F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
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
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
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And their associated tankers of course. Modifying the Voyagers would be tricky expensive in terms of the contract and their peacetime airline leases.
Indeed ORAC, politicians from all parties who have been in Government since 1979 have had an unhealthy craving for civilianizing the Armed Forces. I But are you saying the Voyager is unsuitable for Tanking operations anywhere outside of the European Theatre?
FB
FB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I am saying the F-35A needs a boom tanker, and none of the Voyagers is fitted with one. Modifying the contract would be very expensive as, even if the contractor agreed, those fitted could not be leased out for civilian use and the contractor would have to be compensated for the financial loss incurred.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B & C
With the present UK infrastructure, there may well be an argument for a mixed buy of F35Bs and F35Cs.
Both versions use probe refuelling and are managed by the US Navy.
Personally I think a one type only order of F35Bs would be best however..
Both versions use probe refuelling and are managed by the US Navy.
Personally I think a one type only order of F35Bs would be best however..
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
They haven't ordered any, the same issue was raised and the only definitive response was that if it was asked for then Canada would have to meet the entire hardware and software design and trials cost as no one else had asked for it.
Frankly, I would imagine the mind boggling high Voyager contract changes would end up cheaper......
Frankly, I would imagine the mind boggling high Voyager contract changes would end up cheaper......
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I can add to the discussion here on the possibility of an A/B mix:
I've posted previously about this idea, and the numbers all depend on operational and fleet planning assumptions.
Operational assumptions should be fairly simple - what is the Force Elements At Readiness (FEAR) (the old terminology I admit) requirement? Can be succinctly set out as x number of aircraft capable of y set of roles, at z days/ weeks/ months of readiness. I suppose you could add capable of ops over a set number of days.
Back in the days when I was managing the Sea Harrier fleet, our Flag Officer always published updated FEAR requirements every 6 months, with any short term adjustments required for mod programmes or so forth. The key element for us was to have two front line squadrons of 8 jets at R2 (48 hours) to embark on a carrier for 6 months of ops. We expected one squadron to always be at sea, with the other at sea for around 40% of the year.
The training/OCU unit was at at longer period of notice for embarkation., around a month.
Looking at the F-35 fleet, my very rough estimate would be that from approximately 140 aircraft, around 70 F-35Bs would be required to produce 4 front line squadrons of about 12 plus an OCU of around 10. That would leave 12 aircraft in the sustainment fleet, about 17% of the total, which should be plenty. I would be aiming for two squadrons embarked at sea at any one time (24 jets) with the other 24 at around a month's notice.
Key point - the embarked jets aren't 'deployed' - they are operating from their main base. A large carrier like the QE class is built to support those jets and their personnel for long periods, providing very nearly the same support as available on a UK land base. In some ways, it's better - you get more work out of your embarked personnel than you do ashore. The difference between planning for 'embarked time' and 'deployments' is significant.
Similar sums might apply to an F-35A/C fleet, in my view. Historically, the UK military has been satisfied with very low levels of operational availability. In many cases, this has been due to mismanagement of the aircraft fleets, where successive mod and update programmes have been allowed to dilute the fleet to the point where only a small fraction of the fleet have actually been capable of operational use.
In other cases, the in service authorities have adopted servicing regimes that guarantee having a large number of aircraft being taken to bits all the time. A certain well known UK military helicopter has a contractor run support system that frequently advertises its many successes - I'm not surprised, as at any one time 25% of the fleet are being serviced. Christ on a bike, I could have kept a fleet of JCBs in the air if I'd had one quarter of the fleet guaranteed as a servicing 'float'.
As far as an F-35A/C choice goes, I'd suggest that the determinants could be range and AAR method. If the RAF really wants a long range bomber, the F-35C would seem to be the best choice - but it would be a fairly expensive option compared with the A. Then there's the problem of the F-35A's AAR receptacle. A study was done to look at making the probe and drogue standard fit across the F-35 fleet, and a think a RAND study found that there would be advantages in making the USAF restrict the boom system to the large aircraft it was optimised for.
Certainly, on the F-35A, the AAR boom receptacle takes up a lot of fuel tank volume (about 600 pounds as I remember) and adds a lot of weight, as the receptacle has to fairly stout to resist boom loads - it ends up being mainly steel. Again relying on memory, but I think going from boom receptacle to probe on the A was calculated to add around 50 miles to the combat radius.
As ever, it will be down to the clever folk up in town dealing with the Treasury.
Best regards as ever to those doing the long term costings, or whatever they are called now....
Engines
I've posted previously about this idea, and the numbers all depend on operational and fleet planning assumptions.
Operational assumptions should be fairly simple - what is the Force Elements At Readiness (FEAR) (the old terminology I admit) requirement? Can be succinctly set out as x number of aircraft capable of y set of roles, at z days/ weeks/ months of readiness. I suppose you could add capable of ops over a set number of days.
