More delays for the F-35
NaB - The Super Hornet's age (and the age of the original design) certainly means differences in terms of stealth versus a from-the-ground-up design.
If your requirement is written around JSF RCS numbers, the SH probably won't meet it, even with conformals and weapon pods and everything else that can be done.
On the other hand, it would be interesting to look at the actual RCS profiles of JSF and the Ultra Hornet - dB, aspect, band - and ask the question: How much difference does that make to survivability and lethality, across a likely set of missions and threats?
And stealth aside, the SH - particularly with conformals and the uprated engine, which are lower risk than the JSF at this point - gives little up to the F-35C, will surpass it in many respects and costs less. Maybe enough less to CATOBAR another carrier...
If your requirement is written around JSF RCS numbers, the SH probably won't meet it, even with conformals and weapon pods and everything else that can be done.
On the other hand, it would be interesting to look at the actual RCS profiles of JSF and the Ultra Hornet - dB, aspect, band - and ask the question: How much difference does that make to survivability and lethality, across a likely set of missions and threats?
And stealth aside, the SH - particularly with conformals and the uprated engine, which are lower risk than the JSF at this point - gives little up to the F-35C, will surpass it in many respects and costs less. Maybe enough less to CATOBAR another carrier...
Last edited by LowObservable; 29th Jan 2012 at 12:40.
A long time since I looked at the FCBA (as was) requirement, so can't really contrast between F35 & "UltraBug", particularly not for signature aspects 
.
My point was merely that the UK is not just buying a carrier-borne aircraft, but a carrier-borne aircraft that meets particular performance requirements - something that sometimes gets lost in the debate.
The age of the aircraft is perhaps not as important as it once was, but is still a half-decent indicator of the growth potential for a service life of 30+ years. Make no mistake, I think getting some F18F in the next five-eight years would be fantastic for the UK, but only if that then led to F35C sometime in the twenties.
In any case, given the choice for an alternate, Tomcat-21 would always have had my vote - wishful thinking I know!
.My point was merely that the UK is not just buying a carrier-borne aircraft, but a carrier-borne aircraft that meets particular performance requirements - something that sometimes gets lost in the debate.
The age of the aircraft is perhaps not as important as it once was, but is still a half-decent indicator of the growth potential for a service life of 30+ years. Make no mistake, I think getting some F18F in the next five-eight years would be fantastic for the UK, but only if that then led to F35C sometime in the twenties.
In any case, given the choice for an alternate, Tomcat-21 would always have had my vote - wishful thinking I know!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAB raises the growth potential issue, my understanding of the latest gen of 'stealthy' aircraft is that actually growth is strictly limited by the current structure/shape unlike the F18/F16/Mig 29 types which have had their capability and capacity greatly increased through 'growth'. For instance changes to the F35 fuselage for instance to accomodate what I see as a minor mod to the hook have been reported as difficult and expensive by the company.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Willard,
Thank you very much for the update and I have a few questions none of which are specifically aimed at you but one question does involve your comments about a conventional carrier.
If India were to build or purchase a conventional carrier then where would she get a trained deck crew to operate the ship whilst at flying stations? I ask this question as this area of expertise takes possibly years to master in a competent and professional manner. There are lots of noises being made at the moment regarding certain countries buying oil from Iran with gold instead of the recognised dollar... Would America appreciate this and still offer to help train the Indians or the other fast jet operator France who is part of the EU boycott. where would Indian get this expertise?
Going back to the F-35 or a substitute F-18, I am still about the RAF ownership should the F-18 be deemed necessary. Would the RAF prefer the F-18 to the Tornado or are all GR4's eventually being replaced by the Typhoon? If so same question but substitute Typhoon. If the RAF are not 100% committed then would the 18 be a dead man walking and we have the SHAR saga all over again?
Please note these are questions and I am NOT suggesting or implying anything regarding the purchasing of the F-18 or its future roles..
having said that would the F-18 Growler be more than welcome on any flight deck and is there a substitute for what that aircraft brings to the table?
Thank you very much for the update and I have a few questions none of which are specifically aimed at you but one question does involve your comments about a conventional carrier.
If India were to build or purchase a conventional carrier then where would she get a trained deck crew to operate the ship whilst at flying stations? I ask this question as this area of expertise takes possibly years to master in a competent and professional manner. There are lots of noises being made at the moment regarding certain countries buying oil from Iran with gold instead of the recognised dollar... Would America appreciate this and still offer to help train the Indians or the other fast jet operator France who is part of the EU boycott. where would Indian get this expertise?
