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

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

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

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Old 15th May 2012, 19:55
  #881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 44
Posts: 550
defence.professionals | defpro.com

How can someone be so wrong on so many levels???

Where do they get these idiots from???
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 20:07
  #882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 568
How can someone be so wrong on so many levels???
Maybe he is actually right, becuase he has the full facts to guide him?

There is only one bad thing about the B and that is the bring back limit. Other than that, its the best choice in, my view.





Apparently the French also considered converting one of the carriers and rejected due to the cost (1- 1.5billion euro)

Mer et Marine : Porte-avions : Les Britanniques pourraient encore changer leur fusil d'épaule

Last edited by peter we; 15th May 2012 at 20:31.
peter we is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 20:29
  #883 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
JFZ90

"not that high and within acceptable limits"

Seems a strange comment to make about a public company.
Isn't the objective to make as high a percentage profit as possible ?
Yes, you're right - what I mean is that I recall that the MoD considers an 'acceptable' profit on a (single source) defence contract to be around 10% - give or take, its not exact.

Profit margins in some businesses can be alot higher. If some scenarios, if you were only making e.g. Sir Alan 10% profit he may well be rather dissappointed - but it varies, as the poster hints above - some businesses have tight margins and rely on volume to make worthwhile profit.
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 23:56
  #884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 44
Posts: 550
Maybe he is actually right, becuase he has the full facts to guide him?

There is only one bad thing about the B and that is the bring back limit. Other than that, its the best choice in, my view.
Since when has the MoD worried about being on time let alone be right or have facts? a total red herring imo

A couple of saved years and billions now, is going to cost decades and many more billions in the long run. But lets not mention the very same people talking about cost savings are the same people responsible for billions wasted on this & other projects.

It's obvious to see now, let alone when that idiot is enjoying his retirement in a few years from now.

One bad thing??? How about B as a choice prevents procurement of a long range AEW system, larger resupply and air to air refuelling a/c, future UCAV procurement. That's all without mentioning the relative merits of having a larger payload and more fuel.

To spend so much and yet deliver so little is criminal, they might as well have kept Ark Royal & Illustrious, I hope they're all held to account. The dickheads should fit catapults and purchase F-18s if they're worried about costs and capability for now, then buy F-35C in the future once the early issues have been ironed out and the price is fixed. Sod what the spams think, we're the customer.
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 00:11
  #885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,176
Code:
Since when has the MoD worried about being on time
That rather suggests theres an external deadline. Who is gearing up to go to war with us in 2020? Will Argentinas military rebuilding be complete by then?
Or Russias?

Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 16th May 2012 at 00:23.
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 10:50
  #886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 78
Both carriers to be "carriers"?

This article appears to strongly support the view that at 65,000 tons and with a crew of 600 both these ships need to be deployed as "proper" carriers operating the F-35 rather than just a few helicopters. After all they are rather large and expensive to be a replacement for Ocean.


UK 'must operate second carrier' - Defence Management
163627 is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 11:30
  #887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 71
Posts: 133
Both carriers to be "carriers"?

The Defence Management item linked by 163627 makes some sense to me. I haven't read the former NATO ambassador Burns full item but if the summary is accurate, deploying the second carrier under the NATO banner would be better than it sitting idle most of the time.

Only trouble is it would now have to have another NATO member's F35B's to fly off of it which is a bit of a limiter. Unless we were to operate F35B's from it under a NATO banner with shared crew and costs shared with other European NATO partners? It would help fill the gap left by the US looking towards the Pacific.

Not optimum use from a UK viewpoint maybe but I'd rather see it used that way than sold for a song to a far eastern buyer.

Last edited by Lowe Flieger; 16th May 2012 at 14:39. Reason: typo
Lowe Flieger is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 15:58
  #888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 568
One bad thing??? How about B as a choice prevents procurement of a long range AEW system
The deciding factor is the E2 is far to expensive, the UK rejected the v-22 at $80m as too expensive, so a $240m E2 had no chance. There are other solutions besides helicopters. However, I've read in another forum the HM2 will be used and its completion between LM and Thales.

larger resupply and air to air refuelling a/c
Again, there are options and its not like they MUST have tankers like the for the C version.

future UCAV procurement.
As yet undesigned and its not as US was going to be supplying them, they can be specified to fly from the ski ramp

That's all without mentioning the relative merits of having a larger payload and more fuel.
Basically nothing. The is plenty of capacity to add drop tanks and probably more ordnance than will be ever required. Being much lighter the B will perform much better, you can never remove the dead weight from the C.

