No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF will own JCA (currently F-35C).
The RAF sacrificed Harrier and GR4 replacement (DPOC) in SDSR. The future construct would appear to be solely Typhoon and JCA.
FB11 makes a telling suggestion on the GR9 bargain sale thread - that Tornado (since SDSR) has become more expensive by £1 billion.
Whether or not this is correct a reversion to the B would appear to offer a lower work load to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, another chance to balance the books for MoD, a strengthening argument for the RAF to man JCA entirely and not much to either the RN or UK CEPP.
The RAF sacrificed Harrier and GR4 replacement (DPOC) in SDSR. The future construct would appear to be solely Typhoon and JCA.
FB11 makes a telling suggestion on the GR9 bargain sale thread - that Tornado (since SDSR) has become more expensive by £1 billion.
Whether or not this is correct a reversion to the B would appear to offer a lower work load to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, another chance to balance the books for MoD, a strengthening argument for the RAF to man JCA entirely and not much to either the RN or UK CEPP.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As such future owner of F35 why are they not screaming for the C?
a reversion to the B would appear to offer.............a strengthening argument for the RAF to man JCA entirely
I'm really confused now... the flow of the discussion above suggests that the main attraction to the RAF of the F35-B is the reduced landing training burden, and therefore the ability to do short "RAF-style" detachments to the boat.
However, if carrier autoland is going to be feasible, this will significantly reduce the training burden associated with CATOBAR and make it easier to do short detachments with the F35-C..... so why would you not choose the -C?
I'd be very wary of anyone who says STOVL in the F35-B will be simple. The RAF has a special way of making everything at least twice as difficult as it needs to be!
However, if carrier autoland is going to be feasible, this will significantly reduce the training burden associated with CATOBAR and make it easier to do short detachments with the F35-C..... so why would you not choose the -C?
I'd be very wary of anyone who says STOVL in the F35-B will be simple. The RAF has a special way of making everything at least twice as difficult as it needs to be!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question
I would like to think that even though the F-18 has been fully capable of autolanding on the deck, the pilot would surely opt for not using that feature.
I would like to think that even though the F-18 has been fully capable of autolanding on the deck, the pilot would surely opt for not using that feature.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's some interesting stuff on this thread, and good exchanges of views. Perhaps I may offer a couple of inputs.
F-35B STO requirement KPP - came in two versions - one for the flat deck USMC ship, one for the UK ski-jump. Neither was set, IIRC, at MTOW, both referred to a 'mission weight' which was derived from laid down profiles and parameters. IIRC, the two requirements used the same weight. (Remember that the UK MoD were paranoid about not adding any UK specific requirements if they could possible help it). USMC STO was around 550 ft, driven by - well, I was on the ship suitability team and it was not always that clear what drove that figure - we thought it was influenced by the way the LHDs used the aft end of the deck. However, 550 feet it was (I think) and we worked to that. The UK figure was somewhat less than that, but until we hit the weight issues it wasn't driving any of the design. Once we had the weight problems we were struggling with STO length.
I do want to respond to LO and some of his statements on STOVL recovery and autoland.
STOVL landings: The reason STOVL is 'so easy' in the F-35B is that the team have done a simply fantastic job of using 'fly by computer' to give the pilot Level 1 handling qualities in the transition and the hover. It's NOTHING like a UAV, though. It's actually more like other 'fly by computer' combat aircraft that can't be flown manually, like, oh let's see....Typhoon.
CATOBAR landings - have we worked out how to make carrier recovery automatic? Yes, we have. Now for the real question - have we worked out how to make carrier recoveries automatic and so reliable that we can commit to blue water non-diversion flying on a dark and stormy night, stop training pilots how to do it manually and launch 20 plus aircraft knowing we'll lose them all if the autoland system (either the bits on the ship or the bits in the aircraft) go U/S? No, we haven't and I don't think the USN will for many years yet. They are exploiting the landing assistance systems as much as they can to reduce pilot workload during recoveries, but any idea that the UK could operate the F-35C from a carrier without the USN standard of pilot training is just, I'm afraid, fantasy. I've heard it a few times around light blue quarters and it needs to be stamped on, hard.
It's not a hankering for 'manliness', by the way. It's called maritime aviation. If you serve in an air force, you don't know much about it. Doesn't make you bad people in the least, but I expect you'd be a bit miffed if the USN came over and started telling you how you should be flying your aircraft. The USN have been doing naval aviation for decades and doing it damn well, and I'd be inclined to defer to them for now. Chinese? Let's see how they go first, shall we?
