No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

[163627]

Being very cynical and looking for a conspiracy theory (devious senior RAF having over gullible RN again), could the advantage of the F-35B that it will enable the RAF to retain primacy as the aircraft need only pay fleeting visits to the carriers, whereas the F-35C will need them to spend a significantly greater time afloat thus giving the FAA an opportunity to again have a significant role in fixed wing operations. Just a thought, please don’t be too rude to me!

[Finningley Boy]

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Whatever, but I can only magine that the F35B will be good for just one thing and that is as a very expensive Close Support Aircraft.

FB:)

[Not_a_boffin]

The STOVL vs CTOL (what is now called CATOBAR) preferences will include some or all of the following.

1. As noted above, STOVL lets the RAF retain cockpits while primarily living ashore, based on the idea that a two-week embarkation counts as delivering carrier strike capability. It's not evil, it's just the way the RAF percieves Maritime aviation.

2. There are those who suggest that launch/recovery rates will be quicker for STOVL. Launch rate almost certainly will be, but with larger CAGs (which is what QEC and it's CAG were designed to deliver) the recovery serial is more likely to resemble a CTOL recovery. More cabs in the pattern will lead to situations where delays build up.

3. Stand by for the myth about tankers to be trotted out. It is absolutely true that the Harrier did not need an organic tanker - although part of that is that there was no way of delivering one and that any fuel would only have to be jettisoned again to get you to VL recovery limits. The STOVL supporters have always assumed that they won't need Texaco, because they are less susceptible to a foul deck (there's always a spot to drop on). That isn't the case with F35B, where if you're doing a Rolling Vertical Landing, you'll need just as much deck area (or more) than an arrested recovery. Combine that with a larger number of cabs in the pattern and you'll need some form of fuel margin or tanker and with a combat radius about 60% of that of the F35C, that's really hitting your effectiveness.

Much of all this is literally down to people (RN, RAF, MoD CS & industry) confusing CVS/SHAR/GR7 ops with those of F35B and QEC. We're not buying a CVS/SHAR/GR7 replacement, we're buying (as justified by reams of operational analysis and campaign modelling) something else entirely.

The something else will also allow the UK to work with FR to provide a proper carrier capability in the Western hemisphere, which is another reason why the US are being so co-operative, as it allows then to reduce optempo and concentrate on 5th and 7th fleets.

[Widger]

163627 and Not a boffin,

Nail hit on the head you have!

:D:D

[hval]

I am not surprised at the comments re power supplies. The situation is somewhat more complex than might be imagined.

1/ There must be a stable supply of power

2/ The power loading throughout the ship must be load balanced (this will require a probable extensive redesign)

3/ The system must be able to accept shock load/ unload situations due to the way that the EMALS cycles builds up power for firing off aircraft

4/ There will be feedback to other circuits. There nearly always is

5/ Electromagnetic interference.


John,

Apologies for not responding sooner. I do have an understanding of turbines. Your response was much appreciated.

[Not_a_boffin]

Hval

I suspect that most of the load balancing / shock effects will actually be contained "downstream" of the Prime Power Interface. I'm not a sparky and don't wear pink ovies, but I believe that the "shock" elements you refer to will be no different to those on a CVN and should therefore be catered for within the existing EMALS design.

Where there will be a difference will be re-jigging the ships IPMS software to recognise and accommodate the load demanded by the PPI to energise the flywheel. However, that load demanded should build up relatively smoothly to a defined level, before decaying as the storage device (flywheel) reaches full capacity, again, downstream of the PPI. In my simple mind, all that requires is that the ships distribution grid (IPMS) software recognises the load characteristics of that particular consumer and does not trip. All the energy feedbck/harmonics and clever bits should be isolated on the EMALS side of the PPI.

I'm sure there will be more complexities to it than that - I don't for one minute underestimate the demands of this type of engineering, that's why it's called electrickery. However, I would be very surprised if any "redesign" required extensive hardware changes, particularly when the EMALS / AAG system should have been designed from the off to be standalone systems acting merely as loads on the grid.

Your point on EMI however, is well made, although again, I should have thought that the location of the EMALS system ought to minimise the effect on the ships systems.

[Courtney Mil]

Apart from the apparent advantages of going with VTOL
-Useable on land without a proper runway at hand, close to the frontline.
-no arrestor wire and cat necessary
-looks megacool.

While I agree with the thrust of your post (255) I might take issue with these points.

Close to the frontline: Remind me how expensive these jets are?

No arrestor wire and cat necessary: Which normally means reduced payload, fuel, etc.

Looks megacool: Where do I start? It's supposed to be a fast jet, not a helicopter - helicopters hovering and landing look cool, jets doing it do not. Going really fast looks cool, sitting ove and airfield at a display and bowing to the nearby sewage farm does not. Watching a25 tons of hurtling metal and thrust being caught by a trap and stopping on a carrier deck looks megacool - flopping onto the same deck in an undignified manner does not.

Partly in jest, partly...

[Willard Whyte]

The only military people I can conceive of preferring the -B model are senior ex-Harrier pilots who might be struggling to let go of their unique selling point.

We have a winner.

[hval]

Not_a_boffin,

You are correct that most of the load balancing is carried out downstream, but there is still some major load/ unload being carried out. You would need to increase the number of alternators to smooth out this. This doesn't prevent a problem when the system is turned on or off, or when energy is drawn for the alternators. Then there are the changes in energy load that take place through using motors, air conditioning, weapon systems, lifts, hoists, lighting, safety systems, galleys and everything else. Generators do not take kindly to heavy load variations. Then there has to be capability in case a generator fails (normally three generators on a ship, one for spare). In this case we have two Trent turbines and four diesel generators to provide propulsion power and energy to all other systems.

Most of the redesign work can take place around the main busbar and distribution panels. Still need to make a bunch of holes through bullheads and decks to run the additional shielded cables to a shielded room. Having said that, there may be space in the upgrade allowance, and a nice tidy path/s as well.

[Not_a_boffin]

Hval

Thanks for the response. However, I suspect that the load variation on the generators will only be about 4-5% in this case. If you have a propulsive load of between 60 to 80 MW for flight ops, with the likely load on each PPI of the order of 1-2 MW, then that's about the right figure.

The variations for pump motor starters, weps lifts etc are likely to be of the order of another 5MW tops shipwide. I suspect what might be more difficult to control is the current variation.

Don't forget that the system distributes at 11kV, stepped down to 440 locally, so it's likely to be a local load on the relevant EDC, rather than direct on the generating plant.

Not by any means my specialty, but this ship is unlike most others in the fleet in that she's a true power station concept, rather than a propulsion system, plus generators.

[Finningley Boy]

Looks megacool: Where do I start? It's supposed to be a fast jet, not a helicopter - helicopters hovering and landing look cool, jets doing it do not. Going really fast looks cool, sitting ove and airfield at a display and bowing to the nearby sewage farm does not. Watching a25 tons of hurtling metal and thrust being caught by a trap and stopping on a carrier deck looks megacool - flopping onto the same deck in an undignified manner does not.Partly in jest, partly...

Courtney, I would say jest or no jest, this is very true. A lot of the attachment to VSTOL or VTOL in the British popular perception is routed in the unshakable pride that it was this country which built the only truly successful such design. When I listen others comment on this subject, not least Jim Murphy, the idea is that the Harrier was untouchable in terms of shear performance. The same attitude persists in regard to the F35B. But, as I poster earlier, it can't possibly perform, in any parameters, as well as the F35C & A!:ok:

FB:)

[Milo Minderbinder]

A power station thats being built on the cheap.....Coverteam have just been caught using unlicensed computer software Nothing major, but probably embarrassing

Power conversion firm rapped for unlicensed software - 26 Mar 2012 - CRN UK News (http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn-uk/news/2163582/power-conversion-firm-rapped-unlicensed-software?wt.mc_ev=click&WT.tsrc=Email&utm_term=&utm_content=Power%20conversion%20firm%20rapped%20for%20unlic ensed%20software&utm_campaign=CRN%20Daily%20Newsletter%2026%2F03%2F12&utm_source=CRN%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email)

[orca]

Why won't anyone stop the madness?