Going back to the F-35 or a substitute F-18, I am still about the RAF ownership should the F-18 be deemed necessary. Would the RAF prefer the F-18 to the Tornado or are all GR4's eventually being replaced by the Typhoon? If so same question but substitute Typhoon. If the RAF are not 100% committed then would the 18 be a dead man walking and we have the SHAR saga all over again?
Please note these are questions and I am NOT suggesting or implying anything regarding the purchasing of the F-18 or its future roles..
having said that would the F-18 Growler be more than welcome on any flight deck and is there a substitute for what that aircraft brings to the table?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NaB,
Problem is, we're not procuring a carrier-borne aircraft any more but a carrier capable one. F35C will spend most of its service life ashore because the carrier will be late and we're only buying one Cat/Trap one. It won't be because we don't want to embark, but that we can't because she's in for servicing. The emphasis has switched and F35C will be looked at to replace lost GR4 strike capability for the RAF.
Problem is, we're not procuring a carrier-borne aircraft any more but a carrier capable one. F35C will spend most of its service life ashore because the carrier will be late and we're only buying one Cat/Trap one. It won't be because we don't want to embark, but that we can't because she's in for servicing. The emphasis has switched and F35C will be looked at to replace lost GR4 strike capability for the RAF.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we have one of them listening, could we ask the French for a little help?
Can you quickly explain to us why having Aeronavale pilots flying Rafale M is better than simply embarking a few Armee de l'air chaps every now and then?
Is it more efficient? Does it cost less? Is it safer? Couldn't the air force just supply the air boss? How about the yellow coats? The MAOC staff? Does it really take 3 years to make a LSO?
Please help because we have a navy that once knew about carriers but has forgotten and an air force that helped out to a greater or lesser degree in both the cat and trap ones, and also the VSTOL ones, but now all we're good at is blaming each other for the capability's demise.
It seems we might be interested in your aeroplane, please give us a quick data burst on your C2 and modus operandi.
Many thanks indeed.
PS Please answer from the point of view of both services. Does your air force want to go to sea? Or does it want all the Rafales including the Ms for some other reason? Has it ever been stated how much time a land based pilot would need to become proficient on the deck?
Can you quickly explain to us why having Aeronavale pilots flying Rafale M is better than simply embarking a few Armee de l'air chaps every now and then?
Is it more efficient? Does it cost less? Is it safer? Couldn't the air force just supply the air boss? How about the yellow coats? The MAOC staff? Does it really take 3 years to make a LSO?
Please help because we have a navy that once knew about carriers but has forgotten and an air force that helped out to a greater or lesser degree in both the cat and trap ones, and also the VSTOL ones, but now all we're good at is blaming each other for the capability's demise.
It seems we might be interested in your aeroplane, please give us a quick data burst on your C2 and modus operandi.
Many thanks indeed.
PS Please answer from the point of view of both services. Does your air force want to go to sea? Or does it want all the Rafales including the Ms for some other reason? Has it ever been stated how much time a land based pilot would need to become proficient on the deck?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is always hard to tell when you get an interesting question if it is just an excuse for some easy banter of if it is a serious one... so I'll take it as a serious one just in case...
Question 1 : I believe you can find part of the answer right at home : when the FAA FJ were absorbed by the RAF so was gone the embarked aviation in the UK (I'm talking fixed wing here). Surely everybody has his own opinion, but I believe it comes down to a couple of simple things (other than politics) :
- crabs don't join to spend 6 to 8 months per year at sea or away otherwise they would have joined the Navy. As easy as that. As a matter of fact I remember when Invincible used to participate in the all the Gulf big air exercises, the ship would go there empty, stovies would join in Oman, get onboard a couple of weeks for the exercise and then disembark before the ship went back home empty...
- it does indeed take a lot of time to keep up with the skills involved with a cats 'n' traps aviation. Unfortunately, the nation that invented it all is about to rediscover how hard it is as soon as the QE2 is afloat. What a shame. I would say that all highly technical skills are hard to maintain, however some more than others...Flying is difficult, flying from the sea is even more difficult. Otherwise anybody would have carriers. Chinese are getting one, let's see how long they take to master the skills to operate it.
When the french carrier went into refit it took A LOT of effort to keep everybody (pilots, LSO, yellow dogs, etc...) current. And that was "just" an 18 months refit...
Question 2 : Yes it is more expensive, yes it is safer. Although I am no specialist (being rotary, I try to keep as far as I can from flat tops), so I don't know exactly how long it takes to form a LSO (3 years seems a bit short to me, you have to add some 10 years of flying experience) As an example, our LSO are captains, that is how rare they are.
