No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand Sweetman has this one for his screen saver
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa..._GR159_001.jpg
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploa..._GR159_001.jpg
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
For LO: Probably 'bumpy' at this speed/altitude on a summer day... Also the photographer chase aircraft is never going to be perfectly synchronised in formation.
F-35 completes first airborne weapons separation 08 August 2012
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=5091
"...BF-3, a short take-off and vertical landing F-35 variant, released an inert 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) separation weapon over water in an Atlantic test range while traveling at 400 knots at an altitude of 4,200 feet...."
F-35 completes first airborne weapons separation 08 August 2012
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=5091
"...BF-3, a short take-off and vertical landing F-35 variant, released an inert 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) separation weapon over water in an Atlantic test range while traveling at 400 knots at an altitude of 4,200 feet...."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
...I think it is a capability step change that we have never seen and few appreciate. Nothing, including so called Gen 4.5, comes close.
One of the smartest posts I've seen in these forums for a long, LONG time!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Absolutely! At 400 knots, you push a half-ton mass off the ejector rack and it keeps going down! Awesome!
Interesting that it had an AMRAAM shape inboard and two AIM-9Xs outboard for this first drop too...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad,
Yes but all unguided I suspect once LGB would be more effective than all of those.
Yes but all unguided I suspect once LGB would be more effective than all of those.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: U.K
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely! At 400 knots, you push a half-ton mass off the ejector rack and it keeps going down! Awesome!
BTW, am I being hypercritical
BTW, am I being hypercritical
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So a country that doesn't buy F-35 (or F-22 I suppose) might not even make the ATO. "
Orca, why is this a necessarily a bad thing?
Speciifically what do GB lose from not taking part in one of the US's little foreign policy adventures?
Would having the funds to truly be able to defend and protect our own interests and borders not be a preferable situation than being able to say we can play with the big boys (when they need a political cloak) yet can only field a military that is essentially a very small component part of the US forces and cannot defend Britain in a meaningful way at all.
If that is what you are advocating GB should simply apply to be the 50whatever it is state or dis-arm!
Orca, why is this a necessarily a bad thing?
Speciifically what do GB lose from not taking part in one of the US's little foreign policy adventures?
Would having the funds to truly be able to defend and protect our own interests and borders not be a preferable situation than being able to say we can play with the big boys (when they need a political cloak) yet can only field a military that is essentially a very small component part of the US forces and cannot defend Britain in a meaningful way at all.
If that is what you are advocating GB should simply apply to be the 50whatever it is state or dis-arm!
One flight test event happens on schedule (well, at least the schedule promulgated six months ago) and the fans go wild.
Orca - There are still not going to be a whole lot of LO platforms in 2020, depending on when JSF makes IOC. If only they can go north of the border we have a problem. Indeed, the whole USAF F-16 upgrade (AESA and much improved EW) is intended to keep those aircraft relevant beyond 2025.
Orca - There are still not going to be a whole lot of LO platforms in 2020, depending on when JSF makes IOC. If only they can go north of the border we have a problem. Indeed, the whole USAF F-16 upgrade (AESA and much improved EW) is intended to keep those aircraft relevant beyond 2025.
From the editoral of Janes Fighting Ships 2012-2013, edited by Commodore Stephen Saunders:
Perhaps MOD can think outside the box? We need to consider getting some sort of V/STOL jet on the deck of Lusty/QE this decade - something which could be easily achieved. Some suggestions and comments (such as those here from an earlier thread) may be of interest and worth looking at again.
BTW I have been away and missed the last few pages of this thread, but from a quick look at a magazine whilst passing through a newsagent I gather that the USMC is intending to operate the AV8B until 2025-2030, and that of the 72 Harriers the UK sold to the US, 16 are still intact and meant to be flown as such.
Now that the future is STOVL, STOVL aircraft already exist in service today, and we have ships capable of STOVL operations. We just need someone to join the dots, and make it all coherent. It could so easily be a success story, but you need politicians to bite the bullet and accept that things are currently messed up.
