INVINCIBLE-class (CVS) carriers, it is unlikely that the aircraft will ever be deployed aboard CVS for any extended periods. Instead, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has initiated development of a future aircraft carrier (CVF) scheduled to enter service at or about the same time as its JSF. The CVF program is currently in its concept development phase, and the ship will be designed for compatibility with the shipboard JSF variant, CV or STOVL, that will be procured for use by the UK's joint air forces. The UK's selection of JSF variant is scheduled to occur during the first half of 2002....”
“...Unlike the CV variant, the JSF STOVL variant did not have a spot factor requirement levied upon it. Instead, the ORD specified a spotting requirement in operational terms. The USMC operators required that it be possible to park a total of six STOVL variants aft of the island on an LHA or LHD, such that none fouls the landing area and that any one of them can be moved without first moving any other. This requirement constrains the STOVL variant's wingspan to be no more than 35 ft....” http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb)
The UK requires a Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) that will be a stealthy, multi-role aircraft to follow on from the Sea Harrier FA1, Harrier GR7, and Harrier T10 operated by the Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Air Force (RAF). The aircraft must be capable of sustained air defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, combat search and rescue, reconnaissance, and anti-surface warfare missions. While the STOVL JSF is to be evaluated for basic compatibility with INVINCIBLE-class (CVS) carriers, it is unlikely that the aircraft will ever be deployed aboard CVS for any extended periods. Instead, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has initiated development of a future aircraft carrier (CVF) scheduled to enter service at or about the same time as its JSF. The CVF program is currently in its concept development phase, and the ship will be designed for compatibility with the shipboard JSF variant, CV or STOVL, that will be procured for use by the UK's joint air forces. The UK's selection of JSF variant is scheduled to occur during the first half of 2002....”
“...Unlike the CV variant, the JSF STOVL variant did not have a spot factor requirement levied upon it. Instead, the ORD specified a spotting requirement in operational terms. The USMC operators required that it be possible to park a total of six STOVL variants aft of the island on an LHA or LHD, such that none fouls the landing area and that any one of them can be moved without first moving any other. This requirement constrains the STOVL variant's wingspan to be no more than 35 ft....” http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The idea of the entire force having the F-35B is that it allows a surge capability to be able to fully man both carriers whilst still allowing training at home and roulement to take place. The aircraft and landing systems on the carriers supposedly allow currency to be maintained.
Accepting that the F-35A may be more closely matched to the RAF role, the ability to surge the aircraft to sea would be lost. It may never be needed and the aircraft may spend the vast majority of their life in theatres such as Afghanistan, but the capability will be there.
The balance between flexibility and performance would seem to be tending towards flexibility.
Accepting that the F-35A may be more closely matched to the RAF role, the ability to surge the aircraft to sea would be lost. It may never be needed and the aircraft may spend the vast majority of their life in theatres such as Afghanistan, but the capability will be there.
The balance between flexibility and performance would seem to be tending towards flexibility.
Engines, grateful for that insightful and concise summary. Learn something new each day. Thank you, sir!
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines has most of the history right. However, the weight problems of 2003-04 - to wit, LockMart bid an airplane they didn't have a clue how to build - leave a B that is much less capable versus the A than had been predicted.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
So peeps with the A have it right? RIGHTO. FookinA! 
Meanwhile back at 25,000 feet....
Air Force F-35 oxygen problems happened above 25,000 feet 21 Jun 2017 Travis J. Tritten
USMC Temporarily Halts F-35 Flights as USAF Limits Luke Operations 23 Jun 2017 Brian Everstine
NOT ONLY BUT ALSO:
Marine F-35s grounded due to software concerns 22 Jun 2017 Aaron Mehta
Meanwhile back at 25,000 feet....Air Force F-35 oxygen problems happened above 25,000 feet 21 Jun 2017 Travis J. Tritten
"..."All five of the incidents that we had in the F-35 all occurred above 25,000 feet and so what we think is going on is that the metering system at a higher altitude may not be metering the oxygen at the level that is absolutely required," Goldfein said. "That is what the engineers are looking at." He said the Air Force is working with F-35 maker Lockheed Martin and is confident an engineering fix will be found...." Air Force F-35 oxygen problems happened above 25,000 feet
"...In addition, Air Combat Command has mandated that all pilots report hypoxia-like incidents through operational channels, as opposed to medical reports. This allows the information to be shared "across the enterprise," [ Air Force spokesman Col. Patrick] Ryder said...." http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/...perations.aspx
Marine F-35s grounded due to software concerns 22 Jun 2017 Aaron Mehta
"WASHINGTON – F-35B joint strike fighters based at Yuma Air Station in Arizona have been temporarily grounded due to issues with a key support system. The issue centers on the stealth jet's Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, The software behind ALIS is woven through the F-35, and plays a vital role in everything from planning missions to maintenance. In April, ALIS 2.0.2 was installed on F-35A models and Navy F-35C models, but was delayed in getting out to the F-35B jump-jet variants.
