According to today's Times, service chiefs are urging the Government to stick with the F35B? I just don't understand this beyond any financial concerns. Is the ability to land vertically on carrier deck that preferable to range and capacity?

FB:)

Surely there should be more to this than just the choice of strike aircraft, having AEW cover, tanking and possibly both EW and COD. Is this a better package than just a single type with a possible short shelf life. Everything costs money but if we want to play big boy games then let's have the right equipment.

Suspect you have a combination of the following :

1. People believe that STOVL potentially equals two carriers whereas CTOL definitely means only one. Both these assertions are probably false. It remains to be seen exactly what the conversion costs are - I still maintain that £1.8Bn for one is way off the mark, given that hardware costs are known.

2. Is there an undeclared £1Bn associated with Tornado GR4 extension in service? If so, light blue would like the "conversion" money for that.

3. STOVL ostensibly means being able to continue the pretence that occasional two week deployments aboard is delivering carrier strike. This allows JF Dave to spend longer ashore, making some people happier. I suspect that if SRVL is required to be practiced regularly, that will prove to be false as well.

Colour that in with a judicious mix of "the B is no longer in trouble", coupled with "They haven't solved the C hook issue yet" and there's your story.

I see the first UK F35B made its first flight on Friday...the 13th.
mmitch.

Here we go again, the ongoing "lets have this, no that's much better" circular argument is why in service dates slip and projects cost 3 arms and 2 legs instead of 2 arms and 1 leg.

Reading more on the subject the rationale seems to be that this way they get both carriers operational for a minimum increase in cost. Apparently, the savings, otherwise, were negligable and they would not be compatible with French and American vessels. So that's what the Generalissimos are angling for, increased numbers rather than fewer but more able aircraft.:ok:

FB:)

What happened to us also buying the second production "EMALS"?
Is that another cost we will have to pay as a cancelation ?
There was great crowing from the Mp's that they had managed to secure this important piece of tech !

Sounds like a load of hoop to me. In what way are F35B supposed to be compatible with USN & MN carriers? In what way would F35C be incompatible? Could see some issues with CdG, but no show stoppers.

Two mariners are shipwrecked on a remote Island. After a while, the first shipwrecked mariner turns to the second shipwrecked mariner and says
“Here, take this improvised axe made of stone, chop down that last remaining tree over there, then light a fire to send smoke signals - I’ll keep a
good look out on the off chance that another ship happens to be passing by”. That might be humorous if it were not UK Defence Policy post SDSR.

Wait, so is the GR4 no-longer losing 1 squadron every year once we pull it out of theatre?

About a year ago I got shot down in flames for suggesting that the move of Typhoons to Lossiemouth would presage the standing down of teo more GR4 squadrons. If not then we will shortly have 10 operational GR4/FGR4 squadrons rather than the 8 more often spoken of. Unless, I've got it wrong? I certainly like to hope so!:ok:

FB:)

FB,

If the GR4 stays longer than the SDSR laid out, is that not going to cause a little bit of a headache for having enough experienced aircrew? Still too many trainees in the pipeline and not enough experience on the front line? A term that rhymes with Flustercuck springs to mind...

Would that be because the Typhoon is a world beating, combat proven, swing-role aircraft with a phenomenal ground attack / strike capability, as reasonably recent press releases and stories would have me believe?

Top AD steed though.

Bastardeux,

I think at this point we get into too intricate a debate over what is and isn't possible. Next we'll be dicussing on here Squadron leave rosters and postings in and out. I'm sure that if the GR4 is to stay a little bit longer, there'll be no problem finding pilots and navs to fly 'em!

I understand there is even a precedence for expanding operational squadron numbers, and at a speed which would give George Osborne suicidal tendencies.

FB:)

I saw that one of the reasons quoted by The Times, for going back to the B was that the F-35C couldn't be cross-decked operated off/on the French carrier...... :rolleyes:

Bugger the French Carrier!

FB

If we go for the -B then the French Rafales wont be able to fly from ours... and theres more chance of that happening in the next few years than there is of ANY F-35 variant getting close to one of our carriers

Did the USS Wasp have modifications done to her superstructure prior to embarking the B and then after those trials is she having further work carried out to cater for these STOVL aircraft? Cross decking them to unmodified decks might prove to be 'interesting'

Stand by. Stand by. Stand by...
 

EXCLUSIVE: Cameron makes humiliating u-turn on future of Britain's aircraft carriers | Mail Online

The DM says that DC is U turning and going for Dave B

Excellent to see the MoD and the government haven't shaken their terminal short-termism.

Rolling Goat anyone?..

http://img3.etsystatic.com/il_fullxfull.292281115.jpg

This is all getting a bit embarrassing..

Leon, if you can't find a taker, let me know because I happen to work for this organisation that spends money in all kinds of whacky ways...