Last edited by peter we; 16th May 2012 at 16:00.
peter we is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 18:27
  #889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
OK I'm going to break my "1 hr from read to post" rule again. Peter - do you, or have you ever, had anything to do with fast jet aviation? The B carries deadweight (lift fan, gearbox etc), the C carries fuel and weapons.

Very interesting to read CAS's note about JSF (on intranet for those that have access and no protective markings so unclass) - he "embraces" the decision. Subtly different from supports / approves etc!

I think there's a little misunderstanding about the defence management article. Before the change back to the B we actually only had 1/2 a carrier (one deployed for about 6 months /year). Now we have a whole carrier (2 deployed for 6 months/year each) - and with the ability to surge to 2 if we are lucky (not in deep maintenance) and get enough notice. So the UK will be using both as carriers (the huge + point about the B), just don't mistake that with having 2 carriers available.

I appreciate this isn't fully funded yet, but we have £8 bil spare and we would be mad not to ...........

Last, I understand the plan is still to use them in the envisaged CEPP role ie mix of FJ (12) and helo. They will have nothing like the strike capability of a US Nimitz but in the real world will be able to do a huge range of tasks that will crop up pretty well. Just don't go and ask them to take on China!
Backwards PLT is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 19:28
  #890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Backwards and Others,

A couple of points that might help clarify matters, I hope. (and I've kept to the 1 hour post limit!)

Phil R - the F-35B cannot vector just using the aft nozzle. Any thrust vectoring is done by using both the aft nozzle and the vane box under the forward lift fan while in its 'powered lift' mode. Using these, plus some clever flight control (UK led, by the way) allows the aircraft to move the thrust vector around without generating big pitching moments. Differential aft and forward thrust is used for pitch control.

Another big difference between flat deck STO and a ramp launch is that the aircraft does not have to be rotated before it gets to the end of the deck. There's quite a bit needs to happen in a short time in a flat deck STO, and the videos that have been released show some quite quick combinations of tailplane and aft nozzle movement. Ramp launches are actually a very low risk way of taking off.

Weight penalties - the C certainly carries dead weight, it's just not as visible as the B's lift fan. The airframe is massively reinforced in almost all areas to handle catapult launch and trap loads, and the landing gear is also much, much heavier. Lots of heavy metal. The larger fins and tailplanes needed to provide low speed control also add weight, and drag. The much larger wing also adds weight, but more lift and better cruise efficiency as well as very useful extra fuel capacity. So, that bit isn't exactly 'dead weight'.

I was told by the Chief Designer that the C's 'scar weight' (the extra weight compared with the baseline A variant) was much more than the B's. Doesn't make it a worse aircraft, it still has more range and larger bays, but the B has a better thrust/weight ratio and will probably be a better air to air platform. C will probably have a better 'first turn', but that larger wing's extra drag will probably hurt it's sustained turn rate compared with the B - but that's a bit of speculation.

Hope this helps, and as ever

Best Regards

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 19:30
  #891 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 181
At a surge (36 JSF) and screened by 2 Type 45, 2 upgraded Type 23 and an Astute, they really shouldn't be nervous of going anywhere.
hulahoop7 is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 19:38
  #892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
I'm sure the B does have a lot to offer but if we want to use these carriers to project power to 'lands far away' then are we doing those experienced pilots a disservice by not giving them ANY type of AEW? yes there is a lot of talk about what is being developed... Just like the MR4A was always going to be an excellent aircraft but the reality is we are going to deploy these carriers with the Sea King which I am sure will offer a very nice protective air umbrella for the carrier but what does this offer the strike aircraft that deploy hundreds of miles away from the ship? Lots of talk about what is in the pipeline and even talk that suggests the E2 would be too expensive even if we had kept to the first 'U' turn but how does the costs of an E2 compare to a Sentry? Our Air Force quite rightly gets a first class service from the crews of these aircraft but it looks like if we deploy these carriers away from 'friendly waters' and beyond the range of friendly land based aircraft, then deploy our fast jets then are they are on their own!

