F35 Stitch Up
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 Stitch Up
Deliberately provocative title - but as it says.
It appears that the RAF are about to stitch the Fleet Air Arm and RN fixed wing aviation - again.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/gove...rst-48-f-35bs/
I'm aware of the history, the shared concept of F35 Ops etc, but we are buying 2 carriers. The RAF will be delighted if they can pull this off under the guise of cost saving.
You can argue the logic all you like. Personally, I'd be hard to persuade that this is not the RAF sticking one on the Fleet Air Arm - standard.
Any informed opinions on this...?
It appears that the RAF are about to stitch the Fleet Air Arm and RN fixed wing aviation - again.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/gove...rst-48-f-35bs/
I'm aware of the history, the shared concept of F35 Ops etc, but we are buying 2 carriers. The RAF will be delighted if they can pull this off under the guise of cost saving.
You can argue the logic all you like. Personally, I'd be hard to persuade that this is not the RAF sticking one on the Fleet Air Arm - standard.
Any informed opinions on this...?
indie.
I realise some will always try to see the negative side but this long rumoured change would be an excellent move for UK Defence.
I'm an Air Force man but I can see the clear benefit of both. Carrier based F35s are an excellent asset but it doesn't mean they should all be of this ilk. Land based F35s with better range and payload are also a great asset.
I'd say we get the best of both worlds and it would be a rare application of common sense which will benefit us all.
BV
I realise some will always try to see the negative side but this long rumoured change would be an excellent move for UK Defence.
I'm an Air Force man but I can see the clear benefit of both. Carrier based F35s are an excellent asset but it doesn't mean they should all be of this ilk. Land based F35s with better range and payload are also a great asset.
I'd say we get the best of both worlds and it would be a rare application of common sense which will benefit us all.
BV
The only problem concerning F-35A is that Lockheed would no doubt charge an arm and a leg to integrate an AAR probe, even though both the -B and -C are fitted with them.
"You Limeys wanna probe? Give us your cheque book, bend over and grab your ankles....."
"You Limeys wanna probe? Give us your cheque book, bend over and grab your ankles....."
So, RAF Harrier cancelled meaning RN found it incredibly difficult to maintain any sort of in cockpit FJ experience (let alone deck ops) so, funny old thing, the majority of cockpits will be filled with light blue. If you didn't see this coming you've been sleeping for the last 6-7 years!
Pure Pursuit, the Voyagers are not 'ours' to modify! They already cost MoD more than £1M per day for the AirTanker PFI AAR service, so Lord knows what contract penalties would apply if MoD suddenly woke up to the fact that quite a few RAF aircraft would benefit from such a modification.
The K2s would seem the obvious candidates for such modification though. Training boom operators and maintaining their currency might be a problem though, given that the Voyager doesn't have a UARRSI...
So no mutual AAR trips, unlike the Victor or the VC10K.
The K2s would seem the obvious candidates for such modification though. Training boom operators and maintaining their currency might be a problem though, given that the Voyager doesn't have a UARRSI...
So no mutual AAR trips, unlike the Victor or the VC10K.
We are indeed buying 2 carriers. However, we will only have enough manpower, money and escorts to normally have one at sea. The "surge" number of F-35Bs on the QEC is around 40 airframes - impossible organically with a fleet size of 48, but perfectly "do-able" if third party F-35B operators (USMC, Italy) contribute assets. IMHO a fleet of around 70 F-35B would be sensible to enable one "surge" CAG or even enough for both QECs to have TAGs in extremis. Re the nefarious Crabs, the Tornado needs replacing. Typhoon has replaced the F3/Jag and is swing-role capable of covering elements of the GR4 role, but the additional survivability conferred by the F-35's LO elements and SA make it better placed for many mission sets such as SEAD, EA and attacks against highly defended targets. For this role the F-35A or C are better as they can carry, internally, 2000lb class weapons and both have longer range than the "B" thanks to increased fuel and not carrying powered lift mechanisms with them. The decision between A and C comes down to picking between more "g", lower cost and internal gun (A) or probe/drogue refuelling (C). Pay yer money, makes yer choice. The 138 number is also, seemingly, viewed as a "lifetime buy" and may take decades to be fully delivered as the lines will be open for a long time. I'd even suggest that with fatigue/attrition we'll likely see more "tails" than 138 by OSD - aircraft like the Chinook in the RAF have benefited from long production runs with the opportunity to "dip in" when finances and needs dictate.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may actually work out for the FAA. There's now a fairly clear argument for the Navy to focus on carrier based flying (with the B) and the RAF focus on land based flying with the A. Keep the aircraft at Mariam to keep the logs savings, but give the B to the Navy and let them operate it as the AOA. It would certainly end a lot of the silly arguments that we've seen between the two Services over the years.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure Pursuit, the Voyagers are not 'ours' to modify! They already cost MoD more than £1M per day for the AirTanker PFI AAR service, so Lord knows what contract penalties would apply if MoD suddenly woke up to the fact that quite a few RAF aircraft would benefit from such a modification.