Back in the days when I was managing the Sea Harrier fleet, our Flag Officer always published updated FEAR requirements every 6 months, with any short term adjustments required for mod programmes or so forth. The key element for us was to have two front line squadrons of 8 jets at R2 (48 hours) to embark on a carrier for 6 months of ops. We expected one squadron to always be at sea, with the other at sea for around 40% of the year.
The training/OCU unit was at at longer period of notice for embarkation., around a month.
Looking at the F-35 fleet, my very rough estimate would be that from approximately 140 aircraft, around 70 F-35Bs would be required to produce 4 front line squadrons of about 12 plus an OCU of around 10. That would leave 12 aircraft in the sustainment fleet, about 17% of the total, which should be plenty. I would be aiming for two squadrons embarked at sea at any one time (24 jets) with the other 24 at around a month's notice.
Key point - the embarked jets aren't 'deployed' - they are operating from their main base. A large carrier like the QE class is built to support those jets and their personnel for long periods, providing very nearly the same support as available on a UK land base. In some ways, it's better - you get more work out of your embarked personnel than you do ashore. The difference between planning for 'embarked time' and 'deployments' is significant.
Similar sums might apply to an F-35A/C fleet, in my view. Historically, the UK military has been satisfied with very low levels of operational availability. In many cases, this has been due to mismanagement of the aircraft fleets, where successive mod and update programmes have been allowed to dilute the fleet to the point where only a small fraction of the fleet have actually been capable of operational use.
In other cases, the in service authorities have adopted servicing regimes that guarantee having a large number of aircraft being taken to bits all the time. A certain well known UK military helicopter has a contractor run support system that frequently advertises its many successes - I'm not surprised, as at any one time 25% of the fleet are being serviced. Christ on a bike, I could have kept a fleet of JCBs in the air if I'd had one quarter of the fleet guaranteed as a servicing 'float'.
As far as an F-35A/C choice goes, I'd suggest that the determinants could be range and AAR method. If the RAF really wants a long range bomber, the F-35C would seem to be the best choice - but it would be a fairly expensive option compared with the A. Then there's the problem of the F-35A's AAR receptacle. A study was done to look at making the probe and drogue standard fit across the F-35 fleet, and a think a RAND study found that there would be advantages in making the USAF restrict the boom system to the large aircraft it was optimised for.
Certainly, on the F-35A, the AAR boom receptacle takes up a lot of fuel tank volume (about 600 pounds as I remember) and adds a lot of weight, as the receptacle has to fairly stout to resist boom loads - it ends up being mainly steel. Again relying on memory, but I think going from boom receptacle to probe on the A was calculated to add around 50 miles to the combat radius.
As ever, it will be down to the clever folk up in town dealing with the Treasury.
Best regards as ever to those doing the long term costings, or whatever they are called now....
Engines
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should be a simple (!) matter of taking the B/C common probe (I'm assuming you meant probe, not boom) and grafting into the existing A model's space claim.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
2805662,
The issue is the cost. Whilst fitting it might be possible, the cost of all the flight trials required - the A being a substantially different aerodynamic shape to the B or C plus any required software changes would not be cheap. Nor, I have no doubt, would LM's price for the design, regardless of the work they claim to have already undertaken. And as I said previously, the UK would be stuck with the entire costs.
Reference the discussion on the weight saving and additional fuel gained in removing the USRRSI would be practical as presumably during weight saving it designed to take structural loads and would have to be replaced within something as strong rather than a fuel tank, and having both might be advantageous.
Weren't a couple of Mks of the A-7 dual capable?
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/l...a-on-the-f-35/
Q: There was another component kerfuffle about a variant of this airplane: Canada had a little political dustup awhile back because its aerial refueling tankers use the probe-and-drogue system for its CF-18 Hornets. In that setup, the tanker trails a basket and fighter extends its own probe to refuel. But Canada plans to buy F-35As, which were designed for the U.S. Air Force’s refueling system, in which a human operator aboard the tanker flies a boom into a port on the fighter – in this case, on the A’s spine, aft of the cockpit. So has Lockheed talked with Canada about buying Navy-model Cs, to keep the probe-and-drogue setup, or modifying its As?
A: O’Bryan: “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”
The issue is the cost. Whilst fitting it might be possible, the cost of all the flight trials required - the A being a substantially different aerodynamic shape to the B or C plus any required software changes would not be cheap. Nor, I have no doubt, would LM's price for the design, regardless of the work they claim to have already undertaken. And as I said previously, the UK would be stuck with the entire costs.
Reference the discussion on the weight saving and additional fuel gained in removing the USRRSI would be practical as presumably during weight saving it designed to take structural loads and would have to be replaced within something as strong rather than a fuel tank, and having both might be advantageous.
Weren't a couple of Mks of the A-7 dual capable?
