No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Two snippets from this weeks AWST (Farnborough Special). The first raises the issue of obsolescent hardware - IIRC a problem also met on the F22 at about airframe 50-60. Caused due to the 20-30 year protracted design/production cycle. The second reference the F-35C hook.
.....The 3I package, to be installed on aircraft in LRIPs 6-8, will include the 2B release rehosted on new computer hardware, selected to handle obsolescence issues...
....Work also continues on a redesigned tail hook and dampener for the F-35C. The original design failed to grasp the arresting wire in slow, ground based trials last year. Carvalho says Lockheed Martin began testing the tailhook - which has a sharper point designed to scoop under the wire - in May and it ""caught the wire every time" in ground tests. Work is underway on the dampener, and Vemlet hopes to see it tested by early fall. The first arrested landing on a runway is expected in 2013....
.....The 3I package, to be installed on aircraft in LRIPs 6-8, will include the 2B release rehosted on new computer hardware, selected to handle obsolescence issues...
....Work also continues on a redesigned tail hook and dampener for the F-35C. The original design failed to grasp the arresting wire in slow, ground based trials last year. Carvalho says Lockheed Martin began testing the tailhook - which has a sharper point designed to scoop under the wire - in May and it ""caught the wire every time" in ground tests. Work is underway on the dampener, and Vemlet hopes to see it tested by early fall. The first arrested landing on a runway is expected in 2013....
Last edited by ORAC; 12th Jul 2012 at 20:37.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here is the text for that part from AW
In addition, the Pentagon has broken the Block 3 increment into two pieces—Block 3I (initial capability) and Block 3F (full capability), says Venlet. “We don't want to throw too much in it so that it can't be done,” he says, noting that Block 3 may also include some regression work from Block 2B. The 3I package, to be installed on aircraft in LRIPs 6-8, will include the 2B release rehosted on new computer hardware, selected to handle obsolescence issues. The 3F tranche will feature new capabilities that are key to the F-35's core mission‚ such as multi-ship suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses as well as new air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. This package also will include the full complement of weapons carried internally and externally on the aircraft, says Venlet. It is slated for inclusion on the LRIP 9 aircraft, and defines the capability that will be available at the end of the development phase of the program in 2017, he notes.
Once the process is stable, Venlet says the program office hopes to issue a software refresh every two years.
In addition, the Pentagon has broken the Block 3 increment into two pieces—Block 3I (initial capability) and Block 3F (full capability), says Venlet. “We don't want to throw too much in it so that it can't be done,” he says, noting that Block 3 may also include some regression work from Block 2B. The 3I package, to be installed on aircraft in LRIPs 6-8, will include the 2B release rehosted on new computer hardware, selected to handle obsolescence issues. The 3F tranche will feature new capabilities that are key to the F-35's core mission‚ such as multi-ship suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses as well as new air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. This package also will include the full complement of weapons carried internally and externally on the aircraft, says Venlet. It is slated for inclusion on the LRIP 9 aircraft, and defines the capability that will be available at the end of the development phase of the program in 2017, he notes.
Once the process is stable, Venlet says the program office hopes to issue a software refresh every two years.
ORAC
Sorry - trouble with PPRune/my machine/it being Friday the 13th meant that I managed to delete my reply whilst trying to edit it. I attempted to make the point that Technology Insertioon is becoming the norm - see this RUSI paper.
These are a couple of replies to previous posts that I managed to write and not post. Sorry if this appears messed up, with replies not in chronological order...
We also have to think about what is actually achievable, considering finical, technical, manpower, and training considerations. No point in aiming for things that are not achievable.
Nor has the Government outlined a coherent policy for preparing for a F35B/STOVL future, as opposed to the post SDSR plan of attempting to prepare for a CTOL future, with personnel on exchange Stateside.
I have commented in this before. We need to just get on with it, which to my mind seems to mean that a policy change is needed as I suggested here.
Presumably it will be easier to prepare future CVF crews with the skills needed for STOVL operations than for CTOL ones? Add to that the very real possibility of embarking Harriers aboard Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth? These things make the switch from F35B to F35C seem more logical.
Why can we not embark foreign Harriers?
Better still, borrowing a few AV8Bs from Spain or Italy (particularly the former as they may be needing the UK to chip in to the bailout fund - and are allegedly looking to mothball their carrier) would give us aircraft to train with, and a real capability. Alternatively (and since the US want us to have a carrier capability) lease a few AV8Bs (with support Memorandum of Understanding). But we need to do something.