Oh, just a thought - if this autoland stuff is so straightforward, why don't we apply it to land based aviation first? We'd save heaps on all that training pilots to land stuff - but would you like to rely on it all the time?
As always, credit to the boys and girls actually out there over land or sea, doing the business for real, whatever the colour of cloth,
Best Regards
Engines
F-35B STO requirement KPP - came in two versions - one for the flat deck USMC ship, one for the UK ski-jump. Neither was set, IIRC, at MTOW, both referred to a 'mission weight' which was derived from laid down profiles and parameters. IIRC, the two requirements used the same weight. (Remember that the UK MoD were paranoid about not adding any UK specific requirements if they could possible help it). USMC STO was around 550 ft, driven by - well, I was on the ship suitability team and it was not always that clear what drove that figure - we thought it was influenced by the way the LHDs used the aft end of the deck. However, 550 feet it was (I think) and we worked to that. The UK figure was somewhat less than that, but until we hit the weight issues it wasn't driving any of the design. Once we had the weight problems we were struggling with STO length.
I do want to respond to LO and some of his statements on STOVL recovery and autoland.
STOVL landings: The reason STOVL is 'so easy' in the F-35B is that the team have done a simply fantastic job of using 'fly by computer' to give the pilot Level 1 handling qualities in the transition and the hover. It's NOTHING like a UAV, though. It's actually more like other 'fly by computer' combat aircraft that can't be flown manually, like, oh let's see....Typhoon.
CATOBAR landings - have we worked out how to make carrier recovery automatic? Yes, we have. Now for the real question - have we worked out how to make carrier recoveries automatic and so reliable that we can commit to blue water non-diversion flying on a dark and stormy night, stop training pilots how to do it manually and launch 20 plus aircraft knowing we'll lose them all if the autoland system (either the bits on the ship or the bits in the aircraft) go U/S? No, we haven't and I don't think the USN will for many years yet. They are exploiting the landing assistance systems as much as they can to reduce pilot workload during recoveries, but any idea that the UK could operate the F-35C from a carrier without the USN standard of pilot training is just, I'm afraid, fantasy. I've heard it a few times around light blue quarters and it needs to be stamped on, hard.
It's not a hankering for 'manliness', by the way. It's called maritime aviation. If you serve in an air force, you don't know much about it. Doesn't make you bad people in the least, but I expect you'd be a bit miffed if the USN came over and started telling you how you should be flying your aircraft. The USN have been doing naval aviation for decades and doing it damn well, and I'd be inclined to defer to them for now. Chinese? Let's see how they go first, shall we?
Oh, just a thought - if this autoland stuff is so straightforward, why don't we apply it to land based aviation first? We'd save heaps on all that training pilots to land stuff - but would you like to rely on it all the time?
As always, credit to the boys and girls actually out there over land or sea, doing the business for real, whatever the colour of cloth,
Best Regards
Engines
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hornet drivers can auto land so long as they are current at not auto landing. Reversionary is traditional pilot skills, so you still need proficiency at flying to the deck.
You will probably be able to find some Hornet drivers who have faith in the auto land system. You will also encounter those with little faith in it.
I cannot speak for the maturity of the auto land system in F-35C.
You will probably be able to find some Hornet drivers who have faith in the auto land system. You will also encounter those with little faith in it.
I cannot speak for the maturity of the auto land system in F-35C.
Good point, well made. I was thinking the same thing. So, I guess it would be a good idea for pilots to practice a few proper landings now and then. If that can't be done, then maybe they need to keep up to date with their bail-out drills.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
The F-35 relies on computers to fly the aircraft, just like other modern unstable combat aircraft such as Typhoon, and F-22. (And Airbus aircraft). No manual reversion.
B has an autoland capability, but can be easily landed by a pilot using his (or her) controls.
C will have an autoland capability to the carrier deck, but as explained elsewhere, this will be used in much the same way as the USN use autoland now - the majority of recoveries to the deck wil be made using varying mixtures of landing aids and manual control.
All three variants have a very similar control architecture, cockpits look pretty much the same, and can be flown like a legacy aircraft. They'll all have autopilots, which I suspect will get used for much of the operational sorties once the aircraft is up and away.
I have to say this. There are a few contributors here who seem to have a default position of 'F-35 is stupid, people who designed it are stupid, it's all wrong or stupid.'