Maybe DC's conversation with POTUS was "I'm telling you now. Stick with the B, because I really don't want to be forced to piss off The Corps if they are left as the only creditable buyers. Oh, and thanks for the Harriers. I will be able to get loads more STOVL experienced aviators now."

If this story is correct - it seems to have been leaked to The Times too so it's increasingly looking like it is - the only surprise is that it's being presented as the service chiefs making the case for F35B to DC. As the government's primary and over-riding focus is to reduce the deficit, making short-term decisions that reduce costs in the near future are understandable. What I don't understand is the military brass apparently making the case for the lesser military capability, rather than the government imposing it for cost reasons.

Probably doesn't make a jot of difference in the longer term as I expect the carriers to get shelved in SDR 2015, which would decouple the fighter decision from the carrier capability. It would also ease the time pressure on when we had to decide on F35 as we could maintain Typhoon/Tornado until at least 2020 when the SDR that year could review F35 options from a base of much greater knowledge of both capability and cost, as well as other options that might be available within a reasonable time-frame by then too.

It's a moot point whether opting for a fighter that could still get the chop from the US would be an embarrassment or a bonus to the UK government. If it's F35B or nothing, then a US cancellation would take the decision to scrap the carriers out of the government's hands. 'It's not our fault- the Americans made us do it'. Would they get away with that?

With 20/20 hindsight, the decision to go for new carriers and a completely new fighter at the same time was extremely unwise and fraught with risk to one or both components. What a complete and utter shambles. If the UK ends up with an effective military capability from this debacle, it will be despite of and not because of anything either the previous, current and probably the next government, has done or will do.

And it's looking increasingly like the next government will be a labour one, so I for one, am sceptical towards the 'guaranteed' spending increases post 2015...which may throw another completely avoidable spanner in the works.

I am just pleased and reassured to know the the SDSR was a thorough and professional piece of work, which was underpinned by decent research and delivered a range of options / scenarios with an accurate assessment of the foreseeable consequences of each decision.

I would have been horrified if it had been a back-of-a-fag-packet job to garner quick PR headlines and demonstrate to the media the incoming government's "resolve to take the tough decisions", and appear statesman-like.

It is even more reassuring to read that it is the uniformed defence chiefs who are advising for the B model.

Who advised for the C? (Or the B before that?).

Still, we should be OK as we are still in the game of having a decent expeditionary & combat proven, maritime STOVL fixed-wing capability to pair with the LRMPA one. It's just a question of updating the equipment. :ok:

:ugh:

Has it always been this difficult? Options For Change seems like a Classic of defence literature now.

The only mods made to the Wasp for the B trials were the addition and later removal of test instrumentation!

Don't you believe it Mr B Sir, this time next week, for all we know, D.C. and co could be reverred as the greatest government since the Blair/Brown years and running neck and neck with Labour, because someone in the Labour Party will have goofed spectacularly!:p

FB:)

Hi Foxtrot,
Thank you very much for the update so I assume the radome that was removed prior to these tests will be back when she comes out of this latest maintenance period?

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/...MV-22Wasp1.jpg

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/..._F-35bWasp.jpg

I fully understand the reasons for installing test equipment and that coating of heat resistant paint. It can be argued that the paint was part and parcel of regular ship's maintenance and if that is the case then should it have been the normal paint used on all flight decks of STOVL warships otherwise how do we know we can indeed cross deck?

Were heat test conducted prior to embarking these aircraft and if so why the need for special paint? Please note these are questions and not me standing on a soap box stating so called facts. I have read references stating sea sparrow was removed to install so called test equipment, just like I have read posts stating this was not a new heat resistant paint, I have an open mind regarding both these claims and look forward to seeing the Wasp when she rejoins the fleet.

The radome and Sparrow launcher removal was "just in case", and since it has been determined from all the heat & airflow sensors that there was nothing that would have damaged them, they will be replaced and left there when F-35B flights begin in earnest.


The re-coating of the aft part of the flight deck was with normal non-skid, and was done in part to examine the effects of the landing exhaust.

There was a small patch of a new non-skid coating (Thermion) applied (in the pics it is a slightly lighter color, with the yellow line being a little lighter as well) in the re-coated section, but this was developed for not only increased heat tolerance (specifically for the MV-22 Osprey, which DOES have a deck-heating problem), but also greatly improved durability... it is supposed to last at least 4 times as long as the current coating.

If it holds up like they expect, it will be used on all USN flight decks... CVNs included.


Here is the url for more info on Thermion: Non Skid Coatings, Aluminum Spray Wires, Non skid Spray Wires - Thermion Inc.

Here is a pic of Wasp's aft deck... you can see the Thermion section pretty clearly (the pic is really big, so here's the url):
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/t...gain_630-1.jpg

Thank you Greenknight far better to be wise before the event, remove items that might be vulnerable, assess and then make decisions once all the necessary information is available. :ok:

Hopefully the Sea Sparrow system will be re-installed

GK and others,

Some good posts here, with good information, but....