The K2s would seem the obvious candidates for such modification though. Training boom operators and maintaining their currency might be a problem though, given that the Voyager doesn't have a UARRSI... So no mutual AAR trips, unlike the Victor or the VC10K.
The K2s would seem the obvious candidates for such modification though. Training boom operators and maintaining their currency might be a problem though, given that the Voyager doesn't have a UARRSI...
So no mutual AAR trips, unlike the Victor or the VC10K.Personally, I think we need it and our current drogue only option is very fast jet centric and rather embarrassing. We rely on other nations assets in order to utilise our ISTAR assets fully. Unacceptable.
I seem to recall that the MoD announced a little while back that they were looking into the cost/benefit of fitting at least some of the Voyagers with a boom.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like, if I may, to add a few observations to this thread - which i hope generates some interesting discussion. My view is that there are two issues to be looked at. The first (as ever) is deciding policy and requirements. The second is aircraft numbers. Policy and requirements are nearly always influenced by politics, national and inter-service. Nationally, the UK Government decided in SDR 98 that it wanted to field a credible maritime strike capability from two big carriers. At the same time, the MoD decided that the best way to get to the aircraft side sorted out was a Joint Force of RAF and RN Harriers and Sea Harriers to develop new concepts of operations for both strike and air defence roles, both land and sea based. This would (it was hoped) inform and guide the procurement and deployment of the new aircraft (Future Joint Combat Aircraft). The carrier programme has, via a series of fits and starts, begun to deliver. The UK's F-35B procurement programme (which was significantly delayed as long ago as 2003) is now delivering. The bit that failed was the Joint Force concept, and here we come to inter-service politics.
I have heard from a number of friends that the angst of JFH is in the past, the RAF and the RN are working together on F-35B, and it's going to be OK. At the level of SO1 and below, I'm sure that's true. I have posted many times that almost all of the RAF people I worked with over many years were professional, dedicated and damn good. My concerns are based on the basic 'ethos' of the RAF as it affects their senior leadership.
I don't subscribe to the 'devious crabs trying to stitch up the FAA' view of things. But my view is that the truth is worse. The RAF senior leadership (my opinion here) doesn't 'oppose' naval aviation - it just doesn't really care about it. Again, my view. The RAF's leadership has been trained, developed and influenced by the goal of 'independent air power' since 1918. That is, air power replacing other forms of warfare (land and sea) by virtue of its overwhelming advantages (as seen by the RAF). When faced with a choice, again and again over the years, the RAF has put resources into land based air power rather than air power that relies upon a ship. To repeat, I don't see these as 'devious' decisions - they are perfectly logical if your aim is the application of independent air power. So, the MoD has to come up with a logical set of requirements for a split fleet. That will, I suspect, generate some unfortunate inter-service stuff.
And so we come to deciding allocation of resources, or in this case, numbers. (To correct a previous post, the RN Sea Harrier fleet had about 33 active aircraft out of around 52 airframes. It actually had new build aircraft in storage to support the active fleet in the planed 'out years'. But that was to support two front line units comprising no more than 8 aircraft per active carrier. What the UK wants to do with F-35B is something much more capable). My old friend Evalu8ter (as ever) is 'spot on'. If the 'top line' figure really is 138, then a 50/50 split of around 70 As and 70 Bs looks (to me) sensible - depending on the requirements. These fleets should be able to achieve significant efficiencies is they adopt a joint supply organisation, a joint training system, and joint OCU. 'Joint' should also extend to the vital areas of developing mission support and mission planning facilities.
Operational control and management of the As should rest with the RAF, but the Bs should be handed off to the RN. It makes no sense at all to try to control and direct F-35B operations from a remote land based HQ - and that is what the RAF will inevitably (and understandably) seek to do. Handing operational control to the RN also (again my view) makes better sense for allocating the 'duty holder' roles for 'air safety' management in the 'MAA world' the services now work in.
