No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
DefenseNews: U.K. To Order First Production F-35 for Training
LONDON — Britain is to order a fourth F-35B short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) fighter next year from builder Lockheed Martin. The aircraft will be the first production-standard F-35 destined for the training fleet, rather than the test and evaluation role being undertaken by the first three aircraft ordered by the British.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond made the order announcement during the handover of the first of the aircraft at a ceremony at the U.S. contractor’s Fort Worth plant in Texas on July 19. The initial three aircraft were purchased at a cost of nearly 300 million pounds ($469.2 million) for test and evaluation, but the fourth will be used to give front-line pilots their first taste of training on the F-35. The second evaluation aircraft will be delivered next month and the third is scheduled for handover in early 2013. The latest order will see the fourth aircraft delivered in the 2015-2016 time frame.
The British, the only full-scale international partner in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, become the first country outside the United States to take delivery of an aircraft. The fighter will be jointly operated by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
Hammond recently said that although no final decision had been made, the RAF jets were likely to be based at Marham, Norfolk, starting in 2018. Flight trials from the Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth-class carrier will commence at about the same time.
The handover and new order follows a period of near farce when the British government managed two U-turns in quick succession on the variant of the F-35 it intended to operate. An initial, long-standing decision to go for the B STOVL variant was overturned in favor of the C conventional carrier version, only for the Conservative-led coalition government to change its mind again a few months later when it became apparent that the cost of modifying the aircraft carriers now being built would be prohibitive.
The British have declined to give any information on aircraft order numbers ahead of the next strategic defense and security review, scheduled for 2015.
LONDON — Britain is to order a fourth F-35B short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) fighter next year from builder Lockheed Martin. The aircraft will be the first production-standard F-35 destined for the training fleet, rather than the test and evaluation role being undertaken by the first three aircraft ordered by the British.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond made the order announcement during the handover of the first of the aircraft at a ceremony at the U.S. contractor’s Fort Worth plant in Texas on July 19. The initial three aircraft were purchased at a cost of nearly 300 million pounds ($469.2 million) for test and evaluation, but the fourth will be used to give front-line pilots their first taste of training on the F-35. The second evaluation aircraft will be delivered next month and the third is scheduled for handover in early 2013. The latest order will see the fourth aircraft delivered in the 2015-2016 time frame.
The British, the only full-scale international partner in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, become the first country outside the United States to take delivery of an aircraft. The fighter will be jointly operated by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
Hammond recently said that although no final decision had been made, the RAF jets were likely to be based at Marham, Norfolk, starting in 2018. Flight trials from the Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth-class carrier will commence at about the same time.
The handover and new order follows a period of near farce when the British government managed two U-turns in quick succession on the variant of the F-35 it intended to operate. An initial, long-standing decision to go for the B STOVL variant was overturned in favor of the C conventional carrier version, only for the Conservative-led coalition government to change its mind again a few months later when it became apparent that the cost of modifying the aircraft carriers now being built would be prohibitive.
The British have declined to give any information on aircraft order numbers ahead of the next strategic defense and security review, scheduled for 2015.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oy vey, what price stealth now? 
''Passive radar'' from CASSIDIAN remains invisible
Cassidian, the defence and security division of EADS, has developed what is known as “passive radar” that can locate even difficult-to-detect flying objects such as stealth aircraft and that itself is practically undetectable. In contrast to conventional radar, passive radar doesn’t emit any radiation, but instead analyses radiation reflections from other emitters, such as radio and television stations, to detect objects.
“The principle of passive radar has been known for a long time,” says Elmar Compans, Head of Sensors & Electronic Warfare at Cassidian. “However, we have now integrated the latest capabilities of digital receiver and signal processing technology to significantly enhance range and detection accuracy by monitoring various emitters at the same time.”
With its passive radar, Cassidian is focussing on the requirements of civil and military airspace control which until now could not or not sufficiently be met using active emitting radar. In civil application, passive radar makes cost-effective air traffic control possible without any additional emissions and without making demands on transmission frequencies in short supply. In military applications, the system enables large-area surveillance using networked receivers, while offering the decisive operational advantage that passive radar cannot be located by hostile forces. The particular characteristics of the omnipresent radio signals used for operation enable detection of even objects that are difficult to detect, such as stealth aircraft or stealth ships. A further advantage of the new technology is its increased detection capacity in areas of radar shadow such as mountainous terrain and its capability to locate extremely slow and low flying objects.
A demonstration system has already been delivered to the German Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement (BWB). Cassidian’s passive radar can be used for mobile deployment in a vehicle of the size of a commercial van and thus can be moved very quickly and with little logistical effort. After successful testing, including at Stuttgart Airport, the plan is to set up a production prototype system and to carry out evaluation programmes by both Cassidian and the customer by the end of the year.