Question 3 : No, our crabs don't want to go at sea (as stated before), yes they want all the rafales, and the choppers, and the satellites, and the UAVs, but that's politics. There are pilot exchanges between AA and the Aéronavale, so becoming proficient on a deck is no impossible task. The main problem is keeping current (specially for night deck ops, although from what I know it got much easier with the new jets). So I believe it is a matter of either or, you can't do both.
Can you be more specific on what do you mean by C2 and modus operandi? I'll try to answer on a different post otherwise this one is going to get really boring
Question 1 : I believe you can find part of the answer right at home : when the FAA FJ were absorbed by the RAF so was gone the embarked aviation in the UK (I'm talking fixed wing here). Surely everybody has his own opinion, but I believe it comes down to a couple of simple things (other than politics) :
- crabs don't join to spend 6 to 8 months per year at sea or away otherwise they would have joined the Navy. As easy as that. As a matter of fact I remember when Invincible used to participate in the all the Gulf big air exercises, the ship would go there empty, stovies would join in Oman, get onboard a couple of weeks for the exercise and then disembark before the ship went back home empty...
- it does indeed take a lot of time to keep up with the skills involved with a cats 'n' traps aviation. Unfortunately, the nation that invented it all is about to rediscover how hard it is as soon as the QE2 is afloat. What a shame. I would say that all highly technical skills are hard to maintain, however some more than others...Flying is difficult, flying from the sea is even more difficult. Otherwise anybody would have carriers. Chinese are getting one, let's see how long they take to master the skills to operate it.
When the french carrier went into refit it took A LOT of effort to keep everybody (pilots, LSO, yellow dogs, etc...) current. And that was "just" an 18 months refit...
Question 2 : Yes it is more expensive, yes it is safer. Although I am no specialist (being rotary, I try to keep as far as I can from flat tops), so I don't know exactly how long it takes to form a LSO (3 years seems a bit short to me, you have to add some 10 years of flying experience) As an example, our LSO are captains, that is how rare they are.
Question 3 : No, our crabs don't want to go at sea (as stated before), yes they want all the rafales, and the choppers, and the satellites, and the UAVs, but that's politics. There are pilot exchanges between AA and the Aéronavale, so becoming proficient on a deck is no impossible task. The main problem is keeping current (specially for night deck ops, although from what I know it got much easier with the new jets). So I believe it is a matter of either or, you can't do both.
Can you be more specific on what do you mean by C2 and modus operandi? I'll try to answer on a different post otherwise this one is going to get really boring
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks and yes I was serious.
I personally don't understand the RAF desire to participate in CVF. I suspect it boils down to survival of the service. i.e. if they're not in JCA then they have Typhoon and that is it as far as FW goes. So it's the lesser of two evils and is not because CAS fundementally supports sea basing.
I don't understand why the UK is going to be different. I would have thought that we would do carrier strike like the experts, hence my questions.
I suspect that the cat and trap skills are high end and perishable, so you need to practice. I suspect that some in the RN will over play this (which is inefficient but safe) and some in the light blue will under play it (which is dangerous).
I personally think that the expertise in operating an aeroplane needs to find its way into CAOC/ MAOC, flyco and Fleet HQ. So to me the need for a dark blue aviator runs deeper than just pounding the flight deck.
As regards MO, you answered it in your answer, so thank you.
I believe that in growing the best capability for UK defence you probably want to start by copying the guys who are already doing it and have been for some time. That means a lot of time embarked, by guys prepared to do it, whose career path remains embedded within the capability.
Of course, if CAS were to go on record as committing RAF personnel to extended periods embarked the RN argument starts to look vulnerable. If he went high risk we could even see Joint Force Lightning rebranded as the FAA of the RAF....where I think we've been before!
Thanks again.
I personally don't understand the RAF desire to participate in CVF. I suspect it boils down to survival of the service. i.e. if they're not in JCA then they have Typhoon and that is it as far as FW goes. So it's the lesser of two evils and is not because CAS fundementally supports sea basing.
I don't understand why the UK is going to be different. I would have thought that we would do carrier strike like the experts, hence my questions.
I suspect that the cat and trap skills are high end and perishable, so you need to practice. I suspect that some in the RN will over play this (which is inefficient but safe) and some in the light blue will under play it (which is dangerous).
I personally think that the expertise in operating an aeroplane needs to find its way into CAOC/ MAOC, flyco and Fleet HQ. So to me the need for a dark blue aviator runs deeper than just pounding the flight deck.
As regards MO, you answered it in your answer, so thank you.
I believe that in growing the best capability for UK defence you probably want to start by copying the guys who are already doing it and have been for some time. That means a lot of time embarked, by guys prepared to do it, whose career path remains embedded within the capability.