I read about how lessons have been learned from the Falklands conflict but no, they haven't, the old Centaur class which was just over a third of the size of these new carriers eventually carried:

7 S2 Buccaneer
12 FAW2 Sea Vixen
4 AEW3 Fairey Gannet
1 COD4 Gannet
5 HAS3 ASW Wessex
1 HAS1 SAR Wessex

I would suggest the Queen Elizabeth sized carrier would give us adequate aircraft for our needs even though they are clearly not a super carrier.

I have always maintained that if we cannot afford to do this in a professional manner, we should not be doing it and whilst I am twittering we regularly deployed our carriers with just one guardship and whilst having a US type Battle Group would be nice, it is simply never going to happen as a regular deployment. .
glojo is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 19:46
  #893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
OEW numbers: A, 29,300 pounds. B, 32,000 pounds. C, 34,800 pounds.

So while the C has more span and more fuel than the A, it hauls an extra two and a half tons around, which won't help the range much.

The 2,700 pound diff between the A and the B is interesting because the B propulsion system itself is 4,000 pounds heavier, and I don't think that includes STOVL doors and actuators (because those weights are, I believe, those for which PW/RR are responsible).

So we're talking about a lot of weight having to be pared out of the rest of the B airframe (given that things like the IPP and the avionics are common). That's why the B is a 7g airframe and has slightly smaller H-tails and (I believe) flaperons. It does not have an internal gun, which also reduces OEW, but still it would be interesting to know how many structural bits are still common.

As for the C, the driver is a much bigger wing. 50 per cent bigger than the A/B and consequently bigger tails. Compare the Rafale C-to-M relationship and weep.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 20:03
  #894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
B vs C vs A

Engines,

Aren't they also all rated for differing max G loads ,because of these different weights, structural strengths and wing area ?

I always find it baffling if we compare the navalized F35, the C, versus one of its competitors , the navalized RAFALE.
The F35C weighs a whopping 5500lbs more than its brother, the A version, while the weight difference between the landbased and seabased RAFALE is less than a 1000lbs.
All this while the RAFALE M is rated for almost an identical flight envelope than the RAFALE C, ie 9G/ -3.6G with a similar lifetime expectancy (10.000hrs/5000 cycles re. Thales numbers, before it was 7000/3500 acc to the AdlA)
The F35 however is limited to 7.5G as a C vs 9G as an A.


strange.

.

edit, LO, I was writing while you posted, seems like we where having a similar brainfarth.

Last edited by kbrockman; 16th May 2012 at 20:12.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 20:06
  #895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Happy that the C is heavier, but as it is fundamentally a larger aircraft I don't really view that as dead weight. Also paring everything to the bare minimums does not bode well for future growth or unforeseen stresses. A little "fat" in structural elements is a good thing, imho (if it doesn't go too far!)

Still what is done is done, and I too "embrace" the F35B!!!!

Just to point out that you can't suddenly switch from the current mix load helo/JSF config to full up F35 and expect it to work - it takes a bit of refit (carrier ops are quite complex, the RN claim ).
Backwards PLT is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 20:09
  #896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
B vs C vs A

$$$$ double post $$$

Last edited by kbrockman; 16th May 2012 at 20:09.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 20:14
  #897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: northofwhereiusedtobe
Posts: 1,300
So have they actually 'Ski Jumped' a 'B' yet ?
I believe I know the answer already but would like to hear from an expert !
longer ron is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 20:31
  #898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
So have they actually 'Ski Jumped' a 'B' yet ?
I believe I know the answer already but would like to hear from an expert !
No jumps up until today, no fixed date yet determined to do so but was originally (at the beginning of 2010) planned for 2011 june or july.

Last edited by kbrockman; 16th May 2012 at 20:33.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 21:15
  #899 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Oooohh, smells like politics and counter briefing!

USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

Sortie rate smells like a poor reason to knock -B if it can do 6/day - but it perhaps shows the USAF is looking for reasons to knock it.....one wonders why!
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 21:42
  #900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
As ever I suspect it depends how you define sortie rate. You could just define it as getting airborne and landing again (I suspect a USMC view) or you could look at actual time on task, possibly at range (theatre-wide), in which case range/endurance become more of a factor. Without knowing what definitions each are using it is an impossible debate to have.

I am still very dubious that F35 will be able to operate at any sort of decent tempo from an austere site. Of course the US definition of austere and UK definition are probably not the same...............
Backwards PLT is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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