''Passive radar'' from CASSIDIAN remains invisible
Cassidian, the defence and security division of EADS, has developed what is known as “passive radar” that can locate even difficult-to-detect flying objects such as stealth aircraft and that itself is practically undetectable. In contrast to conventional radar, passive radar doesn’t emit any radiation, but instead analyses radiation reflections from other emitters, such as radio and television stations, to detect objects.
“The principle of passive radar has been known for a long time,” says Elmar Compans, Head of Sensors & Electronic Warfare at Cassidian. “However, we have now integrated the latest capabilities of digital receiver and signal processing technology to significantly enhance range and detection accuracy by monitoring various emitters at the same time.”
With its passive radar, Cassidian is focussing on the requirements of civil and military airspace control which until now could not or not sufficiently be met using active emitting radar. In civil application, passive radar makes cost-effective air traffic control possible without any additional emissions and without making demands on transmission frequencies in short supply. In military applications, the system enables large-area surveillance using networked receivers, while offering the decisive operational advantage that passive radar cannot be located by hostile forces. The particular characteristics of the omnipresent radio signals used for operation enable detection of even objects that are difficult to detect, such as stealth aircraft or stealth ships. A further advantage of the new technology is its increased detection capacity in areas of radar shadow such as mountainous terrain and its capability to locate extremely slow and low flying objects.
A demonstration system has already been delivered to the German Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement (BWB). Cassidian’s passive radar can be used for mobile deployment in a vehicle of the size of a commercial van and thus can be moved very quickly and with little logistical effort. After successful testing, including at Stuttgart Airport, the plan is to set up a production prototype system and to carry out evaluation programmes by both Cassidian and the customer by the end of the year.
Selex showed something of the same kind at Farnborough. It's not the ultimate anti-stealth radar, but it shows how detection technology is moving forward, driven by faster and cheaper signal processing. This makes a lot of detection and tracking systems practical that only existed in theory or the lab when the JSF stealth specs were written in 1995-98.
As well as passive radar, this general progress applies to track-before-detect, infra-red search and track (eliminating a lot of false-alarm problems) and ESM.
ESM is important in air-to-air - what's on a modern fighter is a different animal from the radar warning receivers of old, particularly with multi-platform networking, and has raised the bar hugely for low probability of intercept/detection. A radar spec that was LPI/LPD in 1985 (F-22 requirement) or 1995 (F-35) is not necessarily LPI/LPD today.
If anyone who uses radar for more than half a second immediately gets shot, the value of having a better RCS than your adversary is somewhat reduced.
As well as passive radar, this general progress applies to track-before-detect, infra-red search and track (eliminating a lot of false-alarm problems) and ESM.
ESM is important in air-to-air - what's on a modern fighter is a different animal from the radar warning receivers of old, particularly with multi-platform networking, and has raised the bar hugely for low probability of intercept/detection. A radar spec that was LPI/LPD in 1985 (F-22 requirement) or 1995 (F-35) is not necessarily LPI/LPD today.
If anyone who uses radar for more than half a second immediately gets shot, the value of having a better RCS than your adversary is somewhat reduced.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else noticed that TV and Radio stations are quite often taken out to prevent propaganda being broadcast by the other side? Denying comms networks to the enemy is good practice and has the useful side effect of significantly reducing the number of emitters that could be used for 'passive radar'. It's just another piece of the SEAD effort for Day 1 ops and doesn't mean we should just give up on stealth technologies as being outdated.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the number of emitters you would have to take out
Mobile phone masts
TV/Radio transmitters
Ham radio transmitters
Emergency services transmitters
Theoreticaly it would even be possible to monitor variation in the EM field associated with high voltage power cables - or even fluorescent street lamps.
Thats a heck of a lot to hit on day one
Better option would be to take out the power generation and distribution networks. But how many aircraft and missiles would that need? And would that be regarded as an attack on the civilian population under the terms of the geneva conventions?
Mobile phone masts
TV/Radio transmitters
Ham radio transmitters
Emergency services transmitters
Theoreticaly it would even be possible to monitor variation in the EM field associated with high voltage power cables - or even fluorescent street lamps.
Thats a heck of a lot to hit on day one
Better option would be to take out the power generation and distribution networks. But how many aircraft and missiles would that need? And would that be regarded as an attack on the civilian population under the terms of the geneva conventions?
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 20th Jul 2012 at 14:39.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" The second evaluation aircraft will be delivered next month and the third is scheduled for handover in early 2013. The latest order will see the fourth aircraft delivered in the 2015-2016 time frame."
hmmm - one a year - that's what I call careful budgeting
hmmm - one a year - that's what I call careful budgeting
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" The second evaluation aircraft will be delivered next month and the third is scheduled for handover in early 2013. The latest order will see the fourth aircraft delivered in the 2015-2016 time frame."
hmmm - one a year - that's what I call careful budgeting
hmmm - one a year - that's what I call careful budgeting
Good question glad rag. We could make a real sucess out of this, and operating STOVL aircraft this decade (pre F35) would give us the capability we need and allow the various skillsets to be exercised and developed. Also the switch back to F35B would appear coherent.