Of course, if CAS were to go on record as committing RAF personnel to extended periods embarked the RN argument starts to look vulnerable. If he went high risk we could even see Joint Force Lightning rebranded as the FAA of the RAF....where I think we've been before!
Thanks again.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the F15SE probably cancelled, S korea also with F35?
New Pacific Institute | Promoting peace in the Pacific Basin in a time of uncertainty
It looks like Boeing is pulling the plug on their F15Silent Eagle project.
This would leave S Korea only with 2 viable options, the EF and the F35.
since Stealth is an issue for the South Koreans it looks like the way for the
F35 is all but paved.
It looks like Boeing is pulling the plug on their F15Silent Eagle project.
This would leave S Korea only with 2 viable options, the EF and the F35.
since Stealth is an issue for the South Koreans it looks like the way for the
F35 is all but paved.
ICBM
The carrier being late will have nothing to do with F35 and it's basing. More importantly, the maritime requirement isn't just what GR4 can do, whatever the emphasis may be in High Wycombe. The ship should also be able to do 8-9 month pa available for embarked ops, docking periods every five/six years.
The carrier being late will have nothing to do with F35 and it's basing. More importantly, the maritime requirement isn't just what GR4 can do, whatever the emphasis may be in High Wycombe. The ship should also be able to do 8-9 month pa available for embarked ops, docking periods every five/six years.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
USN LSO Training Article 2001 NAN
'orca' asked: "... Does it really take 3 years to make a LSO?...: Probably as in the question: "How long is a piece of string" there are variable answers however a useful LSO in the UK context will take a first sea tour and then afterward some USN LSO school training then on the job training back on CVF and it is all good - much the same as the RAN FAA experience back in the day....
Naval Aviation News May– Jun 2001
LSO School: Where the Teachers Go to Learn
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2001/mj01/lso.pdf (1Mb)
"...The school administers three different programs: a two-week Initial Formal Ground Training (IFGT) course, an FRS/TRACOM course for LSOs heading to duty in fleet readiness squadrons or the training command, and three-day Advanced Formal Ground Training (AFGT) for prospective air wing LSOs.
But the school is only part of the LSO training program; it is actually a second step along the training path of a typical LSO. Prospective LSOs are first-tour pilots who upon arriving at their squadron, volunteer and are nominated by squadron commanding officers to apprentice alongside the squadron and air wing LSOs. They are identified early enough to be given the opportunity to progress to wing qualification status before the end of their first operational tour.
After the first cruise when pilots are familiar enough with the LSO's job to make the school a worthwhile experience, they attend IFGT course, taking their skills to the next level. "We like students coming here to have at least waved a portion of work-ups on the platform, so that everything we show them makes sense and we can move on to fine-tuning them as LSOs," LCDR Watkins said.
After IFGT, newly trained LSOs return to their squadron and joinits LSO team to perform air wing duty. After a squadron LSO tour, the LSO returns to the school for the FRS/TRACOM course, becoming eligible for the subsequent shore duty assignment in an FRS or a training command unit.
LSOs who continue their "paddles" career typically get air wing LSO assignments after attending AFGT. Following that sea tour, they often go to a department head position, such as OIC of the LSO school...."
Naval Aviation News May– Jun 2001
LSO School: Where the Teachers Go to Learn
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2001/mj01/lso.pdf (1Mb)
"...The school administers three different programs: a two-week Initial Formal Ground Training (IFGT) course, an FRS/TRACOM course for LSOs heading to duty in fleet readiness squadrons or the training command, and three-day Advanced Formal Ground Training (AFGT) for prospective air wing LSOs.
But the school is only part of the LSO training program; it is actually a second step along the training path of a typical LSO. Prospective LSOs are first-tour pilots who upon arriving at their squadron, volunteer and are nominated by squadron commanding officers to apprentice alongside the squadron and air wing LSOs. They are identified early enough to be given the opportunity to progress to wing qualification status before the end of their first operational tour.
After the first cruise when pilots are familiar enough with the LSO's job to make the school a worthwhile experience, they attend IFGT course, taking their skills to the next level. "We like students coming here to have at least waved a portion of work-ups on the platform, so that everything we show them makes sense and we can move on to fine-tuning them as LSOs," LCDR Watkins said.
After IFGT, newly trained LSOs return to their squadron and joinits LSO team to perform air wing duty. After a squadron LSO tour, the LSO returns to the school for the FRS/TRACOM course, becoming eligible for the subsequent shore duty assignment in an FRS or a training command unit.
LSOs who continue their "paddles" career typically get air wing LSO assignments after attending AFGT. Following that sea tour, they often go to a department head position, such as OIC of the LSO school...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 30th Jan 2012 at 18:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a few questions which are as usual not aimed at anyone in particular, although the first one relates to the link very kindly posted by ORAC.