Wake up call. The F-35 team aren't stupid, nor is the aircraft. Can they make mistakes? You bet. They're human. But they are doing something exceptionally challenging here.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
The F-35 relies on computers to fly the aircraft, just like other modern unstable combat aircraft such as Typhoon, and F-22. (And Airbus aircraft). No manual reversion.
B has an autoland capability, but can be easily landed by a pilot using his (or her) controls.
C will have an autoland capability to the carrier deck, but as explained elsewhere, this will be used in much the same way as the USN use autoland now - the majority of recoveries to the deck wil be made using varying mixtures of landing aids and manual control.
All three variants have a very similar control architecture, cockpits look pretty much the same, and can be flown like a legacy aircraft. They'll all have autopilots, which I suspect will get used for much of the operational sorties once the aircraft is up and away.
I have to say this. There are a few contributors here who seem to have a default position of 'F-35 is stupid, people who designed it are stupid, it's all wrong or stupid.'
Wake up call. The F-35 team aren't stupid, nor is the aircraft. Can they make mistakes? You bet. They're human. But they are doing something exceptionally challenging here.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the B relies on computers to land. If they fail, the driver needs to bang out.
The C has auto land. It relies on computers, if they fail, the driver needs to bang out.
The C has auto land. It relies on computers, if they fail, the driver needs to bang out.
A lot of current day fighters rely on computers to FLY - if they fail (in all channels) - the driver needs to bang out. (and has been the case for 30+ years in some types)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be more fair to say that neither are flyable following a catastrophic flight control malfunction.
The auto land question needs to be turned on its head to a degree. Try not to think 'Why would we manually land a fighter with auto land?'. Better to say 'Why would we rely on auto land when it really should be the last resort to getting the boys back on board?'.
F-35B would appear to be the easier of the two to land when 'full up'. SSSEOWTF is absolutely the expert on this.
F-35C will be the same as any other carrier borne aircraft. It can be landed without auto land by anyone who has invested the correct amount of embarked time in gaining the skill.
F-35C will be the same as any other carrier borne or land based aircraft. It needs to be flown and trained for bearing possible failures in mind.
Auto land is the same as any other system - it fails. Even when it works - it fails to deliver the correct result.
For what it's worth the F-18 also has auto throttles as well - but you don't use them until cleared to do so, having ably demonstrated you can 'do it yourself' first.
You want the longest reach? Buy the F35C. You want assurance and supervision? Learn to cat and trap and keep the skills fresh. Go to sea and stay there.
I really don't see what the fuss about long embarkations, det length and sea time is...this thing's always been a Maritime Strike asset hasn't it? They go to sea, it's what they do. CAS even mentioned F-35C and the Maritime Strike capability in his post SDSR letter to the RAF. (The one where he says the F-35C is more capable...)
The auto land question needs to be turned on its head to a degree. Try not to think 'Why would we manually land a fighter with auto land?'. Better to say 'Why would we rely on auto land when it really should be the last resort to getting the boys back on board?'.
F-35B would appear to be the easier of the two to land when 'full up'. SSSEOWTF is absolutely the expert on this.
F-35C will be the same as any other carrier borne aircraft. It can be landed without auto land by anyone who has invested the correct amount of embarked time in gaining the skill.
F-35C will be the same as any other carrier borne or land based aircraft. It needs to be flown and trained for bearing possible failures in mind.
Auto land is the same as any other system - it fails. Even when it works - it fails to deliver the correct result.
For what it's worth the F-18 also has auto throttles as well - but you don't use them until cleared to do so, having ably demonstrated you can 'do it yourself' first.
You want the longest reach? Buy the F35C. You want assurance and supervision? Learn to cat and trap and keep the skills fresh. Go to sea and stay there.
I really don't see what the fuss about long embarkations, det length and sea time is...this thing's always been a Maritime Strike asset hasn't it? They go to sea, it's what they do. CAS even mentioned F-35C and the Maritime Strike capability in his post SDSR letter to the RAF. (The one where he says the F-35C is more capable...)
Engines, thank you for the partial clarificaion. A true source of fact as ever. I was getting the impression that manual landings in the B couldn't be done or were too diff.
ftrplt, there is a difference between losing a FBW channel (or two or whatever) and losing the link that controls the landing. Reversionary modes in all FBW aircraft are just fun. Autoland on a carrier kicking out doesn't sound like fun to me.
ftrplt, there is a difference between losing a FBW channel (or two or whatever) and losing the link that controls the landing. Reversionary modes in all FBW aircraft are just fun. Autoland on a carrier kicking out doesn't sound like fun to me.