The arrival of the first F35 is of course good news, but there is still the issue of the mess we have got ourselves into, something expressed concern about earlier. Surely this is a key issue that needs to be dealt with?
If we can send thousands of people to provide security for the Olympics, and tie up important assets for it, then we must be able to find the funding and people to do something to do with the total mess that this has become.
The arrival of the first F35 is of course good news, but there is still the issue of the mess we have got ourselves into, something expressed concern about earlier. Surely this is a key issue that needs to be dealt with?
If we can send thousands of people to provide security for the Olympics, and tie up important assets for it, then we must be able to find the funding and people to do something to do with the total mess that this has become.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 20th Jul 2012 at 17:50.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobile phone masts
TV/Radio transmitters
Ham radio transmitters
Emergency services transmitters
TV/Radio transmitters
Ham radio transmitters
Emergency services transmitters
Last edited by ion_berkley; 20th Jul 2012 at 17:58.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agreed, but remember they all contribute to an overall known background blanket radiosignature, and the defenders will have that background pretty well mapped out, including the variations caused by the transient stuff. Remember it may be transient, but it will be consistently transient - ie either there or not, so it will still be possible to use it to find radiomagnetic distortions from the known range of possibilities.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest regarding F-35 base in UK.
Marham all but confirmed as base for Lightning II - News - Eastern Daily Press
Marham all but confirmed as base for Lightning II - News - Eastern Daily Press
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marham. Thank goodness. What a wise choice.
All that uncongested airspace in the SE and the wonderful training areas, ensuring that every precious minute of expensive and limited flying time is used to best effect.
Well done.
All that uncongested airspace in the SE and the wonderful training areas, ensuring that every precious minute of expensive and limited flying time is used to best effect.
Well done.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Glad Rag
If we actually had operating carriers waiting for their aircraft, would they be coming any quicker?? 
No nation would EVER be so stupid!
I should imagine that if any nation were to be so silly as to find themselves in that type of idiotic position then I suppose they could always reclassify the type of vessel and perhaps call it a 'helicopter carrier' but no one would be that daft.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So...should this turn out to be true...
In order to train for maritime strike, with our new maritime strike capability, all we had to do was select a base which offered a short hop over the ogsplosh to turn around and come back over the beach. With the caveat that it was a UK bit of sea and a UK beach.
Preferably this would have had loads of nice airspace...such as the bit north of Wick or the bit west of St Mawgan. It would also have had somewhere to put emitters, such as Wick, Loch Ewe, Aberporth or Oakhampton. It might even have had some ships to fly to and from. Based in the SwApps or in the traditional JMC/NW/JW areas perhaps.
Therefore in a two horse race between Yeovilton and Lossie we have settled on the donkey with a whisky habit. BZ all concerned.
I have probably missed something fundemental, such as they are getting rid of the airways over Stanta, or Wainfleet is coming back as a certified PGM range...or it doesn't matter where we base the thing because we can't afford to fly it and you'll only fly the sim anyway.
In order to train for maritime strike, with our new maritime strike capability, all we had to do was select a base which offered a short hop over the ogsplosh to turn around and come back over the beach. With the caveat that it was a UK bit of sea and a UK beach.
Preferably this would have had loads of nice airspace...such as the bit north of Wick or the bit west of St Mawgan. It would also have had somewhere to put emitters, such as Wick, Loch Ewe, Aberporth or Oakhampton. It might even have had some ships to fly to and from. Based in the SwApps or in the traditional JMC/NW/JW areas perhaps.
Therefore in a two horse race between Yeovilton and Lossie we have settled on the donkey with a whisky habit. BZ all concerned.
I have probably missed something fundemental, such as they are getting rid of the airways over Stanta, or Wainfleet is coming back as a certified PGM range...or it doesn't matter where we base the thing because we can't afford to fly it and you'll only fly the sim anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't St Mawgan often mentioned as a good location for F-35? Sadly with its closure thats not possible anymore. Would there not be major noise issues with Yeovilton? with 3x Typhoon squadrons going to Lossiemouth it does not leave many other possible locations other than Marham. Coltishall and Cottesmore are both closed. As the GR4s are withdrawn from service Marham would make a great choice. Plus this way atleast the RAF retains 3x fast jet bases, 2 of which are in England.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the upcoming Scottish referendum it would be insane to risk having 2 of our 3 remaining fast jet bases north of the border.
IF the Scots go it alone we should close Lossiemouth
If they remain part of the UK then Lossiemouth should remain open.
I guess an independant Scottish Flying Core would be something like that of Ireland, they could maybe station it at Lossiemouth!!!
IF the Scots go it alone we should close Lossiemouth
If they remain part of the UK then Lossiemouth should remain open.I guess an independant Scottish Flying Core would be something like that of Ireland, they could maybe station it at Lossiemouth!!!