When I heard of the move from F35C back to F35B (and STOVL operations), I thought (hoped) that it would follow that a lease or whatever of Harriers would take place - as this would give us the capability back now and allow us to prepare properly for the future. Why are the politicians so unwilling to consider making this a success?
We need to do something.
Sorry - trouble with PPRune/my machine/it being Friday the 13th meant that I managed to delete my reply whilst trying to edit it. I attempted to make the point that Technology Insertioon is becoming the norm - see this RUSI paper.
These are a couple of replies to previous posts that I managed to write and not post. Sorry if this appears messed up, with replies not in chronological order...
Originally Posted by Courtney Mill
WEBF,
I find myself in agreement with you. The UK needs its carriers AND ALL THE STUFF THAT GOES WITH THEM. So we need the manning, the right aircraft and the right warships to go with them.
Would you argue that the it should be the very best aircraft available? So, -C. Build up the manning in good time to build the new fleet. Keep the build going for the Ds and Fs, counter mine, AEW, various helos, etc, etc.
Most of that is not my territory, obviously. But for God's sake, get the right air on those decks.
I find myself in agreement with you. The UK needs its carriers AND ALL THE STUFF THAT GOES WITH THEM. So we need the manning, the right aircraft and the right warships to go with them.
Would you argue that the it should be the very best aircraft available? So, -C. Build up the manning in good time to build the new fleet. Keep the build going for the Ds and Fs, counter mine, AEW, various helos, etc, etc.
Most of that is not my territory, obviously. But for God's sake, get the right air on those decks.
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
Nevertheless and without wishing to re-open the debate - it's done and we need to get on with getting the ships completed and as many F35 as we can get (definitely more than 6!) worked up and available - the actual content of the conversion has never been satisfactorily explained.
I have commented in this before. We need to just get on with it, which to my mind seems to mean that a policy change is needed as I suggested here.
Presumably it will be easier to prepare future CVF crews with the skills needed for STOVL operations than for CTOL ones? Add to that the very real possibility of embarking Harriers aboard Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth? These things make the switch from F35B to F35C seem more logical.
Why can we not embark foreign Harriers?
Better still, borrowing a few AV8Bs from Spain or Italy (particularly the former as they may be needing the UK to chip in to the bailout fund - and are allegedly looking to mothball their carrier) would give us aircraft to train with, and a real capability. Alternatively (and since the US want us to have a carrier capability) lease a few AV8Bs (with support Memorandum of Understanding). But we need to do something.
When I heard of the move from F35C back to F35B (and STOVL operations), I thought (hoped) that it would follow that a lease or whatever of Harriers would take place - as this would give us the capability back now and allow us to prepare properly for the future. Why are the politicians so unwilling to consider making this a success?
We need to do something.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 20th Jul 2012 at 17:34.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to do something.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 14th Jul 2012 at 19:19.
Thread Starter
For "not_a_boffin" - question 143 onwards is Bernard Gray shedding a bit of light on the factors behind the cats/traps conversion cost escalation.
There is a reference to "other equipment being needed to operate CV variant as well as the cats & traps".
House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC9-ii
There is a reference to "other equipment being needed to operate CV variant as well as the cats & traps".
House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC9-ii
Thanks for that JFZ.
Suspect the "other equipment" might be a Fresnel fit, the camera system and potentially they're suggesting they hadn't included the AAG fit as well. 280 compartments changed will often mean something as simple as the parts list altered for a different piece of equipment, although in some cases it will mean major structural mods.
However, still doesn't explain the mahoosive amount of manpower. Combined total of EMALS & AAG procurement in the USN budget book ranges from $675M + $146M to $846M + $184M over the two ship sets ordered thus far, including engineering support. Worst case, call it $1Bn, which is Ł700M in real money, leaving Ł1.3Bn of manpower to execute the conversion. At Ł50/hr, that's still 26 million manhours, half that if you go extreme and suggest Ł100/hr. Given that HMS Illustrious took around 22M manhours in total to build from scratch thirty years ago, I remain sceptical that the figures purely reflect the conversion.
However, it's done, let's get the ships in service and crack on.
Suspect the "other equipment" might be a Fresnel fit, the camera system and potentially they're suggesting they hadn't included the AAG fit as well. 280 compartments changed will often mean something as simple as the parts list altered for a different piece of equipment, although in some cases it will mean major structural mods.
