No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFfan,
I would politely suggest that LO, Engines, Not-a-Boffin and SSSETOWTF are amongst the best informed and most informative commentators on here - or anywhere else on JSF / UK CVF matters. So, whether you think LO is being a grammar nazi or not, you'd do well to listen to what he has to say.
I skimmed the BOLD ALIGATOR puff piece you linked to - as LO pointed out, it doesn't tell me why, when the USMC is facing a sophisticated IADS that needs stealth on day one / two / three whenever, and US interests are sufficiently compelling that despite the threat, the Marines are going to go in - that the US won't send one of 10 CVN battle groups with all of the associated capabilities offered by a big-deck carrier, which, as LO pointed out include
To which one could also add organic C4ISTAR, including in effect an organic ACC. Oh, and COD to keep the jets flying - and no, V-22 is not a VTOL C-2.
S41
I would politely suggest that LO, Engines, Not-a-Boffin and SSSETOWTF are amongst the best informed and most informative commentators on here - or anywhere else on JSF / UK CVF matters. So, whether you think LO is being a grammar nazi or not, you'd do well to listen to what he has to say.
I skimmed the BOLD ALIGATOR puff piece you linked to - as LO pointed out, it doesn't tell me why, when the USMC is facing a sophisticated IADS that needs stealth on day one / two / three whenever, and US interests are sufficiently compelling that despite the threat, the Marines are going to go in - that the US won't send one of 10 CVN battle groups with all of the associated capabilities offered by a big-deck carrier, which, as LO pointed out include
CVN support?
AEW, without which the best equipped naval force has very little warning against a low-flying aircraft or missile threat. Broadband EA. Refueling to extend range and time-on-station.
AEW, without which the best equipped naval force has very little warning against a low-flying aircraft or missile threat. Broadband EA. Refueling to extend range and time-on-station.
S41
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engins knows what he is talking about, the other 2 names haven't stuck in my head yet, there is someone here that is on the f-35 team, it may be one of the other 2 names.
As for LO, he seems to put forward a simplistic CONOP of only 1 LHD with 6 f-35b. For a start MAGTF won't be going anywhere without AEGIS and other assests will be called in as needed for the mission. As you would know if you went to SLD and read about USMC CONOPS
As for LO, he seems to put forward a simplistic CONOP of only 1 LHD with 6 f-35b. For a start MAGTF won't be going anywhere without AEGIS and other assests will be called in as needed for the mission. As you would know if you went to SLD and read about USMC CONOPS
Last edited by JSFfan; 28th Jul 2012 at 11:58.
Sure, you have Aegis. But without Hawkeye and CEC - which are key to cruise missile defense - Aegis still gives you as much warning time as anything else, which is distance to horizon divided by the speed of the threat, and in the case of a supersonic missile is uncomfortably small.
I know there are some people who argue that the F-35B will provide beyond-the-horizon warning to Aegis, but if they have explained how this is to be done as a practical matter, given the jet's endurance limits and its radar coverage angle, I have not seen it.
I know there are some people who argue that the F-35B will provide beyond-the-horizon warning to Aegis, but if they have explained how this is to be done as a practical matter, given the jet's endurance limits and its radar coverage angle, I have not seen it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4mastacker - spotter mode on - yes the MOD has spotters in it and the Air Historial Branch so ZM135 has been tagged for a long time for Lightning II due to the link with the previous Lightning. After a long time of JCA/JSF debate over what we call it everyone is now to call it Lightning ('cos CAS says so).
Not sure why we're arguing about USMC conops as the UK will be developing our own, including an AEW capability (Crowsnest). Scenarios vary but remember that with the proliferation of modern SAMs it's best to have something that stands a chance against them. Will we ever need to go it alone without the US? Who knows, maybe not, but surely it's better to know that we can if we have to? Lkewise with the USMC: better to know you can go it alone without USN support than having to rely on it. Remember that Libya involved no USN CVN, just the USS Kearsage (LHD) and maybe a few F-35Bs could have been useful on Day 1.