I agree that we're not going to see carrier autoland become standard for many years... but "many years", as in multiple decades, happens to be the lifespan of carriers and aircraft designs.
A point of clarification: There is an autoland system on USN carriers today, based on a ship-mounted radar. It is not the system that's being tested under the UCAV program, which is based on differential GPS. Simply, the new system tells the aircraft exactly where the landing spot will be, relative to its own position, when it hits the deck. Since the job of the FCS on the aircraft at all times is, basically, to keep the jet on a commanded flightpath, the FCS is not doing anything unusual to guide to the landing point.
Everything updates at a rate of 100 times a second or so. As a navy aviator/engineer put it to me: "It's a high-demand task for a human but for a computer it's like watching paint dry."
Safety is where it gets interesting. Nobody is going to let the UAV near the boat (under operational conditions) until safety is not measurably different from piloted ops, at any time. And by "at any time" we mean calm, clear daylight conditions. However, the autoland system does not even know if it is dark, turbulent or rainy. If it has equivalent safety in normal conditions...
Blasphemy, I know. As for "why doesn't the AF do it?", well, the AF does not burn tons of fuel, time and airframe life practicing landings.
Will it be there at F-35 IOC? No. Can we say it won't be there during the life of the program? Also no.
Engines: It's not that 'F-35 is stupid, people who designed it are stupid, it's all wrong or stupid.' It's that the program has been oversold and its risks understated, and that the Plan B options are being eliminated one by one as the program continues to slip to the right and overrun costs.
There may be one, two or even three worthwhile airplanes that come out of the program, but it is the leadership of the program that has led to the criticism outside.
If you want to stop that, pass the message up the chain of command that the people talking in public need to get out of denial mode, because right now the baseline plan seems to be to sell the program to the politicians while blaming the customer for the problems.
A point of clarification: There is an autoland system on USN carriers today, based on a ship-mounted radar. It is not the system that's being tested under the UCAV program, which is based on differential GPS. Simply, the new system tells the aircraft exactly where the landing spot will be, relative to its own position, when it hits the deck. Since the job of the FCS on the aircraft at all times is, basically, to keep the jet on a commanded flightpath, the FCS is not doing anything unusual to guide to the landing point.
Everything updates at a rate of 100 times a second or so. As a navy aviator/engineer put it to me: "It's a high-demand task for a human but for a computer it's like watching paint dry."
Safety is where it gets interesting. Nobody is going to let the UAV near the boat (under operational conditions) until safety is not measurably different from piloted ops, at any time. And by "at any time" we mean calm, clear daylight conditions. However, the autoland system does not even know if it is dark, turbulent or rainy. If it has equivalent safety in normal conditions...
Blasphemy, I know. As for "why doesn't the AF do it?", well, the AF does not burn tons of fuel, time and airframe life practicing landings.
Will it be there at F-35 IOC? No. Can we say it won't be there during the life of the program? Also no.
Engines: It's not that 'F-35 is stupid, people who designed it are stupid, it's all wrong or stupid.' It's that the program has been oversold and its risks understated, and that the Plan B options are being eliminated one by one as the program continues to slip to the right and overrun costs.
There may be one, two or even three worthwhile airplanes that come out of the program, but it is the leadership of the program that has led to the criticism outside.
If you want to stop that, pass the message up the chain of command that the people talking in public need to get out of denial mode, because right now the baseline plan seems to be to sell the program to the politicians while blaming the customer for the problems.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure Air Forces do circuits. I would struggle to suggest that all but the full stops were a waste of fuel and fatigue.
We've also trained a whole generation of (GR1/4) pilots at low level when the machine could do it for itself. I think that it was a reasonable thing to do.
We're buying a cat and trap aircraft because it's more capable than its VSTOL stable mate - that comes with a training burden.
We've also trained a whole generation of (GR1/4) pilots at low level when the machine could do it for itself. I think that it was a reasonable thing to do.
We're buying a cat and trap aircraft because it's more capable than its VSTOL stable mate - that comes with a training burden.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
With regards to your
LO is right in that it isn't the aircraft per say, that people take issue with; rather the fact that we have been convinced that it is capable of a certain specification at a certain price, and both of these variables seem to be getting blown out of the water at such an early stage in the testing.
What seems apparent to me, is that the IOC is slowly but surely moving ever closer to being after 2020 and I think the big question that most skeptics are concerning themselves with is whether it is really worth the equivalent 4.5 generation numbers and capability to get this jet, especially if it's going to be in its least capable format and delayed by 10 years.