Order; counter-order: disorder! The ink was hardly dry on the US/UK Statement of Intent on Carrier Cooperation and Maritime Power Projection, signed by Secretaries Panetta and Hammond on 5 January 2012, when the UK Government decided to revert to the original plan to procure the F-35B STOVL (Short Take Off/Vertical Landing) variant of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II rather than to persevere with the decision of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review to procure the F-35C instead. The bilateral carrier accord was signed on the basis that one of the Queen Elizabeth class would be equipped with catapults and arrestor gear to operate the F-35C, and that the Royal Navy would benefit from assistance and training from the US Navy to regenerate the necessary skills. Not only does the decision to reinstate the F-35B run contrary to the rationale that underpinned the switch to F-35C, the ability to inter-operate with American and French allies, it also places the UK Government in the uncomfortable situation of being restricted to one aircraft solution. There is no alternative STOVL aircraft and, although the F-35B programme survived recent US budget cuts, concerns about the aircraft, and in particular, rising costs continue to be aired. An alternative option for the UK, apparently not considered, would have been to stick with 'cats and traps' but to abandon the F-35 in favour of the F-18 Super Hornet, a less advanced but well proven aircraft. Nevertheless, the Royal Navy will be quietly pleased that as plans gather pace for troops in Afghanistan to revert to a supporting role, the requirement for a future carrier-strike capability endures. In addition, the option of operating both carriers, rather than one, remains on the table for review in the 2015 SDSR. For this reason, the F-35B decision is probably right, despite suspicions of poor analysis and an embarrassing volte-face.
BTW I have been away and missed the last few pages of this thread, but from a quick look at a magazine whilst passing through a newsagent I gather that the USMC is intending to operate the AV8B until 2025-2030, and that of the 72 Harriers the UK sold to the US, 16 are still intact and meant to be flown as such.
Now that the future is STOVL, STOVL aircraft already exist in service today, and we have ships capable of STOVL operations. We just need someone to join the dots, and make it all coherent. It could so easily be a success story, but you need politicians to bite the bullet and accept that things are currently messed up.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 28th Aug 2012 at 06:44.
We haven't had a 'bring back the Harrier' spot for ages.
It is complete nonsense to suggest that we need or will gain anything from a VSTOL a/c to work-up the flight deck of QE before F35B arrives. To scrounge a few Harriers from the USMC would simply allow us to waste (non-existent) money and time re-creating a wheel that our political masters no longer want, especially when it is not clear that when they eventually get it they will even want the new wheel ordered by the previous lot but one or two.
The initial work up of the roof of the Invincibles and Hermes with SHAR was at least as much hindered by the ARK/F4/Bucc mindset as it was helped. The space and support arrangements were different, the FW aircraft and its capabilities were different and the best ways of doing anything were, frequently, different. It all went on evolving for a long time too. The same will occur with QE but even more so because all the aircraft will be different.
If and when QE enters service, then will be time enough to do the integration trials, operational trials and work up that go with any aircraft type being operated from a ship for the first time. As ever these will need to be thought through and done carefully. We should have the advantage that those who remember how we used to do it will be either long gone, or too senior to get involved in the detail. The how to do it sheet will be clean and the 1SL of the day will be able to remind the Minister of the day that we have not done this for many years and don't want to kill people/ lose aircraft/ waste Defence money by rushing the re-learning.
N
The initial work up of the roof of the Invincibles and Hermes with SHAR was at least as much hindered by the ARK/F4/Bucc mindset as it was helped. The space and support arrangements were different, the FW aircraft and its capabilities were different and the best ways of doing anything were, frequently, different. It all went on evolving for a long time too. The same will occur with QE but even more so because all the aircraft will be different.
If and when QE enters service, then will be time enough to do the integration trials, operational trials and work up that go with any aircraft type being operated from a ship for the first time. As ever these will need to be thought through and done carefully. We should have the advantage that those who remember how we used to do it will be either long gone, or too senior to get involved in the detail. The how to do it sheet will be clean and the 1SL of the day will be able to remind the Minister of the day that we have not done this for many years and don't want to kill people/ lose aircraft/ waste Defence money by rushing the re-learning.
N
Can anyone answer some questions from a layman?
Does anyone know if a purchase of 48 F35B will provide enough aircraft to allow for the use of even one carrier at its maximum surge capacity of 34. I assume some aircraft will be permanently required for an OCU whilst others will be in maintenance at one time or another.
How long will Ocean last and are the new carriers likely to be used to fulfill her role once she has gone? If both carriers go into service are they ever likely to be available at the same time e.g. to use one with FW and the other with rotary or even a mixture on both, or will one always be in refit whilst the other is operational. If the latter is the case and Ocean isn't replaced where will we put our helicopters if we ever need to put 34 F35b on the one operational carrier?
