UK Carrirer Qualification for F-35C

[ThinkTanker]

Evening,

I appreciate that this is (currently!) a question which won't arise. But I'm writing a thinktank paper (hence new and exciting handle) which looks at returning to F-35C, EMALS and traps on the QE-class.

Question, therefore is: when the decision to going down the F-35C route was taken in 2010 (before being reversed in 2012 ), what was the plan for training aircrew to land on the carrier? Was it simply to send WAFUs off to train with the USN, or was any thought given to a T-45 Goshawk buy for carrier training?

Many thanks,

TTr

[Lima Juliet]

Crikey old stick - don't you know there is a funding defecit? Even if the B model fell over, I cannot see cats and traps ever being funded and fitted now. It would just become a helicopter carrier instead!

LJ

[Finnpog]

Sorry that I cannot give a definitive answer.
Don't the Marine Nationale send their folk through USN flght schools even though they will end up in Rafales, Super Etendards and Hawkeye?

That might not have been a bad solution without access to UK decks in the early stages.

However - what does the current flght training contract say?
Is the Ministry already tied into a service provider with clauses? I genuinely do not know - so not being provocative for the sake of it.

[orca]

It's hard to answer the exact question because 'thought' is hard to capture. When the announcement was made all eyes naturally turned west because the USN was the obvious source of cat and trap training and, as already posted, the Marine Nationale already sent their pilots there - so no competition really. Other things wrt training did bubble up, for example scoping work to see if a fresnel lens at Yeovilton could be of any use to get boys still flying in the UK used to flying the ball.
Interestingly enough the French were keen to use the new CV presence East of 'The Pond' to reduce its total dependence on the US and one of the proposals was a Meridian-sequel training base, aircraft, syllabus etc in either France or UK.
I remember there being (at star level) meetings about how we could tailor Valley to the new direction of march, but again think we stopped at Fresnel lens level, not new aircraft.

[Background Noise]

I think Leon might have missed the point. There was no plan to purchase additional training aircraft. Training was being looked at and I think there were plans for the training initially to involve the USN.

[KPax]

Surely it would be cheaper to train existing RAF FJ aircrew than star ta whole new system up from scratch.

[dat581]

I suspect the RN may have used a similar system to that used for carrier pilots in the 1970s. First carrier landing is done in the end of pipeline aircraft so no carrier capable advanced training aircraft are required. Messing about with YouTube using HMS Ark Royal or sailor series will bring up this very scene.

With modern day training aids such as simulators and the ease with which the F-35C appears to land on the ship ( yes I know, early days ) it would not have been a problem.

[sandiego89]

I recall quite a few FAA aircrews, including ex-Sea Harrier pilots went to the USA and were assigned to F/A-18 E/F squadrons, and more were to follow. I believe they were recalled/cancelled when the UK went back to the B.

I imagine there are a few FAA/RAF pilots on exchange with the USMC AV8B squadrons currently?

Would have been interesting to see the T-45 in UK service, but I do not recall it being looked at either.

[sandiego89]

With modern day training aids such as simulators and the ease with which the F-35C appears to land on the ship ( yes I know, early days ) it would not have been a problem

I very much doubt a UK pilot would have done his/her first carrier landing in a F-35C. Just because they did that in the 1970's, I am quite sure they would have wanted the new crews to have gone through initial carrier qualification curriculum first, most likely via the USN in the T-45. There is much to learn, and the training and keeping crews current was cited as one of the major factors in re-selecting the B.

Those folks that did the F-35C sea trials recently, and made it look "easy" were VERY expereinced naval pilots with hundreds of carrier landings in thier log books.

[Courtney Mil]

And with Delta Path to make it easier.

[Bob Viking]

SD89.
The FAA (USMC) Harrier pilots were sent away but many other FAA guys remain in Hornet jobs.
BV

[SpazSinbad]

Yes carrying out a first arresting DL in own op aircraft is great (my A4G experience in the early 1970s). I recall reading some stories online about Vixen? pilots doing their first DL after travelling half way across the planet to embark on some distant UKcrarrier. NOW that must have been something. I myself did only touch and goes hook up for the very first time ever aboard HMS Eagle in lateish 1971 as she was farwelling all near our Oz south-east coast. I thought the flight deck was incredibly rough (from what I never found out - did not stop) compared to the old smoothie MELBOURNE.