The benefits of COD are well known but LHD has to make do with V22/CH53. With CVS we made do with Merlin and a Lynx. For big items we took spares with us, or loaded them at port calls, examples being Pegasus engines and Merlin gearboxes. The F-135 engine can be split into modules or you have spares built on board. You just have to plan round whatever constraints you have.
Fusion is being tested on F-35A, B and C as well as the Catbird at Ft Worth. Why is any positive news on F-35 'propaganda' but any negative news, however ill informed, worth hearing?
Not sure why we're arguing about USMC conops as the UK will be developing our own, including an AEW capability (Crowsnest). Scenarios vary but remember that with the proliferation of modern SAMs it's best to have something that stands a chance against them. Will we ever need to go it alone without the US? Who knows, maybe not, but surely it's better to know that we can if we have to? Lkewise with the USMC: better to know you can go it alone without USN support than having to rely on it. Remember that Libya involved no USN CVN, just the USS Kearsage (LHD) and maybe a few F-35Bs could have been useful on Day 1.
The benefits of COD are well known but LHD has to make do with V22/CH53. With CVS we made do with Merlin and a Lynx. For big items we took spares with us, or loaded them at port calls, examples being Pegasus engines and Merlin gearboxes. The F-135 engine can be split into modules or you have spares built on board. You just have to plan round whatever constraints you have.
Fusion is being tested on F-35A, B and C as well as the Catbird at Ft Worth. Why is any positive news on F-35 'propaganda' but any negative news, however ill informed, worth hearing?
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 28th Jul 2012 at 14:25.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZM135 Video
http://www.jsf.mil/video/misc/12-170...3-CC7D78682946
Sorry - more propaganda from 2 of the UK pilots actually testing the F-35B and the UK Team Head in the US.
Sorry - more propaganda from 2 of the UK pilots actually testing the F-35B and the UK Team Head in the US.
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 28th Jul 2012 at 15:38. Reason: S41 post above mysteriously disappeared...
WO - Not all F-35 good news is propaganda. There is reality there, and at least today it can be said that the program is not visibly slipping against the most recently adjusted flight-test schedule.
Neither would I say that ill-informed negative news is worth hearing, any more than ill-informed positive news.
On the other hand, much of what comes out of LockMart is "propaganda" because that's what public relations and advertising largely consists of. It's designed to influence the way that media and the public think about the JSF - which is what propaganda has been ever since it was invented.
After all, LockMart's not going to issue a press release to say "Clearance for training flights delayed until 2013" or "Carrier trials slipped into 2014 after first roll-in tests", both of which have happened in the past few months. Eventually they have to admit it, usually because they're being poked and prodded by a journo or a GAO investigator, or because they're up before Congress.
Neither would I say that ill-informed negative news is worth hearing, any more than ill-informed positive news.
On the other hand, much of what comes out of LockMart is "propaganda" because that's what public relations and advertising largely consists of. It's designed to influence the way that media and the public think about the JSF - which is what propaganda has been ever since it was invented.
After all, LockMart's not going to issue a press release to say "Clearance for training flights delayed until 2013" or "Carrier trials slipped into 2014 after first roll-in tests", both of which have happened in the past few months. Eventually they have to admit it, usually because they're being poked and prodded by a journo or a GAO investigator, or because they're up before Congress.
Last edited by LowObservable; 28th Jul 2012 at 17:31.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
All true, it just seems that many are quicker to paint the F-35 programme in a negative light than a positive light, even when significant progress is made. Any positive news is dismissed as 'spin' from LM, perhaps another case of good news not selling copies?
LM are a business, so you are right, they will not always be forthcoming about issues. But as a highly classified project, should they be upfront in baring all for possible adversaries to see? I don't see the Chinese telling the world about flight test issues with J-20 etc...
