Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 23rd Jun 2017, 21:04
  #10561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Mr Engines - I don't want to continue this forever, but as it happens I too have been closely associated with this project for a long time. You're correct in saying that the requirement did not make the JORD, but by the time it was eliminated, there was no realistic way that the shape of either contender was going to change very much. Note that the Invincible elevator is 55 feet in length.

Mr. Hancock To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications will be required to the dimensions of the Joint Strike Fighter to permit it to be operated from Invincible class aircraft carriers.

Mr. Spellar The operational requirements document for the Joint Strike Fighter incorporates Royal Navy requirements, which are very similar to those of the US Marines. Royal Navy requirements include the ability for the Short-Take Off, Vertical Landing variant to operate from the Invincible class aircraft carriers without modification to the aircraft.

Joint Strike Fighter (Hansard, 10 February 1998)

(By the way, thanks for providing the incentive to go and hunt down a primary source.)
George K Lee is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2017, 22:45
  #10562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 777
George,

Okay, I'm done too, thanks. Discussion's always good.

Best regards as ever to all those actually doing the hard yards,

Engines
Engines is online now  
Old 24th Jun 2017, 18:13
  #10563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,533
Back in 98, that "requirement" was about to be removed when the various CVS SLEP, CVS/JSF studies ongoing as required to support the CVF submissions exposed the impact on cost of trying to operate the 8 or so JSF you could fit on a CVS.


Note the use of JSF, two years before JORD frozen and three before downselect of X35 vice X32.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2017, 01:15
  #10564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 70
Posts: 1,938
The crab drumbeat begins or continues or is just plane boring....

RAF set to scale back on supersonic F-35Bs jets for Royal Navy aircraft carriers 24 Jun 2017 Deborah Haynes

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...iers-5wm0nzfmx
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2017, 02:01
  #10565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 70
Posts: 1,938
Probably not the B model eh. Too fast for that one. Sigh.

SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2017, 03:24
  #10566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Well it seems Low Observable is back under a different handle.

Welcome back Mr S. how's the NG job going?
MSOCS is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2017, 22:07
  #10567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
You're barking up the wrong tree again, Mr Gas Generating Device, but I'm sure this forum would function better if everyone acknowledged their identities. As for me, I am...

Wait, I'm being un-Britishly rude!

You go first, old bean!
George K Lee is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2017, 22:25
  #10568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Oh my apologies, perhaps it was a leap too far. You're George K Lee!!!!! The one and only.

By the way, it isn't a "gas generating device" anyway. Rather, it removes unwanted, useless "gas" to leave a more useful substance.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2017, 22:43
  #10569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Except when it doesn't, and instead causes the loss of higher cognitive functions.
George K Lee is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2017, 22:43
  #10570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,470
RAF set to scale back on supersonic F-35Bs jets for Royal Navy aircraft carriers...
That won't impress a certain septuagenarian ex-801 NAS SHAR pilot very much!
BEagle is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 03:58
  #10571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,174
Spazsinbad,

Surely 48 to 60 F-35Bs would be enough to meet any deployment on either of the Carriers! I expected there was at least an outside chance that this would probably happen. Given the F-35 is also to replace the Tornado it surely isn't limiting the Royal Navy's ability to deploy the two carriers simultaneously if not all 138 aircraft are Bs!? It would make sense for the RN to get up of 60 Bs while 78+ As went to the RAF. Not making allowance for test, Evaluation and OCU aircraft and any attrition spares of course.


Beagle,

I did read that Sharkey is no fan of the F-35B either and thought the C was the best option, but any suggestion of limitation on the Navy, in terms of air power, to the benefit of the Light Blue will probably see Cdr Ward turn a darker shade than normal.

FB
Finningley Boy is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 04:21
  #10572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 70
Posts: 1,938
'FB' seein' as how you asked me directly I must say it is all double dutch to me because I really have no interest in ukcrab aviation - just NavAv and I'm dununder to boot. However a person steered me to this '********' "b l o g s p o t' so that needs to be added to URL - this opinion may be useful to you - dunno:

F-35 split buy idea is nonsense: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.*****...-nonsense.html 25 Jun 2017 OR https://tinyurl.com/y7ce4yh8

And yes 'sharkey' has blagged the F-35B compared to the F-35C but that is 'water under the bridge' because there ain't no Cs for CVFs or Naval Air Service - endof.

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 26th Jun 2017 at 04:35. Reason: uk + tinyURL
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 04:37
  #10573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,174
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad View Post
'FB' seein' as how you asked me directly I must say it is all double dutch to me because I really have no interest in ukcrab aviation - just NavAv and I'm dununder to boot. However a person steered me to this '********' "b l o g s p o t' so that needs to be added to URL - this opinion may be useful to you - dunno:

F-35 split buy idea is nonsense: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.*****...-nonsense.html 25 Jun 2017 OR https://tinyurl.com/y7ce4yh8

And yes 'sharkey' has blagged the F-35B compared to the F-35C but that is 'water under the bridge' because there ain't no Cs for CVFs or Naval Air Service - endof.

This particular topic certainly has the proverbial wild follicle disappearing up some exhausts!