No-one is doubting that the F35 is an incredible example of engineering, particularly dave B, but looking at it from a practical sense, I find myself questioning whether that stealth (and hovering ability, if we do take the ridiculous decision to go back to the B) is worth the poor serviceability and small numbers...plus all the other hardware we've sacrificed for it.
With regards to your
There are a few contributors here who seem to have a default position of 'F-35 is stupid, people who designed it are stupid, it's all wrong or stupid.
What seems apparent to me, is that the IOC is slowly but surely moving ever closer to being after 2020 and I think the big question that most skeptics are concerning themselves with is whether it is really worth the equivalent 4.5 generation numbers and capability to get this jet, especially if it's going to be in its least capable format and delayed by 10 years.
No-one is doubting that the F35 is an incredible example of engineering, particularly dave B, but looking at it from a practical sense, I find myself questioning whether that stealth (and hovering ability, if we do take the ridiculous decision to go back to the B) is worth the poor serviceability and small numbers...plus all the other hardware we've sacrificed for it.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but would we have been better off in the Falklands with a squadron of Buccs and and one of F4s?
The Wx down there was grim especially the vis and flying up a line of floating flares until you get to the ship (radio silence) is not something a Bucc or F4 pilot would want to do. Over and over sensible people seem to ignore the incredible value of being able to slow right down when landing. Unless you have tried it perhaps you cannot grasp how (relatively) relaxed this makes you feel even if you literally have ony two minutes fuel. (Just think how bored you are watching somebody near you sit in a hover for two minutes).
Not wishing to flog a dead horse but one night I was doing visual circuits round Foch with a French naval aviator in a civil reg two seater (no HUD or stabs) somewhere in the Bay of Biscay. We got to landing fuel but I succumbed to the plea for one more circuit. On the downwind leg the ship vanished. They called to say they had driven into a patch of low stratus and could not see the masthead light from the deck. I asked for a radar line up and ranges every half mile and told my French mate not to let me go below 100 ft. I kept slowing down and gingerly stepping down on the VSI and altimeter until we found the ship about one length astern. After landing I bollocked said mate for not mentioning we were now below 100ft.
Honestly, ship motion and vis that would rule out an arrested landing are not of concern if you can hover.
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
F35 B or C, whatever you guys end up with, in all likelyhood you'll probably
make it work for you but the price looks more horrible with every budgetupdate;
Exclusive - U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | World | Reuters
make it work for you but the price looks more horrible with every budgetupdate;
Exclusive - U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | World | Reuters
Exclusive - U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman,
Have no fear, the up front and through life cost of the F-35 (any variant) is entirely eclipsed by those who are transfixed by the significantly smaller sum of converting the Prince of Wales with EMALS and AAG. JSF must be very happy that the spotlight is on someone else.
The irony is that for some the reponse is 'we can't afford cats and traps; we must live within our means..." etc etc. But that doesn't apply to the cost of JSF.
Very few acknowledge that whilst cats and traps do increase early year spending - but not as much as the rather bizarre tabloid £2billion - the final cost will be pretty close to the figure being worked up now.
I don't know a single person working in the JSF programme who can say that the final figure for JSF is any where near the current and they still haven't come up with a public revised figure post the 179 aircraft punt to the end of the programme and the Italian canx of 30%.
In the US a DoD organisation called CAPE (Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation) came up with a figure for what the likely cost of each JSF variant would be. This figure was much higher than the DoD (or Lockheed Martin) wanted to hear and the DoD decided on a figure much lower. Wrangling between the 2 and they settled somewhere in between.
If I were CAPE, I would be putting a few bucks on my figure being much more likely a final figure than the DoD. The numbers are climbing that way at a rate of knots and we haven't even considered what a US budget under 'sequestration' is likely to do.
But anyway, let's get back to the real issue of how expensive those cats and traps are. After all, why would anyone want to buy a CV aircraft where you get 11 of them for the price of every 10 STOVL, goes further, stays there longer, carries more and costs less to operate for every flying hour.
Clearly living within our means only relates to ceratin aspects of our defence procurement.
Have no fear, the up front and through life cost of the F-35 (any variant) is entirely eclipsed by those who are transfixed by the significantly smaller sum of converting the Prince of Wales with EMALS and AAG. JSF must be very happy that the spotlight is on someone else.
The irony is that for some the reponse is 'we can't afford cats and traps; we must live within our means..." etc etc. But that doesn't apply to the cost of JSF.