All true, it just seems that many are quicker to paint the F-35 programme in a negative light than a positive light, even when significant progress is made. Any positive news is dismissed as 'spin' from LM, perhaps another case of good news not selling copies?
LM are a business, so you are right, they will not always be forthcoming about issues. But as a highly classified project, should they be upfront in baring all for possible adversaries to see? I don't see the Chinese telling the world about flight test issues with J-20 etc...
If the program's predicted acquisition (R&D and production) costs had not gone up by $40 million per day (base year, no added inflation) since they signed the development contract...
And if we were not sitting here in 2012, when they were supposed to have hit IOC with all three versions, with no declared IOC date at all...
And if they had an excuse, such as if the program had been hit by a major partner's threatened walkout (Typhoon) or by budget fluctuations (Rafale)..
Then I would feel frightfully sorry for them about the negative press. However...
I'm not saying that they should disclose sensitive or classified stuff. But delays of the kind I mentioned are neither, because outside a completely black program, they'll be obvious anyway.
And while they don't have to publish bad news, I will always remember Airbus saying, in effect (in 2006, I think), "We are really screwed up on A380 and will be late. We're not sure how much." Nobody quite knew how to handle it.
And if we were not sitting here in 2012, when they were supposed to have hit IOC with all three versions, with no declared IOC date at all...
And if they had an excuse, such as if the program had been hit by a major partner's threatened walkout (Typhoon) or by budget fluctuations (Rafale)..
Then I would feel frightfully sorry for them about the negative press. However...
I'm not saying that they should disclose sensitive or classified stuff. But delays of the kind I mentioned are neither, because outside a completely black program, they'll be obvious anyway.
And while they don't have to publish bad news, I will always remember Airbus saying, in effect (in 2006, I think), "We are really screwed up on A380 and will be late. We're not sure how much." Nobody quite knew how to handle it.
Last edited by LowObservable; 28th Jul 2012 at 18:14.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WO - I pulled it as it was a duplicate.
On the question of why the USMC ConOps is relevant to the UK, at one level WO is clearly right - the UK is going to do its own thing, and I'm sure that the RN will wring every last ounce of capability out of whatever (flawed) tools they get.
However, where the USMC ConOps are relevant is if they are sufficiently internally contradictory that when the US comes to make defence cuts post the 2013 Presidential Inauguration (something likely under either Romney or Obama, irrespective of what Romney is currently saying), then it makes it more likely that cancelling Dave-B can be credibly portrayed as something other than a cost driven decision.
And without CVF converted, the UK would have "issues".
Hence my interest in the USMC ConOps.
S41
On the question of why the USMC ConOps is relevant to the UK, at one level WO is clearly right - the UK is going to do its own thing, and I'm sure that the RN will wring every last ounce of capability out of whatever (flawed) tools they get.
However, where the USMC ConOps are relevant is if they are sufficiently internally contradictory that when the US comes to make defence cuts post the 2013 Presidential Inauguration (something likely under either Romney or Obama, irrespective of what Romney is currently saying), then it makes it more likely that cancelling Dave-B can be credibly portrayed as something other than a cost driven decision.
And without CVF converted, the UK would have "issues".
Hence my interest in the USMC ConOps.
S41
S41 -
That's an important connection.
Right now, the F-35A on the one hand, and the B/C on the other, are in different situations.
The F-35A is the least expensive model and is the most badly needed, because the USAF ordered its last F-16s in 2001 and its last F-15Es in 1992. Terminating the A-model would not only annoy and embarrass US allies, but would quite likely cause the fall of some governments. Which would put the Pentagon leadership on Ms Clinton's
list, and trust me, you do not want to be there.
The F-35C, however good it is, is not quite the same, because the USN is the only customer and has a modern fighter in production, with untapped improvement potential. The USN can wait.
So that's why the question of the strategic importance of the USMC F-35B to a joint-force campaign is critical. What does it do that you otherwise could not do? What does it do that would be harder and more expensive to do without it? And the answer has to be at a joint-force level - it's not just that it lands on an LHA/LHD or a 3000-foot strip.