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/l...a-on-the-f-35/
Q: There was another component kerfuffle about a variant of this airplane: Canada had a little political dustup awhile back because its aerial refueling tankers use the probe-and-drogue system for its CF-18 Hornets. In that setup, the tanker trails a basket and fighter extends its own probe to refuel. But Canada plans to buy F-35As, which were designed for the U.S. Air Force’s refueling system, in which a human operator aboard the tanker flies a boom into a port on the fighter – in this case, on the A’s spine, aft of the cockpit. So has Lockheed talked with Canada about buying Navy-model Cs, to keep the probe-and-drogue setup, or modifying its As?
A: O’Bryan: “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
All makes sense - especially the bit about the country that wants the probe paying for it.
Considering that the A is the cheapest model - to both acquire and operate - any cost delta between the A and the B could (presumably) comfortably cover the NRE for the probe for the A. The UK could even make money on the deal by negotiating a royalty into the CCP/ECP that any other country opting for the fitment of the probe, similar to that negotiated by Australia with the Hellfire missile integration on the Tiger helicopter.
My response was more aimed at the snark (not yours) to the effect that "only LM could do the NRE" as if it was somehow unreasonable that the OEM execute - and bill for - NRE on its airframe.
All makes sense - especially the bit about the country that wants the probe paying for it.
Considering that the A is the cheapest model - to both acquire and operate - any cost delta between the A and the B could (presumably) comfortably cover the NRE for the probe for the A. The UK could even make money on the deal by negotiating a royalty into the CCP/ECP that any other country opting for the fitment of the probe, similar to that negotiated by Australia with the Hellfire missile integration on the Tiger helicopter.
My response was more aimed at the snark (not yours) to the effect that "only LM could do the NRE" as if it was somehow unreasonable that the OEM execute - and bill for - NRE on its airframe.
O'Bryan could have equally said is "...all it would take is designing, manufacturing and qualifying a probe, together with the structural changes to the aircraft, writing and qualifying the new software and repeating all the nessasary clearance trials done to date."
It would be just as accurate but would give a better impression of the task. We live in an F-35 world where the small opening to allow the gun to fire can upset the aircraft enough for the gun to miss and the gun installation was part of the A design from the beginning. Slapping on a probe and going for it is probably not a viable option.
It would be just as accurate but would give a better impression of the task. We live in an F-35 world where the small opening to allow the gun to fire can upset the aircraft enough for the gun to miss and the gun installation was part of the A design from the beginning. Slapping on a probe and going for it is probably not a viable option.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
In the same vein I was recalling the issues of taking the gun out of the RAF Eurofighter and having to replace it with a lump of metal the same size because of the FBW stability issues. I would imagine putting a probe in would have the problems.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
Perhaps I can help a bit here.
You're absolutely right that any change now to the A is going to cost. How much depends on a number of things that none of us are fully sighted on:
1. Your point about structure - removal of the boom receptacle would change a number of structural parts on the upper surface - but the new configuration would be very close to the B model, so it's not all new stuff. Possibly.
2. Software - main change would be to the fuel system management software, moving fuel around the tanks and handling the refuelling flows. Again, moving closer to the B model system.
3. Fuel system hardware would also need changing to add the probe lines and remove the many changes that were required to the system to accept boom refuel rates. Once again, moving closer to the B layout.
4. The least hard part of the job should be installation of the probe itself. The aerodynamic shape of the fuselage forward of the probe is the same for all three variants, as is the location of the cockpit canopy arch. If the space is truly vacant on the A, probe installation should not be a major challenge.
Taking the gun off the Typhoon was a major challenge (I was told) due to the high weight of the gun system and the particular way the aircraft's flight control system works. Your point about the F-35A is well made, although the weight involved is less, and the flight control system is different, and I would expect some software changes to be required.
Best regards as ever to those working the options,
Engines
Perhaps I can help a bit here.
You're absolutely right that any change now to the A is going to cost. How much depends on a number of things that none of us are fully sighted on:
1. Your point about structure - removal of the boom receptacle would change a number of structural parts on the upper surface - but the new configuration would be very close to the B model, so it's not all new stuff. Possibly.
2. Software - main change would be to the fuel system management software, moving fuel around the tanks and handling the refuelling flows. Again, moving closer to the B model system.
3. Fuel system hardware would also need changing to add the probe lines and remove the many changes that were required to the system to accept boom refuel rates. Once again, moving closer to the B layout.
4. The least hard part of the job should be installation of the probe itself. The aerodynamic shape of the fuselage forward of the probe is the same for all three variants, as is the location of the cockpit canopy arch. If the space is truly vacant on the A, probe installation should not be a major challenge.
Taking the gun off the Typhoon was a major challenge (I was told) due to the high weight of the gun system and the particular way the aircraft's flight control system works. Your point about the F-35A is well made, although the weight involved is less, and the flight control system is different, and I would expect some software changes to be required.
Best regards as ever to those working the options,
Engines
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...