"Maj. Gen. Mark Wise, commanding general of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, made the decision to temporarily suspend VMFA-211 flight operations pending fixes to a recent ALIS software upgrade within version 2.0.2 that has presented some anomalies," Maj. Kurt Stahl, director of public affairs with the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, wrote in a statement. "There is nothing wrong with the performance or safety of the aircraft itself, but it is imperative that we ensure the ground-based ALIS system is working properly before flight operations continue...." http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...tware-concerns
"Maj. Gen. Mark Wise, commanding general of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, made the decision to temporarily suspend VMFA-211 flight operations pending fixes to a recent ALIS software upgrade within version 2.0.2 that has presented some anomalies," Maj. Kurt Stahl, director of public affairs with the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, wrote in a statement. "There is nothing wrong with the performance or safety of the aircraft itself, but it is imperative that we ensure the ground-based ALIS system is working properly before flight operations continue...." http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...tware-concerns
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 23rd Jun 2017 at 05:02. Reason: +reporting
The idea of the entire force having the F-35B is that it allows a surge capability to be able to fully man both carriers whilst still allowing training at home and roulement to take place. The aircraft and landing systems on the carriers supposedly allow currency to be maintained.
Accepting that the F-35A may be more closely matched to the RAF role, the ability to surge the aircraft to sea would be lost. It may never be needed and the aircraft may spend the vast majority of their life in theatres such as Afghanistan, but the capability will be there.
The balance between flexibility and performance would seem to be tending towards flexibility.
Accepting that the F-35A may be more closely matched to the RAF role, the ability to surge the aircraft to sea would be lost. It may never be needed and the aircraft may spend the vast majority of their life in theatres such as Afghanistan, but the capability will be there.
The balance between flexibility and performance would seem to be tending towards flexibility.
FB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I don't think we're used to aircraft being lined up for the distant possibility of in depth protracted capability and why just the Carriers? What about other areas?
I am no great fan of the F-35B, but I don't consider the reduced fuel load a critical deciding factor, and it doesn't require the additional holding and diversion fuel of the other marks. The reduced internal weapons load is an issue - but will be often operate in a theatre where external weapons can't be carried and AAR is not available?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Another explanation of PAS 2017 F-35A airshow maneuvers: 23 Jun 2017
F-35 Unleashed: Paris Flight Demo Displays Warfighting Potential | Defense content from Aviation Week
F-35 Unleashed: Paris Flight Demo Displays Warfighting Potential | Defense content from Aviation Week
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB and Others,
Thanks for the supportive comments. I'm probably pushing my luck, but I'll try to provide some information that might be useful.
Wingspan constraints - Spaz is right on the money with his quote from Eric Ryberg - the F-35B wing span was effectively constrained by a USMC requirement to park 6 jets aft of the LHA's island. There were some early ideas around getting the aircraft down UK CVS lifts (including unpowered 'drop down' wing tips) but these were all canned when the UK made it clear that the aircraft wouldn't be operated from CVS. The Uk's remaining requirements affecting ship ops were around the ski jump capability.
I think it's slightly harsh to say that LM 'didn't have a clue' how to build the aircraft. But LM did get their initial weight estimates badly wrong. I think the main reason was that their 'parametric weight estimation tools', which were based on building aircraft like the F-16, did not reflect the challenges of building an airframe with lots of big holes in it, like weapons bays and lift fan compartments. You can't pass load through thin air, so the structure has to go around the holes.
LM were told it was going to be very hard to build a STOVL aircraft within the weight budget, BAe's team at Farnborough (many ex Kingston) were flagging this as a major risk. Sadly, LM ignored them, and also ignored the NavAir weight estimation team, who were equipped with very good tools. It's also important to appreciate that all three variants had a weight issue. The B's was worst, as VL leaves just thrust and weight, but the A and the C were also very badly affected, especially their overall performance.
FB, as I've said, I agree that 138 B models doesn't appear to reflect the shipboard task. Surging to fully equip two carriers (say 24 apiece) should require no more than, say, 60 jets. That would leave 78 As for land based tasks. As I said in my last post, these are just guesses, the clever people in the staffs have got to square the circle.
What the UK can't have is a repeat of the bunfights that blighted Joint Force Harrier, with two services fighting (eventually to the death for both of them) over what they wanted their STOVL aircraft to do.