What if the answer is "not much"? That the B is additive, not critical, and enables few unique options in likely scenarios?
Hypothesize that the B and C are either terminated or have their IOC kicked into the mid-2020s, under budgetary pressure.
The Pentagon saves a boatload of money over the next 10 years.
Large parts of the CV community utter a collective "w00t". The CV Navy can take the SH to the next level, and the CNO still has change to spend on ships and standoff weapons.
Boeing, GE and Raytheon are happy, and the US has another strong competitor on the international market and a healthier industry base.
The Marines are unhappy, but can actually stretch their sea-based Harrier fleet through the 2020s as long as they replace their Classic Hornets with the SH. And if we're talking about CAS and NTISR in support of an MEU doing a big NEO (noncombatant evacuation op) in war-torn Bongoland, that's all you need.
The JSF program can restructure around one flight-test program at EAFB, and standing up one service's squadrons at one set of bases.
LockMart still has the world's biggest fighter program. Not quite as big, nor as monopolistic, and the UltraBug might pick off a customer or two, but on the plus side it can only have a positive effect on the pace of the program, bringing closer the date at which it becomes a massive cash cow.
And what about the UK? Don't forget that Sean Stackley, the USN acquisition boss, warned the UK against switching back to the F-35B. So if the plug does get pulled on the B, the US will respond to the screams from Whitehall with "TS, dude, we warned you."
That's an important connection.
Right now, the F-35A on the one hand, and the B/C on the other, are in different situations.
The F-35A is the least expensive model and is the most badly needed, because the USAF ordered its last F-16s in 2001 and its last F-15Es in 1992. Terminating the A-model would not only annoy and embarrass US allies, but would quite likely cause the fall of some governments. Which would put the Pentagon leadership on Ms Clinton's
list, and trust me, you do not want to be there. The F-35C, however good it is, is not quite the same, because the USN is the only customer and has a modern fighter in production, with untapped improvement potential. The USN can wait.
So that's why the question of the strategic importance of the USMC F-35B to a joint-force campaign is critical. What does it do that you otherwise could not do? What does it do that would be harder and more expensive to do without it? And the answer has to be at a joint-force level - it's not just that it lands on an LHA/LHD or a 3000-foot strip.
What if the answer is "not much"? That the B is additive, not critical, and enables few unique options in likely scenarios?
Hypothesize that the B and C are either terminated or have their IOC kicked into the mid-2020s, under budgetary pressure.
The Pentagon saves a boatload of money over the next 10 years.
Large parts of the CV community utter a collective "w00t". The CV Navy can take the SH to the next level, and the CNO still has change to spend on ships and standoff weapons.
Boeing, GE and Raytheon are happy, and the US has another strong competitor on the international market and a healthier industry base.
The Marines are unhappy, but can actually stretch their sea-based Harrier fleet through the 2020s as long as they replace their Classic Hornets with the SH. And if we're talking about CAS and NTISR in support of an MEU doing a big NEO (noncombatant evacuation op) in war-torn Bongoland, that's all you need.
The JSF program can restructure around one flight-test program at EAFB, and standing up one service's squadrons at one set of bases.
LockMart still has the world's biggest fighter program. Not quite as big, nor as monopolistic, and the UltraBug might pick off a customer or two, but on the plus side it can only have a positive effect on the pace of the program, bringing closer the date at which it becomes a massive cash cow.
And what about the UK? Don't forget that Sean Stackley, the USN acquisition boss, warned the UK against switching back to the F-35B. So if the plug does get pulled on the B, the US will respond to the screams from Whitehall with "TS, dude, we warned you."
Last edited by LowObservable; 29th Jul 2012 at 13:53.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, thanks
It was interesting how little coverage Sean Stackley's comments got here - indeed, there seems to be a degree of hope* / wilful blindness* from Whitehall about the actual danger that Dave-B is in.