There are lots of very professional looking web-sites on the Internet but who are the authors and what is there agenda? I have absolutely no reason to doubt the varsity of what is being said but is that because I want to believe in what I am reading?
Should we have anticipated that the F-35 development program would be the most expensive ever for the type of aircraft?
Was the F-35 selected by the United States after a 'winner takes all' elimination contest held against an aircraft built by Boeing? Why were all these MAJOR issues not picked up during these elimination tests? It is not as though the problems being faced by the F-35 are minor teething problems. Numerous major items are only now being discovered and it really begs the question of what tests were carried out prior to signing up for the 35.
Not being capable of catching an arrester hook is more than a trifle embarrassing for a Navy fast jet.
Is there a place for a touch of humour regarding aircraft launched from ships without any ability to land back on a deck?
There are lots of very professional looking web-sites on the Internet but who are the authors and what is there agenda? I have absolutely no reason to doubt the varsity of what is being said but is that because I want to believe in what I am reading?
Should we have anticipated that the F-35 development program would be the most expensive ever for the type of aircraft?
Was the F-35 selected by the United States after a 'winner takes all' elimination contest held against an aircraft built by Boeing? Why were all these MAJOR issues not picked up during these elimination tests? It is not as though the problems being faced by the F-35 are minor teething problems. Numerous major items are only now being discovered and it really begs the question of what tests were carried out prior to signing up for the 35.
Not being capable of catching an arrester hook is more than a trifle embarrassing for a Navy fast jet.
Is there a place for a touch of humour regarding aircraft launched from ships without any ability to land back on a deck?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'glojo' thinks: "...Not being capable of catching an arrester hook is more than a trifle embarrassing for a Navy fast jet...."
Perhaps it is not easy to understand that the F-35C is being tested and that soon a new hook design will be tested. No big deal but if you want to make it a big deal then so be it. I don't believe a hunk of metal can be embarrassed but whatever.
Perhaps it is not easy to understand that the F-35C is being tested and that soon a new hook design will be tested. No big deal but if you want to make it a big deal then so be it. I don't believe a hunk of metal can be embarrassed but whatever.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Spaz,
You might be reading FAR to much into wording as opposed to observations.
Are you saying it is only a redesign that is needed for the hook? If not then what are your thoughts?
I TOTALLY accept that one answer is a redesigned hook, would that would be the easiest, cheapest and quickest remedy?
BUT surely if that were the answer then would this issue have received so much attention? Time waits for no man and whilst this issue remains unsolved then questions are rightly going to be asked.
Could it be distance between undercarriage and hook?
My question was... Why was this fundamental requirement not part of the acceptance evaluation when both aircraft were competing for this contract? Other aspects were tested to evaluate abilities so why not at the very least do land based tests to see if the thing can catch the wire?
I am in the camp that wants the F-35 to be a success, I am also doubtful about the enthusiasm for purchasing the F-18 but would welcome anyone that can put forward a justifiable case for the RAF wanting that aircraft.
If we were in the position of owning multiple aircraft carriers then the Navy could be the owner of the jets, the maintainer and the trainer but that is never going to be an option.
PLEASE try to look on my statements as questions designed to stimulate debate and try not to pay too much attention to wording which might at times reflect the passion I feel for this and other issues.
You might be reading FAR to much into wording as opposed to observations.
Are you saying it is only a redesign that is needed for the hook? If not then what are your thoughts?
I TOTALLY accept that one answer is a redesigned hook, would that would be the easiest, cheapest and quickest remedy?
BUT surely if that were the answer then would this issue have received so much attention? Time waits for no man and whilst this issue remains unsolved then questions are rightly going to be asked.
Could it be distance between undercarriage and hook?
My question was... Why was this fundamental requirement not part of the acceptance evaluation when both aircraft were competing for this contract? Other aspects were tested to evaluate abilities so why not at the very least do land based tests to see if the thing can catch the wire?
I am in the camp that wants the F-35 to be a success, I am also doubtful about the enthusiasm for purchasing the F-18 but would welcome anyone that can put forward a justifiable case for the RAF wanting that aircraft.
If we were in the position of owning multiple aircraft carriers then the Navy could be the owner of the jets, the maintainer and the trainer but that is never going to be an option.
PLEASE try to look on my statements as questions designed to stimulate debate and try not to pay too much attention to wording which might at times reflect the passion I feel for this and other issues.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Is there a place for a touch of humour regarding aircraft launched from ships without any ability to land back on a deck?
CAM Ships