Evalu8ter is also absolutely right about looking at the F-35C - longer range and better endurance. And a proper refuelling probe. But at a higher cost than the A. And the C carries around a hell of a lot of steel and structure that does nothing but allow cat and trap ops.
My thoughts, to wrap up:
1. 70 Bs for two carriers sounds about right, and the idea of getting USMC assets on the decks is a great one. We'd just need to sort out a few (not insignificant) issues around weapons supply, security and disclosure issues and safety management. The FAA has a good chance of solving those with the USMC.
2. The UK F-35 buy will probably increase. The '138' figure is a historic one, based on the need to replace both GR7/9 and Sea Harriers. Factor in reducing costs and a further run down in the Typhoon fleet in favour of F-35A/C, and I could see the Uk's total F-35 buy going to around 170 or 180.
3. Joint support and training systems for all the UK's F-35s, separate operational command structures to ensure the best delivery of combat effect from land and sea.
4. Solve the AAR issue. Honestly, I can't see the RAF being seen as a credible strike force if it can't refuel it's own aircraft.
Ok, sorry for the length, I'm done. looking forward to responses.
Best regards as ever to those running the spreadsheets up in town, it's always a thankless task.
Engines
I have heard from a number of friends that the angst of JFH is in the past, the RAF and the RN are working together on F-35B, and it's going to be OK. At the level of SO1 and below, I'm sure that's true. I have posted many times that almost all of the RAF people I worked with over many years were professional, dedicated and damn good. My concerns are based on the basic 'ethos' of the RAF as it affects their senior leadership.
I don't subscribe to the 'devious crabs trying to stitch up the FAA' view of things. But my view is that the truth is worse. The RAF senior leadership (my opinion here) doesn't 'oppose' naval aviation - it just doesn't really care about it. Again, my view. The RAF's leadership has been trained, developed and influenced by the goal of 'independent air power' since 1918. That is, air power replacing other forms of warfare (land and sea) by virtue of its overwhelming advantages (as seen by the RAF). When faced with a choice, again and again over the years, the RAF has put resources into land based air power rather than air power that relies upon a ship. To repeat, I don't see these as 'devious' decisions - they are perfectly logical if your aim is the application of independent air power. So, the MoD has to come up with a logical set of requirements for a split fleet. That will, I suspect, generate some unfortunate inter-service stuff.
And so we come to deciding allocation of resources, or in this case, numbers. (To correct a previous post, the RN Sea Harrier fleet had about 33 active aircraft out of around 52 airframes. It actually had new build aircraft in storage to support the active fleet in the planed 'out years'. But that was to support two front line units comprising no more than 8 aircraft per active carrier. What the UK wants to do with F-35B is something much more capable). My old friend Evalu8ter (as ever) is 'spot on'. If the 'top line' figure really is 138, then a 50/50 split of around 70 As and 70 Bs looks (to me) sensible - depending on the requirements. These fleets should be able to achieve significant efficiencies is they adopt a joint supply organisation, a joint training system, and joint OCU. 'Joint' should also extend to the vital areas of developing mission support and mission planning facilities.
Operational control and management of the As should rest with the RAF, but the Bs should be handed off to the RN. It makes no sense at all to try to control and direct F-35B operations from a remote land based HQ - and that is what the RAF will inevitably (and understandably) seek to do. Handing operational control to the RN also (again my view) makes better sense for allocating the 'duty holder' roles for 'air safety' management in the 'MAA world' the services now work in.
Evalu8ter is also absolutely right about looking at the F-35C - longer range and better endurance. And a proper refuelling probe. But at a higher cost than the A. And the C carries around a hell of a lot of steel and structure that does nothing but allow cat and trap ops.
My thoughts, to wrap up:
1. 70 Bs for two carriers sounds about right, and the idea of getting USMC assets on the decks is a great one. We'd just need to sort out a few (not insignificant) issues around weapons supply, security and disclosure issues and safety management. The FAA has a good chance of solving those with the USMC.
2. The UK F-35 buy will probably increase. The '138' figure is a historic one, based on the need to replace both GR7/9 and Sea Harriers. Factor in reducing costs and a further run down in the Typhoon fleet in favour of F-35A/C, and I could see the Uk's total F-35 buy going to around 170 or 180.
3. Joint support and training systems for all the UK's F-35s, separate operational command structures to ensure the best delivery of combat effect from land and sea.
4. Solve the AAR issue. Honestly, I can't see the RAF being seen as a credible strike force if it can't refuel it's own aircraft.
Ok, sorry for the length, I'm done. looking forward to responses.
Best regards as ever to those running the spreadsheets up in town, it's always a thankless task.
