No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Correct - if the F-35B dies, the F-35C no longer has its flank protected by the Marines and will follow it in short order.
If the Navy could dump the B and C, CV combat capability would improve in the short-to-medium term. Before the B/C would have reached IOC (with full capability, not the Marines' interim capability), the navy could:
- replace lots more classic Hornets with Supers
- start taking delivery of Ultra Bugs with conformal tanks, engine improvements &c
- accelerate the Next Generation Jammer.
And all of this with money to spare.
The Marines would get Supers to replace their F/A-18s (those aircraft, not the Harriers, are first in line to be replaced).
GK121 is right about the C. The big wing is there for CV-compatible approach speed, OEW is massively greater than the A, and the main reason it has greater range is that the gun is replaced by more internal fuel.
If the Navy could dump the B and C, CV combat capability would improve in the short-to-medium term. Before the B/C would have reached IOC (with full capability, not the Marines' interim capability), the navy could:
- replace lots more classic Hornets with Supers
- start taking delivery of Ultra Bugs with conformal tanks, engine improvements &c
- accelerate the Next Generation Jammer.
And all of this with money to spare.
The Marines would get Supers to replace their F/A-18s (those aircraft, not the Harriers, are first in line to be replaced).
GK121 is right about the C. The big wing is there for CV-compatible approach speed, OEW is massively greater than the A, and the main reason it has greater range is that the gun is replaced by more internal fuel.
And I would look forward to USA PLC repaying money to UK PLC for the money invested as a tier 1 partner and then chopping the output we want. Or, of course, we could take 2 of those shiny EMALs at low to no-cost as recompense.....
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off the wall idea, but would a buy of just "B"s work?
Would give all three services commonality, enable the Navy to partly scale down its carrier build program by using older smaller ships as "auxiliary" carriers (for want of a better word), and would enable the USAF to integrate into the Marine's expeditionary strategy
How would that affect the costings?
Would give all three services commonality, enable the Navy to partly scale down its carrier build program by using older smaller ships as "auxiliary" carriers (for want of a better word), and would enable the USAF to integrate into the Marine's expeditionary strategy
How would that affect the costings?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-35B is only rated for 7G maneuvers, while F-35A is rated for 9G (F-35C 7.5G).
This is because the need to hold down airframe weight to preserve vertical landing characteristics produces a lighter but weaker airframe.
Other than the max G-rating, maneuverability is virtually identical between -A & -B... but again there is the lack of an internal gun for -B.
Cost is still a major difference... the more costly materials used in the airframe to bring down weight, added to the costs of the lift fan & its gearbox as well as the airflow doors, would keep that cost differential no matter what the production numbers.
This is because the need to hold down airframe weight to preserve vertical landing characteristics produces a lighter but weaker airframe.
Other than the max G-rating, maneuverability is virtually identical between -A & -B... but again there is the lack of an internal gun for -B.
Cost is still a major difference... the more costly materials used in the airframe to bring down weight, added to the costs of the lift fan & its gearbox as well as the airflow doors, would keep that cost differential no matter what the production numbers.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 11th Sep 2012 at 03:25.
added to the costs
Quite frankly I think talk of cancellation is bull****, it far too along the road and a future replacement will have the same issues.
The fact that the British alone are buying the B will ensure the US doesn't cancel it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All is good in JSF land
More problems raised at Pentagon F-35 fighter review - World Updates | The Star Online
Operational test plan rejected because of ongoing issues, one of them the helmet which, I'm sure I recall this correctly, was as good as solved.
Now they're talking as if the alternate BAe helmet is going to be a more permanent alternative.
More problems raised at Pentagon F-35 fighter review - World Updates | The Star Online
Officials did not approve a comprehensive plan for operational testing of the F-35 program as had been expected.
The Pentagon's Defence Acquisition Board huddled for more than four hours on Friday evening in a meeting described by one participant as "very painful" given ongoing challenges facing the high-tech F-35 helmet that is integral to the craft's weapons systems, and other aspects of the huge program.
The Pentagon's Defence Acquisition Board huddled for more than four hours on Friday evening in a meeting described by one participant as "very painful" given ongoing challenges facing the high-tech F-35 helmet that is integral to the craft's weapons systems, and other aspects of the huge program.
Now they're talking as if the alternate BAe helmet is going to be a more permanent alternative.
Originally Posted by peter we
The USMC, Navy and probably up to 10 other nations will need the B to operate sea air.
Who?