Is it just me, or is there a baseline presumption of trouble/stupidity/omission when it comes to the JSF programme? This is definitely not to be confused with healthy cynicism and free speech, of course.

The F-35B programme has taken particular pains to investigate, measure and model the efflux of the jet operating from a number of surfaces. The result is the best understanding that has ever been achieved of the temperatures, pressures and flow velocities around and under the aircraft, and on the surfaces called out in the specification. This effort was led by the Brits and carried out ion an exemplary manner (according to the US tech specialists who were watching VERY closely).

On top of this, the USN is a knowledgeable and demanding customer that will not do ship trials on any other basis than professionally and carefully.

So, what does all this mean? It means that the team getting the 35B to sea know what they are doing and are not, repeat not, trying to hide any bad news. Were there any, you can bet anyone's bottom dollar that it would have been fully reported, like all the other F-35 issues.

Here's the bottom line as I understand it. The F-35B efflux is different to the Av-8B's, and the aft nozzle is certainly hot and energetic. However, existing deck coatings can stand quite a bit of exposure to it, and predicted coating lives were not much worse than those for Harrier. There are ways to mitigate the effects, the best being to do a 'creeping' landing with a knot or two forward speed. This 'smears' out the hot exhaust footprint and greatly reduces deck wear. This technique was developed in the 60s for 'Mexepad' operations by the Kestrel joint test squadron.

Cross decking to unmodified decks should be wholly practicable, in my view.

I know that these facts are less entertaining than the stories we get about 'deck steel melting' and 'ship trials being rigged for PR purposes'. Sorry about that. However, just occasionally, I'd like to see the teams doing the hard work getting a little credit.

Best Regards As Ever

Engines

Engines
 

Well said Engines.

You are so right - but many people here like to write just because they can - rather than because they have any real understanding of the subject.

JF

Engines,

perhaps the assumption of Trouble/Stupidity/Ommission about the whole project is the natural scepticism you said it wasn't.

after all, JSF is looking like it will be entering service 10 years later than was advertised, and at twice the price.

if thats a 'good', well-managed project, i'd hate to see a bad one...

Ultimately, I'd like to see some performance comparisons between the B and the other two, once both are ready to enter service.

FB

Britain faces £50bn more spending cuts and tax rises to cover elderly care, warns IMF

Nicely timed before the PM makes a decision on carriers and F35. I bet he's wondering if we can afford any of them let alone all of the hidden additional support and operating costs!

I'd like to respond to the most recent posts, please.

Yes, the programme has had big problems. It's late and over budget. But, it's not '10 years later than advertised' - ISD has slipped from 2012/3 (and I attended the first programme briefs) to around 16/17. Yes, that's bad - but let's take a hard look at F-22 and Typhoon before we single out F-35 for the brickbats. Cost is up by around 50%, not 'twice the price'. Bad? Yes. But not as bad as Typhoon's cost increases.

Look, the thing is that the US have 'gone for it' in a big way. After three or four failed programmes (ATF, NATF, A-12, F-22) , they took a pretty big leap and decided to go for a single engined single seat common solution to a range of requirements. And they're doing it in a free country, so it's in full view of anyone who wants to scrutinise it. (Unlike, say, the UK, where the problems of the Typhoon programme were nicely hidden for around 10 years - so were the costs).

It's a free forum, so anyone can have a pop at the project, and they should do so. But, every so often, I'd like to suggest that we could just pause and pay the US team a bit of credit for thinking big and aiming high, and sticking to their guns. And, by the way, giving the Brits who are playing a crucial role the credit they are due.

And to respond to FB - exactly what purpose do performance comparisons between the variants serve? These are three different aircraft, meeting three different sets of requirements, but built around a common core. Their performance will differ - the key is how well they meet the KPPs and other requirements that the customers and the design teams have set. They won't meet them all, but that's real life.

Designing and building something like the F-35 is a bit like trying to devise a Formula 1 car, getting it to fly, getting it to hover, then making it last for 30 years or more, flown by 'Joe pilot' instead of Lewis Hamilton and maintained by 'Joe maintainer' instead of hand picked teams. It's really, really hard to do. Sometimes, I really feel that this basic fact is not sufficiently understood.

Last time - the F-35 team are not numpties. They have made errors, but that's what humans do. And like all humans, they learn and adapt and improve.

A bit of a rant. for which I apologise. I suppose all I ask is that people give the project a fighting chance and realise that, for the West, this IS the next generation combat aircraft, and will be the mainstay of all their Air Forces for 30 years or more. It will have problems, but it's my bet that it will carry through to deliver aircraft to service.

And, as ever, my best regards to all those who fly and fix aircraft now and in the future.

Engines

... and another viewpoint!

Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence