F35 Decision made!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 Decision made!
Apparently the CVf will carry STOVL JSF initially, but the carriers will be designed to allow for the fitting of catapults and arrestor hooks if required in the future.
What a sensible idea, the MOD is finally thinking ahead and is futureproofing its vessels by acknowledging that they can be upgraded if the circumstances require it. Its techincally feasible to do - HMS Hermes went from Conventional to STVOL back in the 1970's, but I for one think this is a good day for the military aviation community and the forces at large. Two very good new ships on the way with the ability to remain useful fora very long time! Now all we need to do is make the Jaguar carrier capable and everyone will be happy
What a sensible idea, the MOD is finally thinking ahead and is futureproofing its vessels by acknowledging that they can be upgraded if the circumstances require it. Its techincally feasible to do - HMS Hermes went from Conventional to STVOL back in the 1970's, but I for one think this is a good day for the military aviation community and the forces at large. Two very good new ships on the way with the ability to remain useful fora very long time! Now all we need to do is make the Jaguar carrier capable and everyone will be happy
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Link to F-35 Story
Great! The most expensive aircraft AND the most expensive ship.
And it's nothing to do with foresight or future-proofing, it's because they can't be seen to have made a decision on the AEW solution ahead of time, and making the ship STOVL would have forced them to go rotary.
Just the start of money being spent as though it were water, I predict, and just wait for the cuts to real, genuinely needed capabilities to pay for it....
Small black and white stripey sweet, anyone?
And it's nothing to do with foresight or future-proofing, it's because they can't be seen to have made a decision on the AEW solution ahead of time, and making the ship STOVL would have forced them to go rotary.
Just the start of money being spent as though it were water, I predict, and just wait for the cuts to real, genuinely needed capabilities to pay for it....
Small black and white stripey sweet, anyone?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"To this end, the ships will have the capability to be fitted with catapults and arrestor gear, although they will be built with the "ski-ramp" well-known from the Royal Navy's current Invincible class carriers for STOVL operations".
So which fixed wing AEW is going to be able to operate without a catapult and over a ski-jump then Jacko? The FOAEW production contract is due to be placed in 2006/7 so, unless they change the design sharpish, it's going to have to be rotary.
So which fixed wing AEW is going to be able to operate without a catapult and over a ski-jump then Jacko? The FOAEW production contract is due to be placed in 2006/7 so, unless they change the design sharpish, it's going to have to be rotary.
carriers
Jimlad
/Orac
The Jaguar was once Carqal`d in the late 60`s/early70`s,by L`Aeronavale,but not a total success;the angled deck usually has catapults,so a Hawkeye can be be belted off,if they put their minds to using a sensible AEW A/C,(No offence meant to 849er`s who do a grand job,but similar to WW1 balloon-spotting,and no parachutes!!!
/Orac
The Jaguar was once Carqal`d in the late 60`s/early70`s,by L`Aeronavale,but not a total success;the angled deck usually has catapults,so a Hawkeye can be be belted off,if they put their minds to using a sensible AEW A/C,(No offence meant to 849er`s who do a grand job,but similar to WW1 balloon-spotting,and no parachutes!!!
Space, weight, power provision is specifically to be made for both catapault and arrester gear, so it'll just be a matter of buying and fitting. BAE even specify the model number of the cat they're going to use.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find truly amazing is the fact that these F35's will operate from 2 future carriers built by either a (reputable) ship-building company or, wait for it, BAe systems! What? You Jest? Nay! Never! Oh Yes! Could someone enlighten me on this subject? Is our defence industry so screwed that we offer enormous contracts to industries such as this? I look forward (if BAe were to get it) to the naming ceremonies......I name this carrier.....HMS....'Can't quite do that unless we burn some more money'...or perhaps HMS 'Looks great on paper' or even HMS 'Theory'. What about HMS 'You'll need a Panavia connector for that' or HMS 'Notupta Spec'. Any other suggestions for names. Whilst we're on the subject, no doubt the avionics for the F-35 will be home grown (comme GR5/7). Willl this mean we'll have to remove higher quality avionics to accomodate the less capable and overdue home-grown stuff (comme GR5/7)?, and have to shell out VAST amounts of money for upogrades 'cos its a brit(european) version of a 1553 or 1760 or whatever, or has smart procurement become a reality instead of a snazzy term that only the yanks understand. Forgive my sarcasm, it's just that several decades has reinforced my skepticism of the UK's ability to procure anything in a smart fashion, whether 'planes', radios or bo-atz! Q'uest ce Qui se passe?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOTB:
What we get will be determined through the system development and demonstration phase, as our first five aircraft will be built in LRIP batch three; 2007-09.