Alert - Engines opinion coming. It's my honest belief that the RAF are a highly professional, well trained and well equipped land based air force. However, they have never, so far, demonstrated any real commitment to the idea of maritime based air power. This, I suppose, is their big chance. Me, I'd give the RAF the aircraft they need and the Navy the aircraft they need, with common procurement, support, logistics and training systems.
But hey, I'm just a retired engineer.
Best regards as ever to all those managing the weight issues,
Engines
Thanks for the supportive comments. I'm probably pushing my luck, but I'll try to provide some information that might be useful.
Wingspan constraints - Spaz is right on the money with his quote from Eric Ryberg - the F-35B wing span was effectively constrained by a USMC requirement to park 6 jets aft of the LHA's island. There were some early ideas around getting the aircraft down UK CVS lifts (including unpowered 'drop down' wing tips) but these were all canned when the UK made it clear that the aircraft wouldn't be operated from CVS. The Uk's remaining requirements affecting ship ops were around the ski jump capability.
I think it's slightly harsh to say that LM 'didn't have a clue' how to build the aircraft. But LM did get their initial weight estimates badly wrong. I think the main reason was that their 'parametric weight estimation tools', which were based on building aircraft like the F-16, did not reflect the challenges of building an airframe with lots of big holes in it, like weapons bays and lift fan compartments. You can't pass load through thin air, so the structure has to go around the holes.
LM were told it was going to be very hard to build a STOVL aircraft within the weight budget, BAe's team at Farnborough (many ex Kingston) were flagging this as a major risk. Sadly, LM ignored them, and also ignored the NavAir weight estimation team, who were equipped with very good tools. It's also important to appreciate that all three variants had a weight issue. The B's was worst, as VL leaves just thrust and weight, but the A and the C were also very badly affected, especially their overall performance.
FB, as I've said, I agree that 138 B models doesn't appear to reflect the shipboard task. Surging to fully equip two carriers (say 24 apiece) should require no more than, say, 60 jets. That would leave 78 As for land based tasks. As I said in my last post, these are just guesses, the clever people in the staffs have got to square the circle.
What the UK can't have is a repeat of the bunfights that blighted Joint Force Harrier, with two services fighting (eventually to the death for both of them) over what they wanted their STOVL aircraft to do.
Alert - Engines opinion coming. It's my honest belief that the RAF are a highly professional, well trained and well equipped land based air force. However, they have never, so far, demonstrated any real commitment to the idea of maritime based air power. This, I suppose, is their big chance. Me, I'd give the RAF the aircraft they need and the Navy the aircraft they need, with common procurement, support, logistics and training systems.
But hey, I'm just a retired engineer.
Best regards as ever to all those managing the weight issues,
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC - "But will we often operate in a theatre where external weapons can't be carried?"
Errm - in that case, why buy F-35 in the first place? Particularly after it became clear (2003 or earlier) that the JSF-carrier was going to be Forrestal-sized and quite large enough for cats and traps?
Engines - Is it not also the case that the original overall length was constrained by the Invincible elevator? Or is there another reason why the jet is nine feet shorter than a Shornet?
Errm - in that case, why buy F-35 in the first place? Particularly after it became clear (2003 or earlier) that the JSF-carrier was going to be Forrestal-sized and quite large enough for cats and traps?
Engines - Is it not also the case that the original overall length was constrained by the Invincible elevator? Or is there another reason why the jet is nine feet shorter than a Shornet?
In considering the idea of split purchase it needs to be remembered that the commitment to 138 airframes is "over the life of the programme" - a typically Sir Humphrey qualification that it's all too easy to overlook. I have heard it suggested that the ambition is for an F35 fleet eventually comprising four squadrons.
If true (and I don't know if it is) I'm guessing that would imply a total uptake of around 90 airframes (long term attrition etc). Which magically leaves 48 left over - which, depending on just how long the programme runs, would allow for a final batch of very late model Bs to replace the early airframes and equip the carriers in their later lives.
Were that to happen, the question becomes how small a fleet is viable. Two sqns each if As and Bs sounds a bit meagre - would it be tenable?
The surge question is also important. "Surge" seems to have been adjusted down to 24 (presumably enough for many scenarios) and my guess is that the RAF brass will be briefing that the availability of two carriers means one available at all times and nothing more, thank you very much. But loss of the flexibility to go beyond 24 in extremis sounds to me like a fairly major disadvantage and a lost opportunity to exploit the carriers to the full.
The alternative is that my interpretation is wrong (wouldn't be the first time) and there is no need for a replacement batch in later years. If that allowed more than four sqns concurrently then a split purchase might be more viable.
If true (and I don't know if it is) I'm guessing that would imply a total uptake of around 90 airframes (long term attrition etc). Which magically leaves 48 left over - which, depending on just how long the programme runs, would allow for a final batch of very late model Bs to replace the early airframes and equip the carriers in their later lives.