Engines
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Engines - the Treasury is looking to CUT costs - not buy more
There is little chance we'll ever see the two carriers fully and identically equipped and at sea at the same time
48 B's looks sensible but any more???
There is little chance we'll ever see the two carriers fully and identically equipped and at sea at the same time
48 B's looks sensible but any more???
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
48 'B's is far too small a figure, you've left no room fo training and support/attrition airframes at all. 70FAA/70RAF is a much more realistic level, as these aircraft will have to last us decades.
And as LockMart have been saying for at least a decade now, if you want A's with probes for refuelling, you just have to ask! the cockpits for all three models are identical, the A has the space for probe left empty and as for aerodynamic testing, in flight it's identical to the B so it's been done. Any extra costs to certify such a mod are going to be a lot less than spending big bucks on new tanking equipment for the RAF's fleet and the associated training and logistic pipelines.
And as LockMart have been saying for at least a decade now, if you want A's with probes for refuelling, you just have to ask! the cockpits for all three models are identical, the A has the space for probe left empty and as for aerodynamic testing, in flight it's identical to the B so it's been done. Any extra costs to certify such a mod are going to be a lot less than spending big bucks on new tanking equipment for the RAF's fleet and the associated training and logistic pipelines.
(To correct a previous post, the RN Sea Harrier fleet had about 33 active aircraft out of around 52 airframes. It actually had new build aircraft in storage to support the active fleet in the planed 'out years'. But that was to support two front line units comprising no more than 8 aircraft per active carrier.
They all say the same thing - an active fleet of 26 aircraft to be used as the basis of support planning and a total number of kit sets to cover a total fleet of 44 aircraft. This is also repeated in the quantities of aircraft covered in the "by air" and "by road" RTW reports for the IN/GPS programme, so it would seem that these numbers were real and not just planning assumptions.
The squadron numbers were pumped up a bit during the Falklands War, but only by sending FRS1s from 899 Sqn to add to the existing 800 and 801 sqns (and the briefly reformed 809 sqn) to fill the available carrier space, not by increasing the overall numbers.
PDR
Spending 15 minutes looking at delivery dates and OSDs for individual SHARs, it seems that the FAA had an average of 37 aircraft on charge at any one time, including stored aircraft and those undergoing maintenance/repair/conversion etc. It peaked around 1998-2001 at 49 when the new-build FA.2s were in service.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PDR1,
Thanks for coming back - discussion is always a good thing. My background here is that I was the Sea Harrier Operational Fleet Manager, then the Engineering fleet manager (including bringing the FA2 into service) and then the Operational Fleet Manager for JFH.
Yes, the 2 SHAR FLS were 8 aircraft each, and 899 had a stated complement of 10. However.....the total RN 'Active' fleet also included aircraft undergoing scheduled maintenance at 2nd line (4 to 6 lines) plus aircraft retained in the active fleet as spares for immediate deployment or undergoing extended Cat 3 repairs. (Unlike the RAF, where the 12 aircraft supposedly on a front line squadron included aircraft undergoing second line work packages and even mod programmes). My normal complement of active fleet aircraft was, as I said, around 33 to 36. (Martin has just come up with a supporting figure). It went even higher during the FRS1 to FA2 conversion, as he says.
One of the many challenges of JFH was that the basic planning assumptions, methods, and even definitions used in fleet management were totally different between the RN and the RAF. This, among other things, made the whole business of determining proper fleet numbers a bit of a game.
If the RN ends up with 48 it has, in my humble view, been screwed. The Sea harrier Fleet of 52 odd was designed to equip and sustain 26 front line aircraft through life, but only to equip the small CVS. The 138 figure was the original planning assumption to generate 4 FJCA (JSF) front line squadrons, split between 2 'RN heavy' and 2 'RAF heavy' plus an OCU, and sustain these through life. It wasn't ever linked to replacing Tornado as well. The maritime strike capability should (again. just my view) be able to generate and sustain somewhere about 40 to 48 aircraft to operate from one (or two) of the carriers. 70 F-35Bs sounds about right. If needed, these aircraft could be 'swung' to land based ops to support an RAF 'A' fleet. Don't forget, the figure of 138 was supposed to support a fleet of Bs that could all go to sea if required. That included RAF units. That idea seems to have been ditched by the RAF, and my previous post sets out why I think that's happened.
It's probably all going to be about numbers now, and one can only hope that the boys in town play nicely with each other. If they don't, the Treasury will have them for breakfast.