Possibly because the plan to fund the C variant and catapults used the money required to replace GR4. Go for STOVL and GR4 replacement might come back to life. But what if STOVL fails - making the boats useless? JCA funding then might become available as well.

Or maybe - on the other side of the coin, there are RN officers who want the boats no matter what, and are scared that costs and risks are jeopardising them. And maybe 'no matter what' includes going for the B.

But to believe that you would have to believe that one or more single services (or individuals within them) think capability is sub-servient to its own/ their own interests.

Or have I also taken one too many cynicism pills?

[hval]

Not_a_boffin,

Good morning to you.


The following is a quick flowchart of the EMALS system.

Ship Power à Energy Storage (Alternator) à Power Conversion/ conditioning (Cycloconverter) à Launch Rail’s Linear Motor


The energy-storage system uses spinning rotors of a disk alternator as a flywheel to kinetically store energy it draws from the ship’s power system.

Each of the four alternators will store more than 100 MJ, spinning at about 6400 rpm. Ship electric power drives the rotors to their target rpm.

When launching an aircraft the power-correction subsystem uses the same coils that drive the rotor to draw off their power as the rotor shifts from its motor mode to its alternator mode. Each rotor outputs approximately 81.6 MW at maximum speed. Even at an anticipated efficiency of about 90%, there is about 127 kW of heat generated that the system needs to remove from the alternator every 45 seconds, and this is done via several heat-transfer subsystems.

The average power required by EMALS is 6.35 MVA

In the 3 seconds it takes to launch an aircraft, the amount of power used could power 12,000 homes

The fact that you are cycling through taking power from a supply always causes shock loading/ unloading. To launch the two F-18s that the UK will eventually be able to afford ( J ) is not too bad compared to a US Carrier launching multiple aircraft at a fast rate.

As long as the generator, bus bars and switchgear are able to take this sustained loading and unloading then no problems.

[Heathrow Harry]

I see the Canadians are thinking of cancelling

[Not_a_boffin]

Thanks Hval

I think the uncertainty rests on what exactly the Prime Power Interface does (see below),

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) (http://atg.ga.com/EM/defense/emals/index.php)

which I think belongs between the ships main dist grid and the energy storage flywheels.

[Wander00]

I remember a guy called Eric Laithwaite explaining linear electric motors on Tomorrow's World half a lifetime ago - they built a test track near Earith on the Cambridgeshire fens. I don't tink any working ie revenue earning, trains were set up using the system. I have an uneasy system that this will work eventually, but, as they say, like it says on the tin!

[LowObservable]

RTV 31 Hovertrain & Linear Induction Motor archive video (UK 70's) - YouTube

EMALS' distant ancestor, indeed.

I saw a small model running at the Hovershow at Gosport in 1966. Not to mention the SRN.3 - very impressive to a kid of my age.

[glojo]

The EMALS appears to be an interesting challenge but getting steam to operate the catapults was no walk in the park when it came to keeping the boiler safety valves in their correct position and at the same time not tripping all the steam powered equipment through a sudden drop in pressure.

As far as I am aware it is the Americans that are doing the development of this system and they definitely need it working much sooner than us and they do not appear to be unduly worried? (question)

Next bunch of questions
is it right the EMALS motor generator each weigh in at just over over 80,000 pounds, and are they 13.5 feet long, plus almost 11 feet wide and possibly 7 feet tall.

My reading tells me the Gerald Ford Class requires 12 of these so would that suggest we would need 6? Folks here are far better informed and I am just curious regarding this new technology which is clearly very 21st century.

Like others here I have read the criticisms regarding costing to upgrade our carriers to a cat and trap configuration, we read numbers in the £2bn range but on American sites that are critical of this launch system, they claim it would cost hundreds of million of dollars to convert the Ford Class from EMALS to steam catapults. Perhaps we should let them carry out our work or at least the costings! (tongue in cheek observation) Millions to do the plumbing for all those steam catapults, but for what we are told is all but a plug and play option it is going to cost billions of pounds (not dollars)

These are all questions and none are in any way statements

[Pontius Navigator]

Hval - 12000 homes. How many offshore wind turbines would be needed?

Maybe tow a couple of wind turbines for extra power?





:}

[SSSETOWTF]

Couple of points to throw into the -B vs -C debate in an attempt to add some balance:

The UK don't have a requirement or any intention, as far as I know, to buy 2000lb JDAMs. The only bomb we're talking about putting in the bays is the mighty Paveway IV, which fits comfortably in both the -B and the -C. Granted, the bomb will have more room to wiggle its fins in a -C, but that doesn't necessarily mean the -C is 'more capable' than a -B. If both aircraft go to war with the same load out of PWIV and with identical avionics, the only differentiator from the UK's standpoint really is the range.

People often mention the STOVL weight penalty i.e. having to cart around a lift fan etc. Take a look at the empty weights of the variants anywhere online (e.g. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II)) and you may notice that the weight penalty for a CATOBAR aircraft is actually higher than that for a STOVL. So, the empty weight of a -C is higher than a -B, it is a bigger aircraft so must have more zero lift drag, and it humps around more fuel. But it has the same engine & thrust. Leaving aside requirements documents and the like, how does aircraft handling normally vary when aircraft get bigger and heavier but have the same thrust?

Through-life costs are anyone's guess. The STOVL lift system doesn't come cheap, but because STOVL is so ridiculously easy in the F-35B you really won't need to practise it very much at all. But landing F-18s on ships takes oodles of practice and the F-35C approach speed is higher than a Super Bug and the skill needed is not fundamentally different. So the training burden, and associated fatigue life & maintenance burden of the -C won't be free. We just won't know until 20 years from now, but I wouldn't bet my mortgage either way at the moment. For a decade the smart people doing all their TEPIDOIL analysis figured the -B was cheaper through life. Did they cook the books for 10 years and we had a moment of clarity at SDSR? Or did they get it right over the last decade and did someone fiddle the numbers on one occasion?

Finally, that range number... Is there a genuine specific requirement for our F-35s to go 600nm instead of 450nm? For the last couple of decades the GR1/GR4 brothers have been the untouchable long-range deep strikers of the RAF. Can one of the experts out there tell me what the actual realistic combat radius (not the Top Trumps answer) of a GR1 was in its design/intended first-day-of-the-war loadout e.g. with the JP233s on, or a stick of 8x1000lb KFFs? Just curious, because 450nm sounds like a long way to an old Harrier mate and a pretty reasonable capability.

Personally I've always wondered why we never went for the mixed fleet of -Bs and -As option like the Italians.

Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Backwards PLT]

So to summarise SSSETOWTF - the requirements doc doesn't say we want to carry bigger weapons and go further so they are pointless capabilities??

I would suggest the doc was written and the F-35B designed so they fitted each other. Ask any (non-harrier) pilot if he would like the ability to carry bigger weapons if needed and go significantly further (or presumably loiter longer) and I think that he would prefer that option.

Also as just this once said, there's little point in breaking through a sophisticated IADS only to discover that those damn uncooperative bad guys buried their important kit in tgts that a 500lb bomb can't get to.

Personally I'm going with Orca's point about single-service agendas and SSSETOWTF's point about the F-35B being very ease to land - the change is clearly another RAF plot to get rid of the FJ element of the FAA.