One thing always confused me: what does Dave-A offer that Dave-C doesn't do better? I was actually wondering if (a la F-110A) the USAF could actually just operate the F-35C with the internal GAU-22A and an UARRSI port. Would presumably save a pile of dosh, especially through life. Don't know - a genuine question - it's not as if F-35A is going to be heavily OCA tasked (and it should be fine in DCA).
S41
*Delete as appropriate
It was interesting how little coverage Sean Stackley's comments got here - indeed, there seems to be a degree of hope* / wilful blindness* from Whitehall about the actual danger that Dave-B is in.
One thing always confused me: what does Dave-A offer that Dave-C doesn't do better? I was actually wondering if (a la F-110A) the USAF could actually just operate the F-35C with the internal GAU-22A and an UARRSI port. Would presumably save a pile of dosh, especially through life. Don't know - a genuine question - it's not as if F-35A is going to be heavily OCA tasked (and it should be fine in DCA).
S41
*Delete as appropriate
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 29th Jul 2012 at 16:06. Reason: Incoherent spollink
S41 - The quick answer is that the C, even without the gun, ammo feed &c, is 5,500 pounds heavier (OEW) than the A. I suspect that the main reason that it has better range is that it has fuel where the gun/ammo would go. But otherwise that's a big performance penalty.
Also, the big wing is not going to do wonders for the transonic acceleration.
Also, the big wing is not going to do wonders for the transonic acceleration.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO - fair enough
Thanks for that. I had presumed that big wing provided the extra fuel, not the gun and ammo storage. My thinking was simply that if the performance hit wasn't that great, then the cost savings would be attractive for an all Dave-C fleet. Obviously not.
S41
Thanks for that. I had presumed that big wing provided the extra fuel, not the gun and ammo storage. My thinking was simply that if the performance hit wasn't that great, then the cost savings would be attractive for an all Dave-C fleet. Obviously not.
S41
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Perhaps I can help out here.
The main drivers for weight difference between the C and the A are the bigger wing, tail and fins (all weigh more) and the massive amounts of extra metal needed internally to handle cat and trap loads. Landing gear weight is more than twice the A's. C's greater internal fuel capacity comes mainly from the bigger wing, but LO is quite right to point out that losing the very large gun installation helps as well. (So does losing the USAF refuelling receptacle - that eats up lots of lovely fuel tank space).
The gun installation is interesting - the original 'A' design used a Mauser 27, but under pressure from US domestic manufacturers (and concerns over Mauser feed issues), LM went for a 25mm gatling. Nice gun, but larger, heavier, less effective and needs more ammunition per target.
So what does the A do that the C doesn't? Main attributes are higher sustained G, faster acceleration and higher speed. It's also a lot cheaper, but building lots more will always do that for you.
Hope this helps a bit,
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
Perhaps I can help out here.
The main drivers for weight difference between the C and the A are the bigger wing, tail and fins (all weigh more) and the massive amounts of extra metal needed internally to handle cat and trap loads. Landing gear weight is more than twice the A's. C's greater internal fuel capacity comes mainly from the bigger wing, but LO is quite right to point out that losing the very large gun installation helps as well. (So does losing the USAF refuelling receptacle - that eats up lots of lovely fuel tank space).
The gun installation is interesting - the original 'A' design used a Mauser 27, but under pressure from US domestic manufacturers (and concerns over Mauser feed issues), LM went for a 25mm gatling. Nice gun, but larger, heavier, less effective and needs more ammunition per target.
So what does the A do that the C doesn't? Main attributes are higher sustained G, faster acceleration and higher speed. It's also a lot cheaper, but building lots more will always do that for you.
Hope this helps a bit,
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
Engines,
Agreed. The OEW difference is quite big, though, compared with Rafale (1360 lb, I think), even accounting for the fact that JSF is bigger overall. Wonder why?