Very few acknowledge that whilst cats and traps do increase early year spending - but not as much as the rather bizarre tabloid £2billion - the final cost will be pretty close to the figure being worked up now.
I don't know a single person working in the JSF programme who can say that the final figure for JSF is any where near the current and they still haven't come up with a public revised figure post the 179 aircraft punt to the end of the programme and the Italian canx of 30%.
In the US a DoD organisation called CAPE (Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation) came up with a figure for what the likely cost of each JSF variant would be. This figure was much higher than the DoD (or Lockheed Martin) wanted to hear and the DoD decided on a figure much lower. Wrangling between the 2 and they settled somewhere in between.
If I were CAPE, I would be putting a few bucks on my figure being much more likely a final figure than the DoD. The numbers are climbing that way at a rate of knots and we haven't even considered what a US budget under 'sequestration' is likely to do.
But anyway, let's get back to the real issue of how expensive those cats and traps are. After all, why would anyone want to buy a CV aircraft where you get 11 of them for the price of every 10 STOVL, goes further, stays there longer, carries more and costs less to operate for every flying hour.
Clearly living within our means only relates to ceratin aspects of our defence procurement.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but the price looks more horrible with every budgetupdate...
Having got this far, the F35 programme can only succeed on capabilities if time and money continue to be expended on development. If the budget were now curtailed, it would be at the expense of some of the performance capabilities that caused people to buy it in the first place. You would end up with a still very expensive aircraft that did not do all that you wanted it to do. It's possible this would not be as capable as the planes it is intended to replace.
The alternatives as I see them are:
1. Cancel now - and it seems this is already in the too big too fail category or it would not have got this far.
2. Accept more cost and time over-runs and continue development work until you get the capabilities you want.
3. Reduce development funding and accept reduced capabilities which will need additional in-service upgrade expenditure to get it to where you need it to be. (This happens on most programmes anyway.)
While the Americans determine which of the above they opt for (looks like Option 2 to me, with a caveat on the B for now), other customers have to decide if the wait and cost and assumed capabilities are still worth it.
The UK's position has been complicated by the fact that the F35 and the carriers are intertwined such that the decision about each depends on the other. Not where you want to be, but that's exactly where we are.
Customers for the A will still have runways and various alternatives to fly off them whatever happens. Italy may be vulnerable to cancellation of the B but in terms of decisions, they have none to make - Cavour will operate F35B or helicopters, there is no CATOBAR option. The USN can get by with Super Hornet instead of F35C, with it's putative successor pencilled in around 2025(?), and the Marines making do with AV8B's, prolonged by the UK Harrier purchase.
My prediction for the UK's eventual position is unaltered. The current government will fudge decisions until the 2015 SDR when the carriers will get dumped (as far as fixed wing operations are concerned anyway) as being unaffordable. This will decouple aircraft choices from carrier requirements and so the B or C choice will then become A, B, something else, or nothing. This decision will be deferred until around 2020 when some of the risks and uncertainties on F35 will be clearer. Typhoon and Tornado will carry the load until 2025, with a possible capability gap appearing post-Tornado retirement until it's replacement becomes available.
(And just to be clear, my predictions are what I think will happen, not necessarily what I would choose to happen in better times.)
Last edited by Lowe Flieger; 30th Mar 2012 at 14:20.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA should buy F-18 and then bin them off to the RAF after 15 years to help replace GR4.
This will give the FAA capability today, lower costs which will pay for 'cat & traps' which allows for UCAV capability in the future, a natural upgrade path to a mature stealthy Northrop or Boeing option in the future, more a/c to be purchased, less risk, less maintenance, interoperability, long range strike via Storm Shadow carriage, Meteor does it fit in JSF???, asraam integration already done on F-18, F-18 combat proven, F-18 day to day proven etc
If it were my money, which it is, I'd go 50/50 F-18E/G. I can see back seaters controlling ucavs/local battlespace in the future.
Let the spams do the day 1 stuff, they're good at starting wars
This will give the FAA capability today, lower costs which will pay for 'cat & traps' which allows for UCAV capability in the future, a natural upgrade path to a mature stealthy Northrop or Boeing option in the future, more a/c to be purchased, less risk, less maintenance, interoperability, long range strike via Storm Shadow carriage, Meteor does it fit in JSF???, asraam integration already done on F-18, F-18 combat proven, F-18 day to day proven etc
If it were my money, which it is, I'd go 50/50 F-18E/G. I can see back seaters controlling ucavs/local battlespace in the future.
Let the spams do the day 1 stuff, they're good at starting wars