What's the plan with all those F-18 exchanges now? Straight home, I guess, the cost couldn't possibly be justified in the current climate?!?

[Courtney Mil]

SSSETOWTF,

I see your enthusiasm for VTOL, STOVL, etc, and I do not deny that it served us well. But just consider this. If we can (I know it's an IF) have the jets with more payload, fuel, range, etc, with Cats and Traps, then why would we go for the -B, just because it can be done and because it worked in the past in the abscence of a cat and trap carrier.

Please don't think I'm being clever, rude or difficult here (knowing that there are a number of threads discussing such issues), but would we have been better off in the Falklands with a squadron of Buccs and and one of F4s?

I also know the argument is very different with F35/QE. But there is a trade off with the the -B. I still think we need more reasons to go for the compromise. 600 v 450 miles? I know which I would prefer. Draw some lines fom the Gulf to some points in, say, Iran. Just as a topical example.

Just thinking out loud.

[Rulebreaker]

I think the point SSSETOWTF is making is the Paveway 3 is not being integrated in the internal bay of the F35 of any variant so unless the UK is buying the 2000lb Jdam then it doesnt matter if we buy the B or C they will both carry it on the inboard wing station.

Internal range is always useful however.

[Squirrel 41]

600nm v 450nm looks to me like a 33% performance margin on one of the key measures for what we now appear to be calling CEPP ("Carrier Enabled Power Projection" or somesuch management yukspeak).

And Mr Boffin's points about the space required for Dave-B to do its funky RVLs are well taken (let alone at night with punk weather - ugh...!)

Personally, I'm also not convinced that the when push comes to shove on the US defense budget in an era of sequestation and deficit reduction whether Dave-B will actually survive anyway. After all, the USMC have just got 72 more Harriers.... cheep, too!

S41

[LowObservable]

Mr Very Long Acronym...

Some of your points have been addressed. May I add some observations?

PW-IV is the initial standard, indeed - but then, as long as the UK was getting the B, that or a 1K JDAM was all you could get in there. In a 30-year service life, all sorts of new requirements will emerge, along with new weapons. Other things being equal (and assuming that the entire JSF operation does not crater) the developers of those weapons will be looking harder at 1500-2000 A and C models than at 500 Bs.

Yes, the C is heavy (with a 5500 pound OEW Catobar penalty versus the A... check the difference between Rafale variants:E) but it does have a lot more fuel and more wingspan, which should improve L/D in some regimes. Transonic drag will be... well, a drag. Neither the B nor the C is going to be a Typhoon or a Su-35.

"Through-life costs are anyone's guess."

After ten years and $30-plus billion they :mad:ing well shouldn't be...

The offsetting point of fewer training cycles and costs is important.

But... Again, we're looking at a 30-year lifetime. We already know how to make carrier recovery automatic. Fundamentally, the reason STOVL is so easy is because the jet is a UAV on landing. The pilot has no physical link to the effectors at all and might as well be sitting on the ground with a virtual-reality headset on.

In this respect, the difference between STOVL and Catobar is that everyone accepts that you could never hand-fly a B in powered-lift, and that the only way to do it is to place the pilot in a supervisory/command role.

Can we do autoland with Catobar? Of course, and it's being done in the course of UCAV work. Sooner or later economics will trump manliness and that is how it will be done all the time, and if the Chinese decide that's how they'll do it from Day 1, you read it here first and I will not be surprised. Once your jet is FBW and Fadec, you have the pieces in place.

Range? It's not just range, it's persistence, it's flexibility. See this:

Range, Persistence, Stealth and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Air System | CSBA (http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2008/06/carrier-based-unmanned-combat-air-system/)

Robert Work? Hmm, wonder where he went?

[Lowe Flieger]

Aside from the distance from which a naval fighter can strike it's targets, I would have thought that a pilot returning to the carrier would appreciate as much fuel as possible for the recovery. At the same time the ability to 'park' the carrier further away from the target must make any retaliatory counter more problematic for the bad guys, or at least permit the carrier or its pickets and AEW more time to see the bad news coming and react to it? With F35C you have more options.

The big risk with the B, as others have suggested, is it is the most vulnerable to cancellation, which would leave us absolutely nowhere to go if we build PoW without CATOBAR capability. While cat and trap adds capital cost, and perhaps through life cost too, it does as least leave options should the B get chopped. If the UK eventually gets it's finances into better shape, we could even bring QE into service later with F35B. Either way, I still think the decision on F35B or C (or A for that matter, should it ever be considered) is best held off until the Americans have made their minds up about it, and cost, performance and time-lines are much better understood. This might be 2020 or later, so PoW needs to be CATOBAR equipped now to preserve alternatives, - SHornet or Rafale. The selected interim fighter will do us until F35 is ready to be phased in. And there's the rub, increasing costs now is not what the MoD wants to hear.

[glojo]

Am I correct in assuming the owner of this aircraft will be the RAF and if so would they welcome with open arms the F-35B and what aircraft type would be sacrificed?

[gsa]

which would leave us absolutely nowhere to go if we build PoW without CATOBAR capabilitAnd nowhere to sell it when we decommission it in a few years.

[Justanopinion]

Can we do autoland with Catobar? Of course, and it's being done in the course of UCAV work

Has already been done in F18 for some time, and will be done in F35C.

Am I correct in assuming the owner of this aircraft will be the RAF and if so would they welcome with open arms the F-35B and what aircraft type would be sacrificed?

As such future owner of F35 why are they not screaming for the C?

What's the plan with all those F-18 exchanges now? Straight home, I guess, the cost couldn't possibly be justified in the current climate?!?

As previously stated, why? What is better for the Uk (NOT THE RAF)? Would it not be immensely useful to have a group of pilots experienced in the operation of a hugely capable multirole strikefighter from the sea whether we get the B or the C? A somewhat more logical transition than from GR4 or Typhoon I would imagine.

[orca]

The RAF will own JCA (currently F-35C).

The RAF sacrificed Harrier and GR4 replacement (DPOC) in SDSR. The future construct would appear to be solely Typhoon and JCA.

FB11 makes a telling suggestion on the GR9 bargain sale thread - that Tornado (since SDSR) has become more expensive by £1 billion.

Whether or not this is correct a reversion to the B would appear to offer a lower work load to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, another chance to balance the books for MoD, a strengthening argument for the RAF to man JCA entirely and not much to either the RN or UK CEPP.

[Justanopinion]

As such future owner of F35 why are they not screaming for the C?
a reversion to the B would appear to offer.............a strengthening argument for the RAF to man JCA entirely

And there we have it.

[Easy Street]

I'm really confused now... the flow of the discussion above suggests that the main attraction to the RAF of the F35-B is the reduced landing training burden, and therefore the ability to do short "RAF-style" detachments to the boat.

However, if carrier autoland is going to be feasible, this will significantly reduce the training burden associated with CATOBAR and make it easier to do short detachments with the F35-C..... so why would you not choose the -C?

I'd be very wary of anyone who says STOVL in the F35-B will be simple. The RAF has a special way of making everything at least twice as difficult as it needs to be!

[glojo]

Question

I would like to think that even though the F-18 has been fully capable of autolanding on the deck, the pilot would surely opt for not using that feature.

[Engines]

There's some interesting stuff on this thread, and good exchanges of views. Perhaps I may offer a couple of inputs.