USMC's order plus UK's x 48 and the Italians order of 22 and that's it for the B.
And I liked this reply, so have another.......
I can still see the possibility of both B and C versions getting the chop tbh.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except for being on the edge of bankruptcy, Spain had said that they would eventually buy F-35B when its AV-8B+s run out of flight hours. Of course, at the current rate that is sometime in the 2030s.
Australia could buy some... except their government has said they are not going to, period.
Then there is India... oh wait, they have said their next carrier will have catapults so that Rafale can be bought for the Navy as well as having won the Air Force competition.
Brazil has a carrier... but whether they buy Rafale or Gripen for their Air Force they have said will stay with catapult-launched aircraft for Sao Paulo & its replacement.
So who else were you referring to, peter we... adding in the Italian Navy that's only 5 possibles after the USMC & RN... you need lots more to get to your USMC, RN, and "10 more".
Australia could buy some... except their government has said they are not going to, period.
Then there is India... oh wait, they have said their next carrier will have catapults so that Rafale can be bought for the Navy as well as having won the Air Force competition.
Brazil has a carrier... but whether they buy Rafale or Gripen for their Air Force they have said will stay with catapult-launched aircraft for Sao Paulo & its replacement.
So who else were you referring to, peter we... adding in the Italian Navy that's only 5 possibles after the USMC & RN... you need lots more to get to your USMC, RN, and "10 more".
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 12th Sep 2012 at 04:35.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read a report recently that Spain may retire its carrier and not replace it.
Considering their financial situation a real possibility. Looking at Italy I wonder what will happen there aswell!
Considering their financial situation a real possibility. Looking at Italy I wonder what will happen there aswell!
Don't confuse the Principe d'Asturias, built in the mid-80s, with King Juan Carlos, built in the last five years. Both STOVL ships.
Ditto the Italians with Giuseppe Garibaldi (mid-80s) and Cavour (last couple of years).
Doesn't invalidate the possibility, but wishful thinking won't make it so.....
Ditto the Italians with Giuseppe Garibaldi (mid-80s) and Cavour (last couple of years).
Doesn't invalidate the possibility, but wishful thinking won't make it so.....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PdA was designed as an aircraft carrier, specifically for helos and Harriers. Its elevators are too small for F-35B.
JCI is designed as an "air-capable LHD", and was specifically designed to operate F-35Bs... but as a secondary role while PdA is in refit, not as a primary mission.
I do expect Spain to at least place PdA in reserve (officially temporarily, but actually permanently), and to defer (if not cancel) her planned post-2020 replacement carrier. JCI will be used as a "multi-purpose vessel", probably with 4-6 Harriers embarked. A small purchase of ~20 F-35B is still possible IF the economy allows post-2018.
Giuseppe Garibaldi was designed as an aircraft carrier, specifically for helos and Harriers. Its elevators are too small for F-35B.
Cavour is designed as a "amphibious-assault-capable aircraft carrier", with operation of F-35Bs as a primary role.
GG is planned to be replaced by a second aviation-centric vessel, but this is likely to be deferred for at least 5 years beyond the current schedule. I do expect her to be eventually replaced with a second F-35 capable ship as currently approved.
The currently-approved plan is for 3 ships to replace the 3 San Marcos class amphibs AND GG: 2 mid-sized helo-only LHDs (20,000-ton 190 meters (623 ft.)) with a F-35B-capable LHA variant (using the same hull, but without a well dock) to replace GG.
I would rather the LHA be a second Cavour.
JCI is designed as an "air-capable LHD", and was specifically designed to operate F-35Bs... but as a secondary role while PdA is in refit, not as a primary mission.
I do expect Spain to at least place PdA in reserve (officially temporarily, but actually permanently), and to defer (if not cancel) her planned post-2020 replacement carrier. JCI will be used as a "multi-purpose vessel", probably with 4-6 Harriers embarked. A small purchase of ~20 F-35B is still possible IF the economy allows post-2018.
Giuseppe Garibaldi was designed as an aircraft carrier, specifically for helos and Harriers. Its elevators are too small for F-35B.
Cavour is designed as a "amphibious-assault-capable aircraft carrier", with operation of F-35Bs as a primary role.
GG is planned to be replaced by a second aviation-centric vessel, but this is likely to be deferred for at least 5 years beyond the current schedule. I do expect her to be eventually replaced with a second F-35 capable ship as currently approved.
