If the F35B dies then the RN will not get to ponder very long. Ministers will have a stark choice:Add in some inter-service politics (if only because the F35C/F18 bring much greater costs for the RAF to develop and maintain a naval air capability) and Treasury pressure to delete the carriers from the Defence Budget and I know which option I would bet on.

N

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.

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.....

Nice idea. But the cost of getting and fitting EMALS was never the main part of the £2Bn.....

The C is more likely to be cut first as its replaceable. The B is too important and has better export potential.

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?

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.

Still, there isn't an alternative. The USMC, Navy and probably up to 10 other nations will need the B to operate sea air. The fact that the British alone are buying the B will ensure the US doesn't cancel it.

Quite frankly I think talk of cancellation is bull****, it far too along the road and a future replacement will have the same issues.

http://www.vistax64.com/images/smilies/roflmao2.gif http://www.vistax64.com/images/smilies/roflmao2.gif http://www.vistax64.com/images/smilies/roflmao2.gif

Yes, it just needs a more impressive name. Perhaps 'Skybolt'?? Older readers will realise the significance.....:(

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.

10 nations.......err, really?

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.......

http://www.vistax64.com/images/smilies/roflmao2.gif


I can still see the possibility of both B and C versions getting the chop tbh.

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".

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!

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.....

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.

Correct. So the original premise - that Spain was retiring it's carrier, thereby obviating need for F35B - is still gash.

It don't make sense no more!
 

Would that be CV (Harrier) or CV (Helicopter)?

peter we

Good point. Apart from the UK, how many other nations are buying F-35B?

Maybe they (and/or Italy) could lend the UK some for a few years (see comments below). By the way, the USMC is planning to possibly run the AV8B until 2025 or beyond, and 16 of the ex UK GR9s are being kept intact.

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?

Disagree - F-35B is lacking in range, lacking in engines, lacking in weapons, lacking in stealth

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.