F-35B STO requirement KPP - came in two versions - one for the flat deck USMC ship, one for the UK ski-jump. Neither was set, IIRC, at MTOW, both referred to a 'mission weight' which was derived from laid down profiles and parameters. IIRC, the two requirements used the same weight. (Remember that the UK MoD were paranoid about not adding any UK specific requirements if they could possible help it). USMC STO was around 550 ft, driven by - well, I was on the ship suitability team and it was not always that clear what drove that figure - we thought it was influenced by the way the LHDs used the aft end of the deck. However, 550 feet it was (I think) and we worked to that. The UK figure was somewhat less than that, but until we hit the weight issues it wasn't driving any of the design. Once we had the weight problems we were struggling with STO length.

I do want to respond to LO and some of his statements on STOVL recovery and autoland.

STOVL landings: The reason STOVL is 'so easy' in the F-35B is that the team have done a simply fantastic job of using 'fly by computer' to give the pilot Level 1 handling qualities in the transition and the hover. It's NOTHING like a UAV, though. It's actually more like other 'fly by computer' combat aircraft that can't be flown manually, like, oh let's see....Typhoon.

CATOBAR landings - have we worked out how to make carrier recovery automatic? Yes, we have. Now for the real question - have we worked out how to make carrier recoveries automatic and so reliable that we can commit to blue water non-diversion flying on a dark and stormy night, stop training pilots how to do it manually and launch 20 plus aircraft knowing we'll lose them all if the autoland system (either the bits on the ship or the bits in the aircraft) go U/S? No, we haven't and I don't think the USN will for many years yet. They are exploiting the landing assistance systems as much as they can to reduce pilot workload during recoveries, but any idea that the UK could operate the F-35C from a carrier without the USN standard of pilot training is just, I'm afraid, fantasy. I've heard it a few times around light blue quarters and it needs to be stamped on, hard.

It's not a hankering for 'manliness', by the way. It's called maritime aviation. If you serve in an air force, you don't know much about it. Doesn't make you bad people in the least, but I expect you'd be a bit miffed if the USN came over and started telling you how you should be flying your aircraft. The USN have been doing naval aviation for decades and doing it damn well, and I'd be inclined to defer to them for now. Chinese? Let's see how they go first, shall we?

Oh, just a thought - if this autoland stuff is so straightforward, why don't we apply it to land based aviation first? We'd save heaps on all that training pilots to land stuff - but would you like to rely on it all the time?

As always, credit to the boys and girls actually out there over land or sea, doing the business for real, whatever the colour of cloth,

Best Regards

Engines

[orca]

Hornet drivers can auto land so long as they are current at not auto landing. Reversionary is traditional pilot skills, so you still need proficiency at flying to the deck.

You will probably be able to find some Hornet drivers who have faith in the auto land system. You will also encounter those with little faith in it.

I cannot speak for the maturity of the auto land system in F-35C.

[hulahoop7]

So the B relies on computers to land. If they fail, the driver needs to bang out.
The C has auto land. It relies on computers, if they fail, the driver needs to bang out.:confused:

[Courtney Mil]

Good point, well made. I was thinking the same thing. So, I guess it would be a good idea for pilots to practice a few proper landings now and then. If that can't be done, then maybe they need to keep up to date with their bail-out drills.

[Engines]

Guys,

The F-35 relies on computers to fly the aircraft, just like other modern unstable combat aircraft such as Typhoon, and F-22. (And Airbus aircraft). No manual reversion.

B has an autoland capability, but can be easily landed by a pilot using his (or her) controls.

C will have an autoland capability to the carrier deck, but as explained elsewhere, this will be used in much the same way as the USN use autoland now - the majority of recoveries to the deck wil be made using varying mixtures of landing aids and manual control.

All three variants have a very similar control architecture, cockpits look pretty much the same, and can be flown like a legacy aircraft. They'll all have autopilots, which I suspect will get used for much of the operational sorties once the aircraft is up and away.

I have to say this. There are a few contributors here who seem to have a default position of 'F-35 is stupid, people who designed it are stupid, it's all wrong or stupid.'

Wake up call. The F-35 team aren't stupid, nor is the aircraft. Can they make mistakes? You bet. They're human. But they are doing something exceptionally challenging here.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[ftrplt]

So the B relies on computers to land. If they fail, the driver needs to bang out.
The C has auto land. It relies on computers, if they fail, the driver needs to bang out.


A lot of current day fighters rely on computers to FLY - if they fail (in all channels) - the driver needs to bang out. (and has been the case for 30+ years in some types)

[orca]

I think it would be more fair to say that neither are flyable following a catastrophic flight control malfunction.

The auto land question needs to be turned on its head to a degree. Try not to think 'Why would we manually land a fighter with auto land?'. Better to say 'Why would we rely on auto land when it really should be the last resort to getting the boys back on board?'.

F-35B would appear to be the easier of the two to land when 'full up'. SSSEOWTF is absolutely the expert on this.

F-35C will be the same as any other carrier borne aircraft. It can be landed without auto land by anyone who has invested the correct amount of embarked time in gaining the skill.

F-35C will be the same as any other carrier borne or land based aircraft. It needs to be flown and trained for bearing possible failures in mind.

Auto land is the same as any other system - it fails. Even when it works - it fails to deliver the correct result.

For what it's worth the F-18 also has auto throttles as well - but you don't use them until cleared to do so, having ably demonstrated you can 'do it yourself' first.

You want the longest reach? Buy the F35C. You want assurance and supervision? Learn to cat and trap and keep the skills fresh. Go to sea and stay there.

I really don't see what the fuss about long embarkations, det length and sea time is...this thing's always been a Maritime Strike asset hasn't it? They go to sea, it's what they do. CAS even mentioned F-35C and the Maritime Strike capability in his post SDSR letter to the RAF. (The one where he says the F-35C is more capable...)

[Courtney Mil]

Engines, thank you for the partial clarificaion. A true source of fact as ever. I was getting the impression that manual landings in the B couldn't be done or were too diff.

ftrplt, there is a difference between losing a FBW channel (or two or whatever) and losing the link that controls the landing. Reversionary modes in all FBW aircraft are just fun. Autoland on a carrier kicking out doesn't sound like fun to me.

[LowObservable]

I agree that we're not going to see carrier autoland become standard for many years... but "many years", as in multiple decades, happens to be the lifespan of carriers and aircraft designs.

A point of clarification: There is an autoland system on USN carriers today, based on a ship-mounted radar. It is not the system that's being tested under the UCAV program, which is based on differential GPS. Simply, the new system tells the aircraft exactly where the landing spot will be, relative to its own position, when it hits the deck. Since the job of the FCS on the aircraft at all times is, basically, to keep the jet on a commanded flightpath, the FCS is not doing anything unusual to guide to the landing point.

Everything updates at a rate of 100 times a second or so. As a navy aviator/engineer put it to me: "It's a high-demand task for a human but for a computer it's like watching paint dry."

Safety is where it gets interesting. Nobody is going to let the UAV near the boat (under operational conditions) until safety is not measurably different from piloted ops, at any time. And by "at any time" we mean calm, clear daylight conditions. However, the autoland system does not even know if it is dark, turbulent or rainy. If it has equivalent safety in normal conditions...

Blasphemy, I know. As for "why doesn't the AF do it?", well, the AF does not burn tons of fuel, time and airframe life practicing landings.

Will it be there at F-35 IOC? No. Can we say it won't be there during the life of the program? Also no.

Engines: It's not that 'F-35 is stupid, people who designed it are stupid, it's all wrong or stupid.' It's that the program has been oversold and its risks understated, and that the Plan B options are being eliminated one by one as the program continues to slip to the right and overrun costs.

There may be one, two or even three worthwhile airplanes that come out of the program, but it is the leadership of the program that has led to the criticism outside.

If you want to stop that, pass the message up the chain of command that the people talking in public need to get out of denial mode, because right now the baseline plan seems to be to sell the program to the politicians while blaming the customer for the problems.