[SpazSinbad]

Good first person accounts from USN/USMC sprog pilots 'wot is it like'. Although the editing process (not me) is likely to have not matched their comments in order with what they say or we see. A bolter is not a wave off for example however the LCDR does explain a bolter later.

T-45C New (Nugget/Sprog) USN USMC Pilots CarQual

T-45C New (Nugget/Sprog) USN USMC Pilots CarQual - YouTube

[orca]

BV,

You are quite correct, but in the cold light of day (after USMC ruffled feathers were smoothed - perhaps when they remembered that they were themselves C customers as well) we ended up with both RAF and RN aircrew in Hornet, Super Hornet, T-45 (creamie equivalent) and AV-8B.

I think current count is siro 30 all told. (Lion's share RN, a handful light blue)

We also have guys on staffs, flight decks and met offices.

[ThinkTanker]

Many thanks to all for their contributions.

I was assuming that it would be something similar to the FN @ Meridian, but in the longer term it is interesting to see that the French may also have been up for something other than USN alone. The proposal we're looking at is replacing Trident with F-35C carrying B61-12, and reinvesting the savings in the conventional forces (after buying the weapons, an additional 5 Astutes, converting both carriers, buying 8 x P-8, 6 x E-2D and 4 x C-2, you still save £5-13bn versus Trident).

I'm pulling the paper together now, and it'll be published in the next 6 - 8 weeks, and will post a link when it's done.

Thanks again,

TTr

[GreenKnight121]

Make that 3 additional Astutes and 2 more T45s!

[ThinkTanker]

GK121,

Noted; the driver here is to keep the nuclear submarine industrial base intact to allow Astute replacement in the 2030s. Too frequently the backup argument for Trident is that Successor is required to maintain the industrial base - a case of £100bn tail wagging dog.

More T45s would of course be welcome. £1bn a copy?

TTr

[sandiego89]

replacing Trident with F-35C carrying B61-12

Interesting, look forward to the link to your article.

I would wonder if the B61 is viable for release from US stores, or are you thinking UK built under licence? I am aware of the unique realtionship between the USA and UK, and the previously "shared" programs and the physics pacakges on the Trident, but I wonder if the political climate would be there for such sharing, and for the return to air dropped weapons. SSBN's seem to be more palitable for the general public, perhaps being more out of sight and mind.

If your paper is addressing cost savings as a major factor, perhaps you should address RAF carriage of air dropped stores as well, unless you want this to be a UK Navy show only. RAF has more recent experience with such weapons. Tomahawk may be worth talking about as well (SSN launched).

Trident replacement (in both the UK and USA) does carry a huge price tag. Yes you get hidden deterance and survivability, but will be interesting to see how much SSBN's will play in future plans.

[ThinkTanker]

Thanks for your interest, Sandiego89

I would wonder if the B61 is viable for release from US stores, or are you thinking UK built under licence? I am aware of the unique relationship between the USA and UK, and the previously "shared" programs and the physics pacakges on the Trident, but I wonder if the political climate would be there for such sharing, and for the return to air dropped weapons.

The NPT rules out the transfer of weapons, so the warheads would be built at AWE. No obvious problem with the purchase of non-nuclear US components, but that would await an official request.

If your paper is addressing cost savings as a major factor, perhaps you should address RAF carriage of air dropped stores as well, unless you want this to be a UK Navy show only. RAF has more recent experience with such weapons.

Quite right, it would be an RAF/FAA show - all F-35 orders would become F-35Cs (nb, significant unit cost and through life savings, ignoring the superior performance of the C) and nuclear IOC would be RAF from Marham, before nuclear IOC from carriers after reconstruction to take EMALS and traps.

Tomahawk may be worth talking about as well (SSN launched).

We've looked at Tomahawk and it presents both a nuclear signalling problem (ie, if you're XYZ country of interest, how do you tell then difference in the warhead) and with the USN retiring Tomahawk-N (itself a Block I design, IIRC) there's no obvious synergies with the US. B61-12, however, will become the NATO DCA weapon, and the US standard free-fall weapon (some B61-11s will remain for the B-2 force).

Cheers,

TTr

[Heathrow Harry]

"replacing Trident with F-35C carrying B61-12"

Trident range = 12,000 km

F-35C combat radius = 1100 km

to hit Moscow we'd have to park our carrier in Helsinki harbour..................... and overfly the target as well.........