Does anyone know if a purchase of 48 F35B will provide enough aircraft to allow for the use of even one carrier at its maximum surge capacity of 34. I assume some aircraft will be permanently required for an OCU whilst others will be in maintenance at one time or another.
How long will Ocean last and are the new carriers likely to be used to fulfill her role once she has gone? If both carriers go into service are they ever likely to be available at the same time e.g. to use one with FW and the other with rotary or even a mixture on both, or will one always be in refit whilst the other is operational. If the latter is the case and Ocean isn't replaced where will we put our helicopters if we ever need to put 34 F35b on the one operational carrier?
SkyDiver,
Good questions indeed. I wouldn't even attempt an answer here (if I did, my wind-up would be spotted to quickly - it's too obvious). But I'm looking forward to some fun with the answers when thay come.
Good questions indeed. I wouldn't even attempt an answer here (if I did, my wind-up would be spotted to quickly - it's too obvious). But I'm looking forward to some fun with the answers when thay come.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skydiver, asking questions like that is only going to lead to despair and thoughts of what could have been...it's best just not to think about it. Just know this, by the time they are both finished, they are likely to have cost us around £4 billion each - or more - which means they now both seem destined to end up being more expensive than the USS George Bush...which is nuclear...and armoured...and has a far bigger air wing capacity...and has 4 catapults...and is fast...and has a very good defensive suite, but it's all okay because it's secured the long term future of an uncompetitive shipyard in Glasgow 
Getting the very basics right might be an issue!
When I wrote:
It was a reflection that some argued that we needed to forget STOVL skills as the future was CTOL, concentrate on CTOL, but this might mean losing much whole ship experience. Now we have our people on exchange learning CTOL skills, but a STOVL future! We also have an opportunity to regain the whole ship skills, have an easier transition to F35B, make the task of increasing RN jet jock numbers easier (UK based aircraft to fly), and have an immediate return in terms of UK and coalition capabilities. These issues were of course talked about at length on the post SDSR Harrier thread. I included a link to my initial post there not for some sort of weird ego trip, but because it attempted to highlight some of the issues, including both skills needed for the future a current capabilities, along with possible solutions. There are of course better written posts that also discuss similar issues.
I was trying to be logical - with thoughts of a coherent path, not unlike that suggested by Rear Admiral Parry.
Therefore, for practical, presentational and tactical reasons, the RN urgently needs to develop a vision and two operational concepts – one for the period covered by the carrier and naval air 'holiday' and another for when the carrier(s) enter(s) service, with a recognisable migration path linking the two. They particularly need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the carrier programme, as well as outlining a more sophisticated, innovative and agile approach to force generation, procurement and skills development. It would typically need to include operationalised modular and adaptive solutions, the retention of long-lead, but surplus, platforms, smart regeneration programmes and more intelligent use of reserves, especially those who have already acquired advanced skills and experience during previous regular service.
Bengo I do not understand your logic:
So having that capability now would show the politicians how valuable it is, don't you think? With a Memorandum of Understanding for support it could be cost effective. Considering the trouble the USN was going to in order to help us prepare for a CTOL future, a few AV8Bs and a MOU might not been seen as that much of an additional ask, and would have an immediate return.
The capability (and skills) lost was high on the First Sea Lord's priorities when he spoke to the Defence Committee:
Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.
So every time new aircraft come into service we should get rid of people with experience? Surely when war came in 1982, and Hermes and Invincible were toppers with both jets and helicopters, it was the old hands with experience of larger, busier flight decks and airspace that came into their own? Are basic things like moving jets around the deck at sea not similar regardless of aircraft type? Also, what of those whose involvement is likely to be unaffected by aircraft type, such as the OOW and bridge team or various others?
Surely it would be easier for the first UK F-35B Pilots to transition from Harrier than from Hornet? If there are no UK F35B Pilots for the trials what then? Use USMC ones? They are probably ex AV8B...
If the people who know how to it are long gone, how will trials be done? If what you say is true, then when the future appeared to be CTOL/F35C did we send Pilots and others stateside to learn to fly the Hornet and learn about CTOL operations? After all, the UK will not operate Hornets or a Nimitz class CVN...