[orca]

I'm pretty sure Air Forces do circuits. I would struggle to suggest that all but the full stops were a waste of fuel and fatigue.

We've also trained a whole generation of (GR1/4) pilots at low level when the machine could do it for itself. I think that it was a reasonable thing to do.

We're buying a cat and trap aircraft because it's more capable than its VSTOL stable mate - that comes with a training burden.

[Bastardeux]

Engines,

With regards to your There are a few contributors here who seem to have a default position of 'F-35 is stupid, people who designed it are stupid, it's all wrong or stupid.

LO is right in that it isn't the aircraft per say, that people take issue with; rather the fact that we have been convinced that it is capable of a certain specification at a certain price, and both of these variables seem to be getting blown out of the water at such an early stage in the testing.

What seems apparent to me, is that the IOC is slowly but surely moving ever closer to being after 2020 and I think the big question that most skeptics are concerning themselves with is whether it is really worth the equivalent 4.5 generation numbers and capability to get this jet, especially if it's going to be in its least capable format and delayed by 10 years.

No-one is doubting that the F35 is an incredible example of engineering, particularly dave B, but looking at it from a practical sense, I find myself questioning whether that stealth (and hovering ability, if we do take the ridiculous decision to go back to the B) is worth the poor serviceability and small numbers...plus all the other hardware we've sacrificed for it.

[John Farley]

but would we have been better off in the Falklands with a squadron of Buccs and and one of F4s?

Of course. But only if they could have been operated.

The Wx down there was grim especially the vis and flying up a line of floating flares until you get to the ship (radio silence) is not something a Bucc or F4 pilot would want to do. Over and over sensible people seem to ignore the incredible value of being able to slow right down when landing. Unless you have tried it perhaps you cannot grasp how (relatively) relaxed this makes you feel even if you literally have ony two minutes fuel. (Just think how bored you are watching somebody near you sit in a hover for two minutes).

Not wishing to flog a dead horse but one night I was doing visual circuits round Foch with a French naval aviator in a civil reg two seater (no HUD or stabs) somewhere in the Bay of Biscay. We got to landing fuel but I succumbed to the plea for one more circuit. On the downwind leg the ship vanished. They called to say they had driven into a patch of low stratus and could not see the masthead light from the deck. I asked for a radar line up and ranges every half mile and told my French mate not to let me go below 100 ft. I kept slowing down and gingerly stepping down on the VSI and altimeter until we found the ship about one length astern. After landing I bollocked said mate for not mentioning we were now below 100ft.

Honestly, ship motion and vis that would rule out an arrested landing are not of concern if you can hover.

[kbrockman]

F35 B or C, whatever you guys end up with, in all likelyhood you'll probably
make it work for you but the price looks more horrible with every budgetupdate;

Exclusive - U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | World | Reuters (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE82S03I20120329?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FAFRICAWorldNews+%28News+%2F+A FRICA+%2F+World+News%29&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

Exclusive - U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion

[FB11]

kbrockman,

Have no fear, the up front and through life cost of the F-35 (any variant) is entirely eclipsed by those who are transfixed by the significantly smaller sum of converting the Prince of Wales with EMALS and AAG. JSF must be very happy that the spotlight is on someone else.

The irony is that for some the reponse is 'we can't afford cats and traps; we must live within our means..." etc etc. But that doesn't apply to the cost of JSF.

Very few acknowledge that whilst cats and traps do increase early year spending - but not as much as the rather bizarre tabloid £2billion - the final cost will be pretty close to the figure being worked up now.

I don't know a single person working in the JSF programme who can say that the final figure for JSF is any where near the current and they still haven't come up with a public revised figure post the 179 aircraft punt to the end of the programme and the Italian canx of 30%.

In the US a DoD organisation called CAPE (Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation) came up with a figure for what the likely cost of each JSF variant would be. This figure was much higher than the DoD (or Lockheed Martin) wanted to hear and the DoD decided on a figure much lower. Wrangling between the 2 and they settled somewhere in between.

If I were CAPE, I would be putting a few bucks on my figure being much more likely a final figure than the DoD. The numbers are climbing that way at a rate of knots and we haven't even considered what a US budget under 'sequestration' is likely to do.

But anyway, let's get back to the real issue of how expensive those cats and traps are. After all, why would anyone want to buy a CV aircraft where you get 11 of them for the price of every 10 STOVL, goes further, stays there longer, carries more and costs less to operate for every flying hour.

Clearly living within our means only relates to ceratin aspects of our defence procurement.

[Lowe Flieger]

...but the price looks more horrible with every budgetupdate...Yes, well, the cost battle is already lost and cannot now be recovered. The programme in-service dates are similarly already in over-run too so the only remaining issue is whether the aircraft meets its performance targets.

Having got this far, the F35 programme can only succeed on capabilities if time and money continue to be expended on development. If the budget were now curtailed, it would be at the expense of some of the performance capabilities that caused people to buy it in the first place. You would end up with a still very expensive aircraft that did not do all that you wanted it to do. It's possible this would not be as capable as the planes it is intended to replace.

The alternatives as I see them are:

1. Cancel now - and it seems this is already in the too big too fail category or it would not have got this far.

2. Accept more cost and time over-runs and continue development work until you get the capabilities you want.

3. Reduce development funding and accept reduced capabilities which will need additional in-service upgrade expenditure to get it to where you need it to be. (This happens on most programmes anyway.)

While the Americans determine which of the above they opt for (looks like Option 2 to me, with a caveat on the B for now), other customers have to decide if the wait and cost and assumed capabilities are still worth it.

The UK's position has been complicated by the fact that the F35 and the carriers are intertwined such that the decision about each depends on the other. Not where you want to be, but that's exactly where we are.

Customers for the A will still have runways and various alternatives to fly off them whatever happens. Italy may be vulnerable to cancellation of the B but in terms of decisions, they have none to make - Cavour will operate F35B or helicopters, there is no CATOBAR option. The USN can get by with Super Hornet instead of F35C, with it's putative successor pencilled in around 2025(?), and the Marines making do with AV8B's, prolonged by the UK Harrier purchase.

My prediction for the UK's eventual position is unaltered. The current government will fudge decisions until the 2015 SDR when the carriers will get dumped (as far as fixed wing operations are concerned anyway) as being unaffordable. This will decouple aircraft choices from carrier requirements and so the B or C choice will then become A, B, something else, or nothing. This decision will be deferred until around 2020 when some of the risks and uncertainties on F35 will be clearer. Typhoon and Tornado will carry the load until 2025, with a possible capability gap appearing post-Tornado retirement until it's replacement becomes available.

(And just to be clear, my predictions are what I think will happen, not necessarily what I would choose to happen in better times.)

[Thelma Viaduct]

FAA should buy F-18 and then bin them off to the RAF after 15 years to help replace GR4.

This will give the FAA capability today, lower costs which will pay for 'cat & traps' which allows for UCAV capability in the future, a natural upgrade path to a mature stealthy Northrop or Boeing option in the future, more a/c to be purchased, less risk, less maintenance, interoperability, long range strike via Storm Shadow carriage, Meteor does it fit in JSF???, asraam integration already done on F-18, F-18 combat proven, F-18 day to day proven etc

If it were my money, which it is, I'd go 50/50 F-18E/G. I can see back seaters controlling ucavs/local battlespace in the future.
Let the spams do the day 1 stuff, they're good at starting wars :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

A good plan, PN. Let's look at timescales and when we really think Dave will be on line, with a reasonable capability (not an arbitrary IOC - we made that mistake with Eurofighter). F-18, as I have said before, may be the answer.