However, still doesn't explain the mahoosive amount of manpower. Combined total of EMALS & AAG procurement in the USN budget book ranges from $675M + $146M to $846M + $184M over the two ship sets ordered thus far, including engineering support. Worst case, call it $1Bn, which is Ł700M in real money, leaving Ł1.3Bn of manpower to execute the conversion. At Ł50/hr, that's still 26 million manhours, half that if you go extreme and suggest Ł100/hr. Given that HMS Illustrious took around 22M manhours in total to build from scratch thirty years ago, I remain sceptical that the figures purely reflect the conversion.
However, it's done, let's get the ships in service and crack on.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smug grin on face
Originally Posted by glojo
I have NO knowledge or experience of the EMALS system so please accept these are questions and NOT disagreements.
The Americans are staying with a four catapults to launch their aircraft and we are opting for a more feasible two catapult system. Looking at your figures you have roughly cut the costs by 50% so my question is...
Is each catapult a self contained and independent unit. By that I mean FULLY self contained with one power source, one control unit per catapult? My only experience is with steam powered cats and we would always operate ALL boilers whenever at flying stations and the extra boilers supplied steam to all the catapults on the deck.
Would something similar be used for EMALS namely one huge power unit to supply the copious buckets full of volts required to launch the aircraft. If yes then the costing for our system might not be 50% cheaper and possibly on 20 - 30%. The3se are questions and definitely NOT statements. If each unit is indeed autonomous then 50% it is
The Americans are staying with a four catapults to launch their aircraft and we are opting for a more feasible two catapult system. Looking at your figures you have roughly cut the costs by 50% so my question is...
Is each catapult a self contained and independent unit. By that I mean FULLY self contained with one power source, one control unit per catapult? My only experience is with steam powered cats and we would always operate ALL boilers whenever at flying stations and the extra boilers supplied steam to all the catapults on the deck.
Would something similar be used for EMALS namely one huge power unit to supply the copious buckets full of volts required to launch the aircraft. If yes then the costing for our system might not be 50% cheaper and possibly on 20 - 30%. The3se are questions and definitely NOT statements. If each unit is indeed autonomous then 50% it is
However we now find out that the basic research might not have been done and there was no glojo to ask such a basic and fundamental question!
Originally Posted by Bernard Gray
Let us leave aside the start and end point. On the component parts that build up the change, the cost-in particular of the catapult system-proved, on further dialogue with the US, to be significantly higher. I cannot remember the exact figure for that component, but it was of the order of 50% higher than the original estimate for that piece of equipment, largely because of the assumptions, made broadly at the time of the defence review, that we would be procuring half of a US system. The US system has four catapults on a Ford-class aircraft carrier; we would have two. Broadly speaking, therefore, the assumption was that the cost of the equipment would be about half.
In practice, there is a lot more common equipment that is required to drive the system overall, regardless-up to a point-of the number of catapults that went into that. There was also a significant component of additional technical advice, which the contractors in the US were recommending was required
In practice, there is a lot more common equipment that is required to drive the system overall, regardless-up to a point-of the number of catapults that went into that. There was also a significant component of additional technical advice, which the contractors in the US were recommending was required
Bernard Gray, Chief of Defence Materiel talks about wanting to pay his senior staff more money to retain them and then make it easier to employ retiring senior officers.. I would suggest employing people capable of simple costings and asking the most basic of questions! That committee meeting contained more waffle than my evening Waffle Pie!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, to repeat a couple of earlier questions
1) was the competing EMCAT system from Converteam ever costed out?
2) was the Internal Combustion Catapult Launch System (ICCALS) ever looked at? I understand thats a possible retro-fit to the older USN carriers that can't be fitted with EMALS
1) was the competing EMCAT system from Converteam ever costed out?
2) was the Internal Combustion Catapult Launch System (ICCALS) ever looked at? I understand thats a possible retro-fit to the older USN carriers that can't be fitted with EMALS
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seem statements from someone claiming to work on CVF that part of that "cost of additional equipment relating to "cat & trap"" includes carrier-based airborne refueling aircraft for recovery tanking (either separate aircraft or integrating buddy-tanking capability on F-35C and buying the buddy-tanking equipment).
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 16th Jul 2012 at 00:15.
NaB - The requirement for tanking support for STOVL ops might be more rigorous in the SRVL case, with less recovery flexibility in the case of a fouled deck.
On the other hand the B does can't carry enough gas to be a very interesting tanker, anyway.
On the other hand the B does can't carry enough gas to be a very interesting tanker, anyway.