Of the £2 billion assigned to this effort by the UK, £600 million is to integrate UK-specific weapons and comms equipment - I've heard nothing about different avionics. The "must-meet 2012 ISD" mantra spouted yesterday suggests they'll do nothing like this to risk a delay.
What we get will be determined through the system development and demonstration phase, as our first five aircraft will be built in LRIP batch three; 2007-09.
Of the £2 billion assigned to this effort by the UK, £600 million is to integrate UK-specific weapons and comms equipment - I've heard nothing about different avionics. The "must-meet 2012 ISD" mantra spouted yesterday suggests they'll do nothing like this to risk a delay.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody notice the UP TO 150 that has started to slip in? No way will they build more than the existing nos of GR7/SHAR.
I wonder also if the STOVL decision has anything to do with keeping the Invincible class going well beyond the projected end of their service lives? (Excluding of course Invincble which will be sold to the Indians, along with the SHARs)
Wonder when UP TO 232 Eurofighters will start gaining currency?
Meanwhile I am off to William Hill's to see what odds I can get on neither of the CVFs making it to sea before 2015.
My conspiracy theory is that this is not about spending lots of money, its about saving it - by spreading, delaying, shrinking, and then talking about changed requirements.
I wonder also if the STOVL decision has anything to do with keeping the Invincible class going well beyond the projected end of their service lives? (Excluding of course Invincble which will be sold to the Indians, along with the SHARs)
Wonder when UP TO 232 Eurofighters will start gaining currency?
Meanwhile I am off to William Hill's to see what odds I can get on neither of the CVFs making it to sea before 2015.
My conspiracy theory is that this is not about spending lots of money, its about saving it - by spreading, delaying, shrinking, and then talking about changed requirements.
RJ, by 'like the C-17' do you mean that we'll have to pay more for a short term lease than buying them outright, once the penalty clauses for exceeding hours etc. kick in?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think that the STOVL call has a lot to do with the RN not wanting to build a carrier with the French. They have been making noises like that recently and the First Sea Lord is adamant that it doesnt happen!
Also what is the RAF's view on the F35 - I know there is a lot of talk about it as a SHAR replacement, but will it be as capable as the GR9 when it comes into service. Is there any truth to the rumour that its STOVL because the RAF felt it needed a new STOVL rather than conventional aircraft?
Also what is the RAF's view on the F35 - I know there is a lot of talk about it as a SHAR replacement, but will it be as capable as the GR9 when it comes into service. Is there any truth to the rumour that its STOVL because the RAF felt it needed a new STOVL rather than conventional aircraft?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: the zone
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again this is the worst possible decision. The only reason to go for STOVL is if you are operating from a small ship.
The Invincible class are 20,000 tons hence the requirement for STOVL. The US Marine Corps use the Wasp and Tarawa Class Ships 39,000 and 40,000 tons respectively, hence their requirement for STOVL.
Why then, for a Class of ship that is 65,000 tons, has a STOVL variant been selected?
The STOVL Variant’s Payload is several thousand pounds less than the CV Version.
That means a hell of a lot less fuel and or weapons.
It seems a minority with a vested interest has got what it wants again.
If the CV version had been selected, how would the RAF of explained having two conventional fighters in its inventory, when they are getting ‘up to’ 232 all singing dancing Eurofighters.