The currently-approved plan is for 3 ships to replace the 3 San Marcos class amphibs AND GG: 2 mid-sized helo-only LHDs (20,000-ton 190 meters (623 ft.)) with a F-35B-capable LHA variant (using the same hull, but without a well dock) to replace GG.
I would rather the LHA be a second Cavour.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 13th Sep 2012 at 05:28.
It don't make sense no more!
Originally Posted by ORAC
If the carrier programme was handled the same way the QE and POW would be sold to India et al and a 3rd, smaller, single CVH would be ordered to keep the shipyards busy....
peter we
Good point. Apart from the UK, how many other nations are buying F-35B?
Originally Posted by GK121
Except for being on the edge of bankruptcy, Spain had said that they would eventually buy F-35B when its AV-8B+s run out of flight hours. Of course, at the current rate that is sometime in the 2030s.
Recently, Navy News reports that whilst the decommissioned HMS Ark Royal is to be towed away as scrap, Ministers have expressed an interest in preserving HMS Illustrious when she leaves service. This strikes me as very unusual - since when have they been interesting in preserving ship before (except those in extended readiness).
So are Ministers trying to deflect criticism, or soften us up for Illustrious being put in extended readiness or having her service extended (which may require a refit)? Or other policy changes?
My view is that not having a major gap between Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth would be a good way of preserving the legacy? This may mean either extending the service life of the former, or speeding up work on the latter (her original in service date was 2014 - and remember that Illustrious was rushed into service a year early in 1982 so that she could replace Invincible in the South Atlantic post conflict).
Additionally, changing policy so that we do not have an entire decade of no naval fixed wing flying, with no carrier capability and no jets embarked on RN decks to give experience to the entire ship's company (particularly as the future of RN fixed wing aviation is STOVL - ie F-35B), would do a lot to secure the legacy of the "Harrier carriers". Perhaps see my post here - from the Decision to axe Harrier is "Bonkers" thread.
To be honest, I really do not know what to make of defence policy these days. The politicians both try to make loud noises regarding Syria and Iran, and pretend that the world has not changed since SDSR. Indeed, Illustrious is deploying to somewhere hot soon...
Then there is the issue of the forthcoming (when?) announcement on the future of the Reserve forces. For example, the Royal Naval Reserve is having is numbers increased by 50%, but nobody is certain what for? Fewer RN and RFA ships means less ships needing force protection, logistic support, communications, etc. So what will these people do?
How are we meant to recruit them without knowing what it is we are recruiting them for? The FR20 paper recommended an enlarged RNR Air Branch, and there has been (tri-service) talk of Reservists taking over capabilities that are not in use right now but that need to be maintained, but how do part timers make up for the loss of ships and aircraft that have been sold or scrapped?
PS Why all this bickering over carrier aircraft more commonly one or two engines?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Sep 2012 at 08:50. Reason: To prevent out of context quotes
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WEBF
particularly as the future of RN fixed wing aviation is STOVL - ie F-35B
Last edited by mike-wsm; 13th Sep 2012 at 17:55. Reason: follow-my-leader
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mike-wsm,
Lacking in range - yeah, see where you're going with this one. However, the old argument that without HNS and AAR even the the F-35A is lacking in range; define in what context please.
Lacking in engines - it has one. F-16 has one; so did GR7/9; Mirage F1/2000 has one etc etc. Compared to the B-52 most other aircraft are 'lacking in engines'. Did you mean to say it is underpowered? At risk of crashing if that one engine fails and there isn't another to save the day? Again, define your context please so we can all understand your point.
Lacking in weapons - numbers of weapons that it can carry internally, externally, or what? Size of weapons is an issue as we well know but is it a lack of cleared weapon types you refer to? Context...
Lacking in stealth - oh really?! I disagree but, again, define (if you can on a public forum) why you make that statement so that we can all better understand.
Disagree - lacking in range, lacking in engines, lacking in weapons, lacking in stealth
Lacking in engines - it has one. F-16 has one; so did GR7/9; Mirage F1/2000 has one etc etc. Compared to the B-52 most other aircraft are 'lacking in engines'. Did you mean to say it is underpowered? At risk of crashing if that one engine fails and there isn't another to save the day? Again, define your context please so we can all understand your point.
Lacking in weapons - numbers of weapons that it can carry internally, externally, or what? Size of weapons is an issue as we well know but is it a lack of cleared weapon types you refer to? Context...
Lacking in stealth - oh really?! I disagree but, again, define (if you can on a public forum) why you make that statement so that we can all better understand.