Were that to happen, the question becomes how small a fleet is viable. Two sqns each if As and Bs sounds a bit meagre - would it be tenable?
The surge question is also important. "Surge" seems to have been adjusted down to 24 (presumably enough for many scenarios) and my guess is that the RAF brass will be briefing that the availability of two carriers means one available at all times and nothing more, thank you very much. But loss of the flexibility to go beyond 24 in extremis sounds to me like a fairly major disadvantage and a lost opportunity to exploit the carriers to the full.
The alternative is that my interpretation is wrong (wouldn't be the first time) and there is no need for a replacement batch in later years. If that allowed more than four sqns concurrently then a split purchase might be more viable.
Last edited by Frostchamber; 23rd Jun 2017 at 20:35.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George,
Thanks for coming back - perhaps I can help again here.
No, overall length was not constrained by CVS lifts. I can tell you for certain that the ORD did not require the aircraft to go down the CVS elevator.
The main thing constraining overall size was the requirement to build a STOVL single engined single seat aircraft. This, as I've posted before, was a quite deliberate move by the DoD to attempt to keep overall size and cost down. They'd seen three major tactical aircraft programmes fail as twin engined designs got bigger and bigger and more expensive. JSF was mandated to be single engined single seat.
The jet is nine feet shorter than an SH mainly because it's single engined, needs to do a VL, and can't carry another nine feet of fuselage around.
George, The QEC is big, but it's not Forrestal sized. Only two cats maximum, and no simultaneous launch and recovery. But it could take a C. The problem is that the UK:
a. Left the decision way too late
b. (In my view) can't afford the other costs of running cat and trap (machinery, training, currency, personnel)
Frost - estimating fleet sizes is an absolutely arcane black art that I was slightly involved in, and came away convinced that any numbers bid for are linked more to politics and budgets rather than a true military need. My opinion only - if you've gone to the trouble of putting a carrier group to sea with a QEC size ship, somewhere between 18 and 24 jets embarked would represent an effective capability. But it all depends on conops and such forth. Me engineer, no understand.
Best regards as ever to those sorting out the ops side of things,
Engines
Thanks for coming back - perhaps I can help again here.
No, overall length was not constrained by CVS lifts. I can tell you for certain that the ORD did not require the aircraft to go down the CVS elevator.
The main thing constraining overall size was the requirement to build a STOVL single engined single seat aircraft. This, as I've posted before, was a quite deliberate move by the DoD to attempt to keep overall size and cost down. They'd seen three major tactical aircraft programmes fail as twin engined designs got bigger and bigger and more expensive. JSF was mandated to be single engined single seat.
The jet is nine feet shorter than an SH mainly because it's single engined, needs to do a VL, and can't carry another nine feet of fuselage around.
George, The QEC is big, but it's not Forrestal sized. Only two cats maximum, and no simultaneous launch and recovery. But it could take a C. The problem is that the UK:
a. Left the decision way too late
b. (In my view) can't afford the other costs of running cat and trap (machinery, training, currency, personnel)
Frost - estimating fleet sizes is an absolutely arcane black art that I was slightly involved in, and came away convinced that any numbers bid for are linked more to politics and budgets rather than a true military need. My opinion only - if you've gone to the trouble of putting a carrier group to sea with a QEC size ship, somewhere between 18 and 24 jets embarked would represent an effective capability. But it all depends on conops and such forth. Me engineer, no understand.
Best regards as ever to those sorting out the ops side of things,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 23rd Jun 2017 at 15:08.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'GKL' asked 'Engines': "...Engines - Is it not also the case that the original overall length was constrained by the Invincible elevator? Or is there another reason why the jet is nine feet shorter than a Shornet?"
Reading the RYBERG PDF it is made clear that CVS dimensions had little to do with ship compatibility for the F-35 (long passage about 'old ships going to be out of date' can be excerpted). Anyhoo graphics below show dimensions & wotnots. I see 'Engines' has answered whilst this info was being gathered.
References for the graphics below:
Carrier Variant Comparison (USN)
http://www.amdo.org/JSF_Program_and_33_FW_Updates.pdf
&
Welcome - Naval Postgraduate School
&
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 12 May 2017
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa81..._may_2017_.pdf
Reading the RYBERG PDF it is made clear that CVS dimensions had little to do with ship compatibility for the F-35 (long passage about 'old ships going to be out of date' can be excerpted). Anyhoo graphics below show dimensions & wotnots. I see 'Engines' has answered whilst this info was being gathered.
References for the graphics below:
Carrier Variant Comparison (USN)
http://www.amdo.org/JSF_Program_and_33_FW_Updates.pdf
&
Welcome - Naval Postgraduate School
&
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 12 May 2017
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa81..._may_2017_.pdf