"The requirement for tanking support for STOVL ops might be more rigorous in the SRVL case, with less recovery flexibility in the case of a fouled deck. "
The plan is to dump the extra weight and land vertically in case of a fouled deck
The plan is to dump the extra weight and land vertically in case of a fouled deck
Thread Starter
I have seem statements from someone claiming to work on CVF that part of that "cost of additional equipment relating to "cat & trap"" includes carrier-based airborne refueling aircraft for recovery tanking (either separate aircraft or integrating buddy-tanking capability on F-35C and buying the buddy-tanking equipment).
Last edited by JFZ90; 16th Jul 2012 at 19:30.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buddy tanking's not just about recovery, though, is it? There're a bundle of other capabilities involved. More and more it's clear that this was a case of, 'Now this is your answer, go find me the reasons.'
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is absolutely senseless talking about tanking capability as that died when the option for cats and traps died.
We have ALWAYS been quite clearly told that if we want the 'B' to have ANY type of tanking capability the FULL costs of research, design,development and testing for this feature will be down to the United Kingdom. The USA are not interested, never have been interested and presumably never will be interested in having such an expensive, technological advanced aircraft as a tanker!
Judging on how our bean counters do their costing I think it fair to suggest that these design costs would far exceed the simpler task of converting our floating steel launch and recovery platforms into proper, self supporting aircraft carriers.. Have I still got a strong opinion regarding this decision?
We have ALWAYS been quite clearly told that if we want the 'B' to have ANY type of tanking capability the FULL costs of research, design,development and testing for this feature will be down to the United Kingdom. The USA are not interested, never have been interested and presumably never will be interested in having such an expensive, technological advanced aircraft as a tanker!
Judging on how our bean counters do their costing I think it fair to suggest that these design costs would far exceed the simpler task of converting our floating steel launch and recovery platforms into proper, self supporting aircraft carriers.. Have I still got a strong opinion regarding this decision?
Glojo,
i'm as thick as a whale omlette - how/why would giving an F-35B a tanking capability be that much harder than taking a buddy re-fuelling pod from a Tornado, or F/A-18, and nailing it onto the inboard pylon of an F-35?
i'm not saying a 'good' tanking capability, i'm merely asking why physically addapting such simple, legacy equipment would be so cripplingly expensive/hard?
i'm as thick as a whale omlette - how/why would giving an F-35B a tanking capability be that much harder than taking a buddy re-fuelling pod from a Tornado, or F/A-18, and nailing it onto the inboard pylon of an F-35?
i'm not saying a 'good' tanking capability, i'm merely asking why physically addapting such simple, legacy equipment would be so cripplingly expensive/hard?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warning!
Cokecan, be careful of trying that new-fangled common sense. It has no place in modern military procurement, and could even be considered as career-limiting at your annual evaluation ("...candidate demonstrates a lack of strategic perspective...")
I mean, why use a perfectly effective system as fitted to the Super Hornet? <when a riduculously sky-high priced new system, which is is 'conceptualized' (my deliberate Zed / zee) and CADed from scratch - and can then have the original TOR amended so that the cost can ramp is of course the model answer>.
I mean, why use a perfectly effective system as fitted to the Super Hornet? <when a riduculously sky-high priced new system, which is is 'conceptualized' (my deliberate Zed / zee) and CADed from scratch - and can then have the original TOR amended so that the cost can ramp is of course the model answer>.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm as thick as a whale omlette - how/why would giving an F-35B a tanking capability be that much harder than taking a buddy re-fuelling pod from a Tornado, or F/A-18, and nailing it onto the inboard pylon of an F-35?
i'm not saying a 'good' tanking capability, i'm merely asking why physically addapting such simple, legacy equipment would be so cripplingly expensive/hard?
i'm not saying a 'good' tanking capability, i'm merely asking why physically addapting such simple, legacy equipment would be so cripplingly expensive/hard?
Way beyond my pay grade, I am just the thick whale omelette that queried the guesstimated costs of the UK version of the EMALS system. We are possibly being fed a huge degree of bovine excreta, but I doubt you could go to Halfords and buy a few jerry cans to lash under the wings of this latest aircraft and then maybe trail a syphoning tube for any aircraft in need of a quick 'Splash and dash!'.
There have been lots of discussions on this very topic, the Americans have always made it perfectly clear of their position. We basically pay up, or shut up!
Is 'Jerry' a politically correct term? I have not mentioned any war???