Super Bug could actually serve our needs very well. Of course, the issue is that we don't really know what our requirement is as SDSR didn't seem to address that. A cynic (not me, obviously) might be tempted to think that SDSR was more about 'where can we cut?' than 'what do we need?'

Let's guess at what we need and (apart from this potential/ficticious day 1, which the US may indeed want to do) see if Super Bug can do it. AND it would get the RN cats and traps for future growth.

While we're guessing, by the way, we might also want to consider why we would even consider the VTOL/VSOL/STOVL/etc option, given that it is obviously less capable - range/payload/etc, I've said it all before.

Answers on a postcard please...

[GeeRam]

FAA should buy F-18 and then bin them off to the RAF after 15 years to help replace GR4.

This will give the FAA capability today, lower costs which will pay for 'cat & traps' which allows for UCAV capability in the future, a natural upgrade path to a mature stealthy Northrop or Boeing option in the future, more a/c to be purchased, less risk, less maintenance, interoperability, long range strike via Storm Shadow carriage, Meteor does it fit in JSF???, asraam integration already done on F-18, F-18 combat proven, F-18 day to day proven etc

If it were my money, which it is, I'd go 50/50 F-18E/G.

Yup.
By far the most sensible decision (which is why it won't happen)

Wouldn't be a lot different to what happened with our UK F-4 buy post TSR-2/F-111 cancelation.

[Squirrel 41]

Grateful for corrections, but GR4 was supposed to be retained to the end of Herrick, and then appears to have been extended to 2018. But then of course we're yet to see what PR12 has to say for itself.

Given that Dave-B or Dave-C would be (optimistically) IOC from 2020(ish), I'm confused as to where F-18E/G doing some CVF time and then transferring to the RAF as GR4 replacement when Dave-C / UCAV is all sorted.

S41

[Backwards PLT]

The problem with the F-18 plan is that we would have to pay £1.6bil for the cats'n'traps, we would lose the X billions invested or committed in JSF and they have to pay for the aircraft so although "the aircraft" would be relatively cheap, the overall cost would be far from it - and we would have to find that money soon.

If you then factored in the loss to industry from the loss of JSF workshare it is even more expensive (although the ACA would be happy with the carrier mods).

Last we would be buying a 4th generation aircraft, which has its limitations, at the end of its growth life rather than a 5th generation aircraft at the start of its life (although I think F35B growth may be limited!)

F-35C is the best answer, but tbh if we can't afford it I really don't know what is - none of the answers are very good.

[LowObservable]

The Selected Acquisition Report prepared in 12/2011 is on the loose.

Inter alia, IOT&E now doesn't get finished until April 2019 (plan) or October 2019 (threshold, which means, don't expect it any earlier).

Services won't give IOC dates until next year, but they certainly won't be before IOT&E completion.

And this depends on 7+ years of continuous on-schedule performance from now on, from a program that's been re-baselined more times than LiLo and Charlie have been in rehab.

:mad:, :mad:, :mad:.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Can't see why JSF investment would be lost with an F-18 purchase.

JSF would be purchased when it is mature, risk is reduced & is affordable.

F-18 would be passed on to the RAF at a future date which will reduce future spend as a partial GR4 replacement, along with UcAVs and stealthy LRCM, think a pikey FOAS force mix. Look at history with the F4 & Buccaneer being palmed off and put to use elsewhere.

£1.6Bn spent now, will be much cheaper than trying to retrofit in the future when it's realised that cat & traps are required for UCAV operations and the carriers become obsolete half way through their service life, not to mention the risk of 'Dave-B' being canned.

How useful is a 5th generation fighter if it's unaffordable & has maintenance issues ?

It basically fills a capability gap now, and puts off the full JSF spend to hopefully a point in the future when the country can afford it.

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

All this talk of the F18 completely disregards the capability that the F35 will bring! While I appreciate there are significant issues and delays to overcome in the design and manufacturing process, to not continue with F35 procurement would significantly relegate our capability when compared to our peers. People on this forum spend a great deal of time talking about the impact of the platform losses that we have suffered due to SDSR, but when presented with a platform that can provide substantial ISTAR (much beyond anything available at this time when you consider the ElInt and SigInt avionics fits) while in the strike role they are quick to recommend an older and less capable airframe. Lets ride out the capability gap and secure these game changing platforms.

[Finningley Boy]

Lets ride out the capability gap and secure these game changing platforms.
Not another irritating new euphemism, game changing indeed. Seeing as we can't afford, or don't know how many we will be able to afford, more to the point, and with the number possibly less than 50 there isn't a lot to look forward to. And if its the VSTOL version we end up with we will be considerably worse off still. The claim about just how many eggs will be carried in this basket is all the more reason to worry about just how vulnerable this is going to become. With just half a dozen aircraft at sea on one carrier and given the type of situation which it is expected to face, we could be in real trouble if it proves to be the case that they are not impervious to being shot down.

FB :)

[LowObservable]

Yak - The ISTAR capes of the F-35 are routinely oversold. Sensors comprise a Sniper equivalent, very low-rez all-round video, decent ESM and a radar that can't be used very much without compromising stealth, but has a SAR mode. (Spot rather than area, though.) Not much persistence in the platform. The real problem is the lack of a high-rate datalink off the platform - only non-stealthy Link 16.

[FB11]

Yak,

Also worth noting is the reality that while we really do want to be able to play on Day 1, how many times in the life of an aircraft does it actually play on Day 1?

Most aircraft (and ships) operate in an envrionment where they need to bolt on as much as they can and drone around in a relatively permissive environment (with an IADS sporting SA-XX times many plus mucho 4th gen+ adversaries).

They burn up 1000's of hours in full-spectrum sight of the 'enemy' doing great work like Harrier and then Tornado did in Afghanistan; Iraq; Bosnia etc.

We are buying an F-35 that will only be live-flying for 50% of the pilots career.

I used to fly 20+ hours per month and was mandated to do less around 1 hour per month in the sim.

A JSF pilot will fly for no more than 12 hours per month and do 12 hours in the sim. At least, that's the plan based on flying hour cost and the live/synthetic training balance aspiration.

We need 'cheap' aircraft that can drone around policing the air and actually make some noise whilst delivering 100% of the effect that is required for 99% of missions any fighter will ever fly. All of a sudden, a 'hi/lo' mix of aircraft seems like a cost effective idea.

The alternative is we give the enemy a networked i-Pad so they can watch us in the sim thus letting them know how much we're going to kick their ass when we have enough cash to go flying in an actual aircraft.

[Backwards PLT]

So the solution to not being able to afford F-35 and cats'n'traps is to buy F-18, cats'n'traps and F-35. I think I see the flaw. F-35 isn't magically going to get cheaper.

I totally agree that a carrier without cats'n'traps is severely limited but apparently we can't afford them. I'm still hoping the money will be found and there will be no change to the current plan. Any other option is a huge step backwards for the RN and the RAF and more importantly the UK.

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

It is a really interesting debate, and the very fact that everyone has such different viewpoints only serves to emphasise the complexity of the final (if there even will be a final!) decision making process. To respond to a few points, the intention with the SigInt and ElInt capability of aircraft is not to supply real time intelligence and analysis but to let the aircraft hoover up electronic outputs in theatre and download them post-mission for analysis. I don't think the capabilities are oversold in terms of ISTAR since having an integrated spot SAR has very positive ramifications for work such as CAS with restrictive ROE. Consistently in history there are warnings about basing future military acquisition on "the last fight" and I think that if we do go down the F18 (etc) route there is a real danger of that here. The talk in this thread of Day 1 strike is indeed tricky, but the questions raised are certainly deeper than do we want to be part of the Day 1 game. For example, do we want to be able to operate a small amount of aircraft persistently in a high threat RF environment? I would hazard, based on the current threats to international security that we might well do. If we are to resign ourselves more completely than current capability to not being a player in the Day 1 game then that rather raises more issues with the design and make of NATO and EU forces. Taking the Americans out of the picture as they move towards the Pacific theatre, the EU does and will require an indigenous "Day 1 "capability.