As for killing people - I suspect the Officer mentioned here would disagree with you:
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
Likewise the multiple others who wrote/spoke of the need to ramp up fixed wing flying, with more jets embarked at sea for longer periods, in the run up to CVF. They were saying this long before SDSR.
Nope. I still don't understand your logic. Surely its hard to learn anything if you have forgotten the basics?
When I wrote:
Now that the future is STOVL, STOVL aircraft already exist in service today, and we have ships capable of STOVL operations. We just need someone to join the dots, and make it all coherent. It could so easily be a success story, but you need politicians to bite the bullet and accept that things are currently messed up.
I was trying to be logical - with thoughts of a coherent path, not unlike that suggested by Rear Admiral Parry.
Therefore, for practical, presentational and tactical reasons, the RN urgently needs to develop a vision and two operational concepts – one for the period covered by the carrier and naval air 'holiday' and another for when the carrier(s) enter(s) service, with a recognisable migration path linking the two. They particularly need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the carrier programme, as well as outlining a more sophisticated, innovative and agile approach to force generation, procurement and skills development. It would typically need to include operationalised modular and adaptive solutions, the retention of long-lead, but surplus, platforms, smart regeneration programmes and more intelligent use of reserves, especially those who have already acquired advanced skills and experience during previous regular service.
Bengo I do not understand your logic:
It is complete nonsense to suggest that we need or will gain anything from a VSTOL a/c to work-up the flight deck of QE before F35B arrives. To scrounge a few Harriers from the USMC would simply allow us to waste (non-existent) money and time re-creating a wheel that our political masters no longer want, especially when it is not clear that when they eventually get it they will even want the new wheel ordered by the previous lot but one or two.
The capability (and skills) lost was high on the First Sea Lord's priorities when he spoke to the Defence Committee:
Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.
The initial work up of the roof of the Invincibles and Hermes with SHAR was at least as much hindered by the ARK/F4/Bucc mindset as it was helped. The space and support arrangements were different, the FW aircraft and its capabilities were different and the best ways of doing anything were, frequently, different. It all went on evolving for a long time too. The same will occur with QE but even more so because all the aircraft will be different.
Surely it would be easier for the first UK F-35B Pilots to transition from Harrier than from Hornet? If there are no UK F35B Pilots for the trials what then? Use USMC ones? They are probably ex AV8B...
If and when QE enters service, then will be time enough to do the integration trials, operational trials and work up that go with any aircraft type being operated from a ship for the first time. As ever these will need to be thought through and done carefully. We should have the advantage that those who remember how we used to do it will be either long gone, or too senior to get involved in the detail. The how to do it sheet will be clean and the 1SL of the day will be able to remind the Minister of the day that we have not done this for many years and don't want to kill people/ lose aircraft/ waste Defence money by rushing the re-learning.
As for killing people - I suspect the Officer mentioned here would disagree with you:
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
Likewise the multiple others who wrote/spoke of the need to ramp up fixed wing flying, with more jets embarked at sea for longer periods, in the run up to CVF. They were saying this long before SDSR.
Nope. I still don't understand your logic. Surely its hard to learn anything if you have forgotten the basics?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 29th Aug 2012 at 18:30.
WebFoot,
All good stuff, excellent points and well made. But what exactly are you proposing? Is this another 'bring back the Harrier' rant, which won't happen even if you really, really want it, or can you offer something new to suit the current climate?
They know what it did. But they cancelled it with the intention of replacing it with something new. If they can get away with it, they will cut the new thing back as far as they can. They will not do another massive U-turn and lease/buy back the Harriers they already sold to the Americans.
Accept it. They have defined a path for the future of Naval Aviation and the best we can all hope for is that it doesn't get watered down too much. Certainly don't expect an expansion of the plan. You know what I mean. Don't you?
Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer.
Good luck with the campaign,
Courtney
All good stuff, excellent points and well made. But what exactly are you proposing? Is this another 'bring back the Harrier' rant, which won't happen even if you really, really want it, or can you offer something new to suit the current climate?
So having that capability now would show the politicians how valuable it is, don't you think?
Accept it. They have defined a path for the future of Naval Aviation and the best we can all hope for is that it doesn't get watered down too much. Certainly don't expect an expansion of the plan. You know what I mean. Don't you?
Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer.
Good luck with the campaign,
Courtney
