F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can tell you for certain that the ORD did not require the aircraft to go down the CVS elevator.
I believe that. However, by the time the JORD - which was the only ORD, previous versions having been interim - was blessed and issued in 2000, the program was inextricably committed to one of two basic designs that dated to 1995-96, when the expectation was that the JSF would serve on the CVS.
I believe that. However, by the time the JORD - which was the only ORD, previous versions having been interim - was blessed and issued in 2000, the program was inextricably committed to one of two basic designs that dated to 1995-96, when the expectation was that the JSF would serve on the CVS.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George,
I think it would be helpful if I replied again here.
Yes, my terminology fail - the 'ORD' I referred to was the JORD. When the programme was awarded to LM, this document became the 'JSF Air System Requirement Document'.
And yes, the overall design of what became the F-35 was certainly based on the LM X-35. But....the X-35 was a concept demonstrator, no more and no less. It set the basic layout of the aircraft, with an aft mounted engine, forward mounted lift fan, internal weapons bays and so forth. The F-35 was, in detail, a clean sheet design using a similar layout, and it went through a large number of iterations that adjusted every single dimension on the aircraft.
Let me say again - the overall length of the F-35 was not driven by the UK's CVS design. It came out of the need to achieve a very tough VLBB requirement, which was a KPP - couldn't be traded away. That meant an aircraft that was as light as possible. That meant an aircraft that was as compact in overall dimensions as possible - a bit like the way the Harrier was developed. By 2000, a longer aircraft could certainly have been developed, which would have helped a lot with internal fuel stowage - but it would have breached the VLBB KPP.
Hope this helps
Best regards as ever to all those who actually have to do the designing stuff,
Engines
I think it would be helpful if I replied again here.
Yes, my terminology fail - the 'ORD' I referred to was the JORD. When the programme was awarded to LM, this document became the 'JSF Air System Requirement Document'.
And yes, the overall design of what became the F-35 was certainly based on the LM X-35. But....the X-35 was a concept demonstrator, no more and no less. It set the basic layout of the aircraft, with an aft mounted engine, forward mounted lift fan, internal weapons bays and so forth. The F-35 was, in detail, a clean sheet design using a similar layout, and it went through a large number of iterations that adjusted every single dimension on the aircraft.
Let me say again - the overall length of the F-35 was not driven by the UK's CVS design. It came out of the need to achieve a very tough VLBB requirement, which was a KPP - couldn't be traded away. That meant an aircraft that was as light as possible. That meant an aircraft that was as compact in overall dimensions as possible - a bit like the way the Harrier was developed. By 2000, a longer aircraft could certainly have been developed, which would have helped a lot with internal fuel stowage - but it would have breached the VLBB KPP.
Hope this helps
Best regards as ever to all those who actually have to do the designing stuff,
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
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.)
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.
Note the use of JSF, two years before JORD frozen and three before downselect of X35 vice X32.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Wait, I'm being un-Britishly rude!
You go first, old bean!
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
By the way, it isn't a "gas generating device" anyway. Rather, it removes unwanted, useless "gas" to leave a more useful substance.
RAF set to scale back on supersonic F-35Bs jets for Royal Navy aircraft carriers...
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
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'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.
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 03:35. Reason: uk + tinyURL
'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.
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
'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.
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.
FB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Scrolling down the page on the right hand side is a link:
https://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582
https://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582
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
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
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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 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.....