A very tricky problem to which there is no solution that will satisfy all the players, civil and military.

Alex

[glojo]

Are we seeing 'Day 1' type operations being 'flown' by operators sat in nice air conditioned rooms hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from any hostile environment or tomahawk missiles being fired from submarines? Is Libya an example of this along with the excellent F-18 Growler? Is there any real value\advantage in using manned aircraft for these first day penetrations?

If we stick with the F-35C we have a conventional carrier that could operate tankers plus other supportive aircraft, does this then give the carrier more bang for the buck? How would our AEW Merlin compare to the latest E-2 series Hawkeye and what would be the superior military option? What other aircraft would complete the air wing? By having solely the STOVL option the answer is NONE, it will have to be rotor wing and if we are silly enough to go for the 'B' then would we be silly enough to go for a full house and look at the V-22 Osprey? :sad::(.

I just find it so frustrating that we have gone from the World's leading authority regarding carrier operations to a nation that is reliant on the US for teaching our Navy of today the skills we once taught our strongest ally! Where have we gone wrong? No steel industry, open cast coal mines that are closed down, mining villages that are now ghost towns with all those mines closed, no real car manufacturing, or major commercial vehicles... The list is endless... ship building, Liverpool docks, London docks...

A Royal Navy that has merchant ships (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/January/20/120120-Fort-Rosalie-Caribbean) carrying out the operational duties our warships should be performing just because we do not have enough warships to carry out the tasks this government have imposed on them. The other services are also in dire straits regarding a lack of equipment, resources etc. I for one am not convinced we will see any type of fixed wing aircraft operated from the decks of a warship... be that F-35/36/48 or even 18. Somehow or other my country has been ruined from within and that is so, so sad.

I am hoping this ministerial silence regarding the decision to change tact and go back to the 'B' is a good sign and hopefully this 'rumour' will die a natural death and the F-35C is still the aircraft of choice and fingers crossed we will all see this come to fruition. :ok:

[Lowe Flieger]

So the solution to not being able to afford F-35 and cats'n'traps is to buy F-18, cats'n'traps and F-35. I think I see the flaw. F-35 isn't magically going to get cheaper.Agreed F35 is not getting cheaper. F18 would not be the route we would take had F35 been developed on schedule. It is a pragmatic response to the risk of having aircraft carriers with no aircraft for an uncomfortable period of time. If during this 'downtime' something delays or worse still, brings F35 to a halt, then PoW will be taking up a lot of space and looking for a secondary role or another home.

F18 is '4th generation', which seems to carry a stigma. However, I guess that just puts it in the same class, or higher, than 95%+ of all operational fighters until well into the 2020's and likely longer. If it ain't stealthy back it up with some jamming - Growlers would be good.

You are right that adding short-term expense by buying now rather than later will be very unpopular with the government and is the main reason why I don't think it will happen. Hence why they will probably take a gamble on F35B - if for no other reason that short term expense on EMALS will be avoided at the risk of the B being cancelled, again leaving a carrier without a fighter unless we then retro fit EMALS. Goodness knows how much that would cost. But these nightmares are deferred for a while and a problem deferred might land on someone else's desk. It's an awful mess frankly, which, if solved, will depend upon a big dollop of luck as well as judgement.

Australia have taken the F18 route while they await F35 but they have not suffered as badly as we have in the financial crisis and are fearful of regional threats developing from the north. And the US Navy have ordered more F18's, so it's good enough for the best naval strike force around. And it would certainly be a step up from the UK's current naval strike capability, land based Apache helicopters flying off of Ocean (and no, I'm not having a pop at Apache or Ocean).

..I am hoping this ministerial silence regarding the decision to change tact and go back to the 'B' is a good sign..I think the silence is down to the fact that the Cabinet has lost confidence in the MoD's ability to cost it's alternatives properly and so the Treasury has been asked to audit the whole process. So we wait for their input. Which is why I think it highly likely the answer will be to opt for the lowest short-term expenditure - no CATOBAR conversion and therefore F35B.

[FB11]

Lowe Flieger,

All bar your last line - more in a second - I think your whole post is absolutely spot on the money (pun intended).

On the last line, one of the answers will be right but as each day saunters by and more (and more...and more) detail on actual costs, schedule and capability gets explained in terms even a politician can understand I don't believe it's a simple 'lowest cost' wins.

I don't believe this is about a decision made for monetary reasons. For the MoD it most certainly is - less spent now on CV is more to be spent elsewhere in Defence. But for the bloke who will have to eat his words, he just needs a reason - any reason - to switch to the cheapest but in a way that allows him to walk back from his most contentious SDSR statement and survive.

If the sums were as eye watering as £2billion more expensive going for the CV and 5 years late on IOC, I would also agree with your summary. But they're not that stark - nowhere near as stark.

If £2billion more expensive and 5 years later (for CV) is enough for the Treasury to do a cursory 'due dilligence' review and give the PM the green light to do battle with a U-turn in the House, where is the point it isn't enough of a gap?

£1billion? and 5 years? 3 years? 18 months?

There's a point that cost and IOC delta are so close as to make a U-turn indigestible for the PM.

Then he actually has to do something he won't like - make a decision based on facts. Capability. Strategic vision for the next 50 years.

However, I actually think Cameron might just be savvy enough to do that.

[cokecan]

FB11,

''However, I actually think Cameron might just be savvy enough to do that.''

sorry, i don't have your confidence in Cameron - i voted for him, i'm a 'natural' tory supporter, but i'm afraid that apart from the formation of the coalition, i've seen very little that suggests he's got a strategic thought in his head: he's a lightweight, PR lead, fairly incompetant opposition politician who by act of god has found himself as PM - at the end of this parliament, and probably long before, most tories will look on the PM's-ship's of Gordon Brown - or even Ted Heath - as ones of firm grip, steady mind and steel focus.

he is, i'm sad to say, going to go down as one of the worst PM's we've ever had - he doesn't do thought, and he doesn't do decision making.

it'll be reinstatement of 'B' and cancellation of C&T, followed by eventual cancellation of 'B', mothballing/sale of CVF, massives losses on both programes, and cancellation of Type 26 to pay for them.

[Bastardeux]

I've been running the numbers on the US congressional budget through my head, they currently have a national debt of 15 trillion dollars, which is over 100% of its GDP; they're currently running up a deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars a year and even with all the new cuts, will have a deficit of nearly 1 trillion a year. The point I'm trying to make is that there is still a lot more budget cutting to be done and the congressional budget only really has 3 options to cut - Defence, social security and Education.

If jolly ol' Barack Obama wins the white house next year (which is the most likely outcome), it's pretty obvious what will and will not be in the firing line for getting all that debt paid off...defence will once again be in the sights and what happened to be the cost of buying and servicing all 3 variants of the F35 again? 1.5 trillion dollars! Essentially what I'm saying is that, in the eyes of Obama and his democrat friends, there is the potential for the DoD to save a lot of money from the F35 programme.

In my humble opinion, I would stand by for a complete cancellation of the B and a reduced order of the other 2 variants, which will mean increased prices, which will mean reduced orders etc.

As always I'm open to an economist pointing out the flaws in my argument but unfortunately, I think the bulk of it is correct.