Also, I remember being told by the program folks that the big reason for the gun switch was logistics costs, 27 mm being a completely new calibre for the US. And, at the time (2003) they were saying that they had lots of weight margin to play with...
Agreed. The OEW difference is quite big, though, compared with Rafale (1360 lb, I think), even accounting for the fact that JSF is bigger overall. Wonder why?
Also, I remember being told by the program folks that the big reason for the gun switch was logistics costs, 27 mm being a completely new calibre for the US. And, at the time (2003) they were saying that they had lots of weight margin to play with...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Honestly, I'm not sure I believe the figures for Rafale - but the C delta weight is driven by extremely tough Navair rules for carrier structural design - perhaps they are more conservative than the French. I know that the T-45 weight delta over the Hawk was lost more than 1360 lb.
Yes, I remember those arguments over gun selection, but 27mm is a standardised NATO round and much more effective than the 25mm, especially when you have less rounds to fire. That should have been the driver.
In 03, you are quite right that LM weren't focussing on weight - a major error when designing a jet fighter, in my view. At the time, however, the biggest issue was internal volume, and the Gatling was a volume eating monster. Bottom line was that the US have used Gatlings for many years and didn't want to change. LM went with the flow, very understandably so. The choices surrounding guns are invariably emotive, and in my view this one was no exception.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Honestly, I'm not sure I believe the figures for Rafale - but the C delta weight is driven by extremely tough Navair rules for carrier structural design - perhaps they are more conservative than the French. I know that the T-45 weight delta over the Hawk was lost more than 1360 lb.
Yes, I remember those arguments over gun selection, but 27mm is a standardised NATO round and much more effective than the 25mm, especially when you have less rounds to fire. That should have been the driver.
In 03, you are quite right that LM weren't focussing on weight - a major error when designing a jet fighter, in my view. At the time, however, the biggest issue was internal volume, and the Gatling was a volume eating monster. Bottom line was that the US have used Gatlings for many years and didn't want to change. LM went with the flow, very understandably so. The choices surrounding guns are invariably emotive, and in my view this one was no exception.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Not sure why we're arguing about USMC conops as the UK will be developing our own, including an AEW capability (Crowsnest). Scenarios vary but remember that with the proliferation of modern SAMs it's best to have something that stands a chance against them. Will we ever need to go it alone without the US? Who knows, maybe not, but surely it's better to know that we can if we have to? Lkewise with the USMC: better to know you can go it alone without USN support than having to rely on it. Remember that Libya involved no USN CVN, just the USS Kearsage (LHD) and maybe a few F-35Bs could have been useful on Day 1."
WhiteOvies, at this point of time USMC are the only ones putting forward a 5th gen CONOP for the F-35B and although the UK has 2 carriers with about 40 aircraft each when they fit out both, they would have a similar load to 4 wasps in air/sea control, 20 aircraft each. I think the UK acting on its own would have more in common with the USMC task force.
LO, perhaps if you read the whole sentence "For a start MAGTF won't be going anywhere without AEGIS and other assests will be called in as needed for the mission."
Wouldn't N/AF AWACS come under 'other assets'?
WhiteOvies, at this point of time USMC are the only ones putting forward a 5th gen CONOP for the F-35B and although the UK has 2 carriers with about 40 aircraft each when they fit out both, they would have a similar load to 4 wasps in air/sea control, 20 aircraft each. I think the UK acting on its own would have more in common with the USMC task force.
LO, perhaps if you read the whole sentence "For a start MAGTF won't be going anywhere without AEGIS and other assests will be called in as needed for the mission."
Wouldn't N/AF AWACS come under 'other assets'?
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th Jul 2012 at 18:58.
Engines -
What, the French telling porkies? Mon Dieu, c'est incroyable!