To pick up on Obi Wan's excellent post - fitting an A with a retractable B/C type probe would also generate around around 600 pounds extra fuel capacity and a similar weight saving by removal of the large and heavy boom AAR receptacle located in the mid upper fuel tank. The retractable probe and piping will add some weight, but nowhere hear that much. There would be a ton of detail mods as well to the fuel system, but none of it risky or rocket science. The result (my view only) ould be a better A model.
Best regards to all those writing the papers in Whitehall, whatever their colour of stripe.
Engines
Thanks for coming back - discussion is always a good thing. My background here is that I was the Sea Harrier Operational Fleet Manager, then the Engineering fleet manager (including bringing the FA2 into service) and then the Operational Fleet Manager for JFH.
Yes, the 2 SHAR FLS were 8 aircraft each, and 899 had a stated complement of 10. However.....the total RN 'Active' fleet also included aircraft undergoing scheduled maintenance at 2nd line (4 to 6 lines) plus aircraft retained in the active fleet as spares for immediate deployment or undergoing extended Cat 3 repairs. (Unlike the RAF, where the 12 aircraft supposedly on a front line squadron included aircraft undergoing second line work packages and even mod programmes). My normal complement of active fleet aircraft was, as I said, around 33 to 36. (Martin has just come up with a supporting figure). It went even higher during the FRS1 to FA2 conversion, as he says.
One of the many challenges of JFH was that the basic planning assumptions, methods, and even definitions used in fleet management were totally different between the RN and the RAF. This, among other things, made the whole business of determining proper fleet numbers a bit of a game.
If the RN ends up with 48 it has, in my humble view, been screwed. The Sea harrier Fleet of 52 odd was designed to equip and sustain 26 front line aircraft through life, but only to equip the small CVS. The 138 figure was the original planning assumption to generate 4 FJCA (JSF) front line squadrons, split between 2 'RN heavy' and 2 'RAF heavy' plus an OCU, and sustain these through life. It wasn't ever linked to replacing Tornado as well. The maritime strike capability should (again. just my view) be able to generate and sustain somewhere about 40 to 48 aircraft to operate from one (or two) of the carriers. 70 F-35Bs sounds about right. If needed, these aircraft could be 'swung' to land based ops to support an RAF 'A' fleet. Don't forget, the figure of 138 was supposed to support a fleet of Bs that could all go to sea if required. That included RAF units. That idea seems to have been ditched by the RAF, and my previous post sets out why I think that's happened.
It's probably all going to be about numbers now, and one can only hope that the boys in town play nicely with each other. If they don't, the Treasury will have them for breakfast.
To pick up on Obi Wan's excellent post - fitting an A with a retractable B/C type probe would also generate around around 600 pounds extra fuel capacity and a similar weight saving by removal of the large and heavy boom AAR receptacle located in the mid upper fuel tank. The retractable probe and piping will add some weight, but nowhere hear that much. There would be a ton of detail mods as well to the fuel system, but none of it risky or rocket science. The result (my view only) ould be a better A model.
Best regards to all those writing the papers in Whitehall, whatever their colour of stripe.
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 29th Aug 2017 at 19:49. Reason: Updates and typos
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines, a well considered post, as always.
To increase flexibility & reduce cost/risk, why not leave the "other" refuelling system in place? Having watched an Air Force (RAAF) struggle with a seemingly minor mod to an off-the-shelf jet (they requested McD remove the catapult launch bar ("it isn't a naval jet!") leading to nose wheel shimmy on the Hornet) maybe less mucking around would be better? Didn't the F-105 have both systems fitted (random historical precedent for credibility)?
To increase flexibility & reduce cost/risk, why not leave the "other" refuelling system in place? Having watched an Air Force (RAAF) struggle with a seemingly minor mod to an off-the-shelf jet (they requested McD remove the catapult launch bar ("it isn't a naval jet!") leading to nose wheel shimmy on the Hornet) maybe less mucking around would be better? Didn't the F-105 have both systems fitted (random historical precedent for credibility)?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
280,
Good idea, and one that, honestly, I hadn't considered. Age creeping up, I guess. That said, getting 600 pounds of fuel back plus a weight reduction sounds like gold to me.
Good thread already, this.
Best regards ever to those doing the hard work on F-35B trials next year.
Engines
Good idea, and one that, honestly, I hadn't considered. Age creeping up, I guess. That said, getting 600 pounds of fuel back plus a weight reduction sounds like gold to me.
Good thread already, this.
Best regards ever to those doing the hard work on F-35B trials next year.
Engines