Because the STOVL version has been selected it does not have the Payload/Range for the FOAS selection to replace Tornado.
This opens the door for RAF/BAE to waste more Billions on developing a useless white elephant Tornado replacement.
BAE/Rolls Royce get to spend loads on a JSF that is completely the wrong solution for our requirements.
The RAF are going to Bin 3 Group, whilst the FAA gets shafted again.
Wackinoko, you journos are way to soft on these miscreants.
The Invincible class are 20,000 tons hence the requirement for STOVL. The US Marine Corps use the Wasp and Tarawa Class Ships 39,000 and 40,000 tons respectively, hence their requirement for STOVL.
Why then, for a Class of ship that is 65,000 tons, has a STOVL variant been selected?
The STOVL Variant’s Payload is several thousand pounds less than the CV Version.
That means a hell of a lot less fuel and or weapons.
It seems a minority with a vested interest has got what it wants again.
If the CV version had been selected, how would the RAF of explained having two conventional fighters in its inventory, when they are getting ‘up to’ 232 all singing dancing Eurofighters.
Because the STOVL version has been selected it does not have the Payload/Range for the FOAS selection to replace Tornado.
This opens the door for RAF/BAE to waste more Billions on developing a useless white elephant Tornado replacement.
BAE/Rolls Royce get to spend loads on a JSF that is completely the wrong solution for our requirements.
The RAF are going to Bin 3 Group, whilst the FAA gets shafted again.
Wackinoko, you journos are way to soft on these miscreants.
JSF is the wrong aircraft for FOAS regardless of which variant is selected. None of the variants has adequate payload/range, and none has adequate weapons carrying capability. It's also ridiculously expensive. It's a great airplane for the USAF who can use it to augment F-22s, but a more versatile platform like MR Eurofighter (perhaps backed up by Gripens) would be far better for us.
In fact, selection of STOVL JSF increases the chances of JSF being selected to fulfill all or part of FOAS, because the STOVL variant enjoys greater compatability and commonality with the standard USAF CTOL variant than it does with the USN CV version.
The STOVL carrier is cheaper than the CV carrier, regardless of size. (Until the decision is made to select E-2C as the AEW aircraft, and they have to install a waist cat and arrester gear......)
We should buy these surplus USAF B-1Bs post-haste!
In fact, selection of STOVL JSF increases the chances of JSF being selected to fulfill all or part of FOAS, because the STOVL variant enjoys greater compatability and commonality with the standard USAF CTOL variant than it does with the USN CV version.
The STOVL carrier is cheaper than the CV carrier, regardless of size. (Until the decision is made to select E-2C as the AEW aircraft, and they have to install a waist cat and arrester gear......)
We should buy these surplus USAF B-1Bs post-haste!
RJ:
You need old, tried and trusted kit to get that. Like the C-17 by the time we got it. The USAF didn't get it with the C-17, or the F-15, or the F-16, and certainly won't get it with F-22.
And why should JSF be any closer to being "something that we urgently need", that will work when we say "some of them please", and that won't need "fiddling with" than Eurofighter will be, or than Tornado was.
LockMart's record on delivering kit that works like it's supposed to is no better than BWoS's - just look at the C-130J.
You need old, tried and trusted kit to get that. Like the C-17 by the time we got it. The USAF didn't get it with the C-17, or the F-15, or the F-16, and certainly won't get it with F-22.
And why should JSF be any closer to being "something that we urgently need", that will work when we say "some of them please", and that won't need "fiddling with" than Eurofighter will be, or than Tornado was.
LockMart's record on delivering kit that works like it's supposed to is no better than BWoS's - just look at the C-130J.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
One of the main adantages given for the STOVL version is training. It is supposedly far easier to train and maintain currency than for a CTOL carrier aircraft. This will allow the entire JSF force, RAF and RN, to maintain currency and deploy onboard the carriers as required without a major work-up period.
Last edited by ORAC; 2nd Oct 2002 at 02:13.