I don't know how comparable the numbers are, exactly. The C and M Rafales are pretty much identical in size and shape. Also, I know that commonality was pushed quite hard: the goal was to minimize the number of M-unique parts, partly by designing the carrier-related load-paths so that they affected as few parts as possible, but on the other hand they may have told the AF to accept a few extra kilos here and there in the interests of saving money.
(That was the original plan for JSF, too, but I think the execution went over the side in the Great SWAT War.)
JSFFan - AWACS is a great answer for Libya. How well it works anywhere else depends on the distance between the operational area and the nearest friendly base (the further it is, the more aircraft you need to cover 24 hours) and the ability to move AWACS, tankers, maintenance support, force protection &c into that base. It gets very nontrivial very quickly.
What, the French telling porkies? Mon Dieu, c'est incroyable!
I don't know how comparable the numbers are, exactly. The C and M Rafales are pretty much identical in size and shape. Also, I know that commonality was pushed quite hard: the goal was to minimize the number of M-unique parts, partly by designing the carrier-related load-paths so that they affected as few parts as possible, but on the other hand they may have told the AF to accept a few extra kilos here and there in the interests of saving money.
(That was the original plan for JSF, too, but I think the execution went over the side in the Great SWAT War.)
JSFFan - AWACS is a great answer for Libya. How well it works anywhere else depends on the distance between the operational area and the nearest friendly base (the further it is, the more aircraft you need to cover 24 hours) and the ability to move AWACS, tankers, maintenance support, force protection &c into that base. It gets very nontrivial very quickly.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Yes, I've seen the figures as well, still a bit of a sceptic on French claims - but I might be doing them a mis-service. They are considerable engineers, and I have never underestimated them. I just have a problem balancing the requirements I know JSF had to meet with the stated Rafale load penalty. Might be comparing apples and oranges.
The basic problem is that carrier ops generate loads and load paths that just don't exist in land based designs - you have to put new and extra metal in to cope with them. Nose gear launch loads are a good example. In some cases, you are dealing with quite terrifically large hunks of metal to get the loads around the airframe.
You're being a little hard on LM and the SWAT effort, if I might suggest. There is still a lot of commonality between the variants, it's worth remembering that all three were overweight, not just the B - they all had considerable redesign, and the solutions were, as far as practicable, common. However, you are quite right that some commonality had to be sacrificed. However, it's still a considerable achievement to get CTOL, CV and STOVL aircraft out of one basic configuration.
My guess is that the focus on F-35 will now move to the avionics. Firstly, because they have some big challenges to overcome in software and mission system testing. They'll beat them, but it will be a challenge. Secondly, the focus will shift as people realise just what avionics this aircraft is carrying as a standard fit, and the capabilities it is bringing. Interesting times.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the business, whether in service or those working all hours to deliver the new kit
Engines
Yes, I've seen the figures as well, still a bit of a sceptic on French claims - but I might be doing them a mis-service. They are considerable engineers, and I have never underestimated them. I just have a problem balancing the requirements I know JSF had to meet with the stated Rafale load penalty. Might be comparing apples and oranges.
The basic problem is that carrier ops generate loads and load paths that just don't exist in land based designs - you have to put new and extra metal in to cope with them. Nose gear launch loads are a good example. In some cases, you are dealing with quite terrifically large hunks of metal to get the loads around the airframe.
You're being a little hard on LM and the SWAT effort, if I might suggest. There is still a lot of commonality between the variants, it's worth remembering that all three were overweight, not just the B - they all had considerable redesign, and the solutions were, as far as practicable, common. However, you are quite right that some commonality had to be sacrificed. However, it's still a considerable achievement to get CTOL, CV and STOVL aircraft out of one basic configuration.
My guess is that the focus on F-35 will now move to the avionics. Firstly, because they have some big challenges to overcome in software and mission system testing. They'll beat them, but it will be a challenge. Secondly, the focus will shift as people realise just what avionics this aircraft is carrying as a standard fit, and the capabilities it is bringing. Interesting times.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the business, whether in service or those working all hours to deliver the new kit
Engines