FB
Finningley Boy is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 06:29
  #10574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,174
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad View Post
'FB' seein' as how you asked me directly I must say it is all double dutch to me because I really have no interest in ukcrab aviation - just NavAv and I'm dununder to boot. However a person steered me to this '********' "b l o g s p o t' so that needs to be added to URL - this opinion may be useful to you - dunno:

F-35 split buy idea is nonsense: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.*****...-nonsense.html 25 Jun 2017 OR https://tinyurl.com/y7ce4yh8

And yes 'sharkey' has blagged the F-35B compared to the F-35C but that is 'water under the bridge' because there ain't no Cs for CVFs or Naval Air Service - endof.
By the way, who wrote the editorial in the link? Are you seriously claiming that all 138 aircraft would need to be committed to the Carriers in order to ensure that at least one could put to sea with a full compliment! This sounds most inefficient.

FB
Finningley Boy is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 07:58
  #10575 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,039
Speaking numbers, if one recalls GW1 each GR1 MOB of 3 Sqns supported 1 deployed Sqn. Why? Firstly the modification of "fleets within fleets" to supply jets to the same standard - and with enough airframe hours before their next major service which couldn't be done deployed. Second there was the need to deploy enough CR pilots for 24 hour operations, i.e. 3 or pilots per airframe instead of 1 to 1, whilst leaving a cadre at home to continue training and assessing the LCR crews as they worked up. Thirdly of course the need fo roulement and replacement for combat losses. Lastly the engineers and other essential support forces. We had got too used to the idea of the 3 day war where everyone was expected to work 247 before the nukes dropped and sustainability wasn't an issue. Then add an OCU of Sqn strength and an OEU.

Assuming the above even a single deployed carrier with 2 Sqns implies 2 MOB, say MR and LM each with 3 Sqns plus an OCU, 7 x 12, then add 30% for maintenance and attrition during fleet life, and you reach a requirement for 100-110 airframes. And that is before you even start to envisage the need to surge man the second carrier.

I really don't see how anyone envisages splitting the buy to include non-carrier capable airframes. And that's before the surviving Harrier Mafia VSOs weigh in on the advantages of STOVL for land operations in an era where everyone has UAVs and PCMs.
ORAC is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 08:29
  #10576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 70
Posts: 1,938
Scrolling down the page on the right hand side is a link:

https://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 08:38
  #10577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,174
ORAC,

Shall we say this, during 'GW1' the RAF had the luxury of putting together an expeditionary force of 40 or so Tornado GR1s from 11 frontline squadrons, two OCUs and a Test and Evaluation unit. That doesn't mean that today with a force of only about 80 available airframes they couldn't do the same. They would be pushed but then again it is always a numbers game. If we were getting 238 F-35s, I'm absolutely certain we'd have people making the case for them all to be F-35Bs just the same. Cast your mind back to the 1970s and HMS Ark Royal, tell me, how many F-4Ks and Buccaneers did the Navy have available for any full scale deployment? Please don't point out that the RAF would have rendered their assets to make good the numbers. While some RAF Phantom and Buccaneer crews were carrier trained, they were few and far between and the bulk of the latter's aircraft were declared to SACEUR meaning operating from European Bases. I don't think the RN and the RAF had anywhere near 138 Buccaneers between them, the RAF had a few more Phantoms but I'm not certain the F-4Ms were carrier capable I certainly don't think the Germany based crews practiced carrier operations at all.

FB
Finningley Boy is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 09:01
  #10578 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,039
While some RAF Phantom and Buccaneer crews were carrier trained, they were few and far between and the bulk of the latter's aircraft were declared to SACEUR meaning operating from European Bases.
Whilst not debating your point, upon the declaration of a certain RA measure various RAF assets, including 43 Sqn, were transferred from SACEUR to SACLANT. Land based yes, but for maritime operations/defence.

I spent too many hours of my life transmitting aircraft out to the "gate" and transferring them to the MM - and then having them engaged by the force they were on their way to defend. And the number of fighters and tankers required to support a single maritime CAP over the fleet from a land base is really mind boggling.....
ORAC is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 09:33
  #10579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,174
ORAC,

Admittedly so, yes I'm aware that 43 Sqn were assigned to SACLANT, I believe 12 Sqn's Buccaneers as well (not to sure about the Lightnings of 23? or 111 when they arrived at Leuchars) but they still remained land based, as you say, the pool of aircraft which the FAA had was very much limited. My whole point from the outset is that the carriers wouldn't, I'd have thought, be dependent on any more than about 50 to 60 airframes which would surely provide a sufficient number to place at least one on a full scale war footing, if there was a need to deploy both in such circumstances anytime in the future then I'd say the international climate would need to deteriorate dramatically. Also, the 138 airframes are required to suit now, two distinct service requirements; the carrier expeditionary role and the land based rapid deployment. The latter is not cancelled out by the former, no matter what people like Lewis Page etc think. That said, I'm absolutely certain that a sufficient number of F-35As would provide the RAF units with a superior aircraft. There are occasions when land bases are available which better place aircraft than the carrier.

FB
Finningley Boy is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2017, 09:45
  #10580 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,039
And their associated tankers of course. Modifying the Voyagers would be tricky expensive in terms of the contract and their peacetime airline leases.
ORAC is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.