Much love, the Bastard

[Obi Wan Russell]

I'm pretty sure Obama told Cameron on his recent visit not to even think of going back to the B. If it was going to happen, the announcement would have been made as scheduled a little while back. The US has plans, it is shifting focus to the Pacific region, and needs it's 'Allies' in NATO to pick up the slack in the European theatre. That means they will want us to put BOTH CVFs into service, as Cat and Trap, with F-35C (though the USN may well supplement the air groups with sqns of their own from time to time). A three carrier Euro force (including CdG) will allow the USN to comfortably redeploy two or three CVNs to the west coast.

So the ConDems have had their chain yanked by 'His Masters Voice', the US, which has put the kibosh on Hammonds plan for short term savings/long term cost increases that would inevitably result from such a U-turn. No going back, they have been told, you WILL buy the 'C, along with the EMALS and AAG, which has lead Cameron to order this 'review' as a way of buying time for his minions to come up with a plausible excuse as to why they aren't changing course (back to the B) after all.:ok:

[davedrake]

Having read the thread, as much as is understandable, there seems to be a great desire to spend a great deal of cash on a low observable aircraft as distinct from an well tried and tested F18.
Also, no thought seems to have been applied to the Airbourne Early Warning aircraft that is needed to support a carrier force, historically the Gannet AEW or will the helicopters do the necessary!! I am a bit out of touch in that area.
Without the Cat and Trap where will that be comming from. A United States Carrier? Even the French!! Not what we need.
So we appear to have a very expensive boat, NOT Low Observeable, with minimal defence and a few costly non-existant stealth aircraft.
Maybe we can lease one of the American carriers. I heard that they have too many.
Appologies for my ramblings, but we seem to have driven headlong into a snowdrift in the middle of winter with no sign of a thaw.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Is it certain that the General Atomics EMALS system is the one that would be used?
Converteam UK were working on their own EMCAT system which was specifically designed (or said to be designed....) to fit into the reserved spaces on the two carriers
And as Converteam are providing the propulsion system, it would seem likely that they may have a better handle on what goes where and what the costs may be than the American offering

[GeeRam]

Is it certain that the General Atomics EMALS system is the one that would be used?
Converteam UK were working on their own EMCAT system which was specifically designed (or said to be designed....) to fit into the reserved spaces on the two carriers
And as Converteam and providing the propulsion system, it would seem likely that they may have a better handle on what goes where and what the costs may be than the American offering

Well, the then Defence Secretary Liam Fox, made the announcement back in Dec 2011 that the PoW would be recieving the 2nd set of production EMALS from GA, so, I'd say, yes about as certain as can be in the current uncertainey surrounding the project :E

[Milo Minderbinder]

If so it could be seen as a strange decision given that Converteam will know so much more about the power systems on those ships - and would by implication be better placed to design and integrate any catapult system.
However I guess General Atomics are currently flavour of the month in the USA with all the various secret drone projects they work on.... I can't help but wonder if the reported inflated costs of fitting their EMALS system includes buried costs for a black project somewhere

[glojo]

Hi Milo
This is a question as opposed to a statement

I thought US officials are disagreeing with MoD figures regarding this adaption, they claim the price should be less than £1billion.. My brain is really befuddled at the moment but I am sure it is the UK that is throwing the BIG numbers into the mix, not the US!

[Milo Minderbinder]

So do we have a black project with GA?
Of course it could just be politics....is it chance that Converteam (nee Alstom Power - and a major part of the French input into the carriers) were taken over by General Electric of the USA in January?

[GreenKnight121]

Milo... in order for Converteam to have a alternative to EMALS, they would have to first:
1. design one
2. build a prototype
3. test it
4. modify it to make it work
5. build the production sets.

Yes... all they have right now is a small EM-catapult that is only good for rather small UAVs.

They claim it will only take a couple of years, and only cost a few million £.

You know what that means...


EMALS, on the other hand, is almost done with development & testing (with the US paying ALL of the development costs), so all the UK is paying for is the actual operational equipment.



And no... there is no "black project with GA"!

Let me explain this so you will understand... the inflated conversion cost numbers being thrown about are NOT from GA... EMALS & AAG do not cost any more than GA said they would cost a year ago!

All of the sudden increased costs are from UK issues... probably because they are not the real costs!

Right now it looks like either someone added in all the costs of recent changes cost over-runs, etc on the whole ship into the C&T conversion pot OR is taking the entire cost of converting both ships and is saying that is what one

This is actually a time-honored way of killing projects in the UK... remember CVA-01? Where Dennis Healey added the cost of building four T-82 destroyers to the cost of building two CVA-01 carriers and the development and purchase cost of new aircraft... and then told Parliament that that would be the cost of building just one carrier and nothing else?



IF the cost increases have any basis in fact, all of the extra money spent would disappear in the UK... either via the politicians or via the UK contractors... GA wouldn't get a penny of it!

[Not_a_boffin]

Could not have put it better than that GK!

[glojo]

To ‘B’ or not to be..

I have a few questions I would like to ask our resident experts regarding STOVL aircraft.

When these aircraft take off with a full load of weapons, percentage wise do they use a significant amount of fuel getting to their operational height?



Would you then go into a holding pattern until your group forms up, or do you head off over the horizon at a more sedate speed to allow the other aircraft to catch up? I ask this as I assume only one aircraft can take off at a time and are they getting airborne as quickly as those that might be launched from a conventional carrier?

Once over target would the pilot then have to take into account they might return to a blocked deck and be required to go into a holding pattern and if they return with a full load of advanced, stand-off weapons can the aircraft land with these, or do they get stored in Mr Jones’s sea locker?



When landing does this again require a significant amount of fuel especially if you are returning with ordinance? These questions are asked because we read of how the B might have a theoretical range of 450 miles compared to the possible 600 of the ‘C’ but in the real World is this a fair comparison?


Is this a relevant figure as a conventional carrier would or should have a tanking capability, the aircraft take off, they top up, form up and depart. When returning back to mother, they will have the option of taking fuel from the tanker and not have those concerns about having to land as they are low on fuel.


The ‘B’ will not have these options, no tanking from the ship and what you go with, you work with.. If that means a very quick pass over the target and having to get back to the ship, then so be it!


PLEASE look on this post as my asking questions and NOT making statements, I openly accept I am no fan of the ‘B’ so my thoughts might be seen as bias? I guess I just need reassurance regarding suitability. Conventional carrier can have a mixed air wing, STOVL can only have the one type of fixed wing capability.

[FB11]

glojo,

Firstly, it is important to know what the figures of 450nm and 600nm are based upon as they are not apples with apples.

The B has a requirement to take off, climb to height and get together with other aircraft. They press off at high level and go no more than 450nm to a target with a very small margin built in to faff at the target.

The C has the same requirement - very subtley modified for CV launch ops - to hit a target 600nm from the point of departure.

The significant difference is how much fuel/time they come back to their respective ships with.

The 450nm profile above has the B coming back with around 7 minutes worth of fuel to recover via the visual landing pattern.

The 600nm profile above has the C coming back with around 30 minutes worth of fuel in order to have a crack at landing from an instrument approach a certain number of times and then holding off for a while before a final landing or going to the tanker.

The reason the time is so different is that there is no point in the B coming back with more fuel if it still has the 2 x 1k JDAM, 2 AIM-120C and expendables because it can't land vertically with any more fuel than 7 minutes worth. Somewhat ironic that the limited thrust of the B allows you to maximise the fuel you have in mission range. I wonder how many aircrew would plan to come back from 450nm to arrive back with 7 minutes worth of fuel? Any spotter could work out how quickly you could blow such a slim margin on your landing fuel with an extra 360 AB turn in the target area or other such manoeuvre.

The C can still go 33% further and carry 2 x 2k JDAM (vice the 1k) and come back with an amount of fuel that gives it options to have a good look at the boat, screw it up, hold off and either go to the tanker (or land based diversion 100nm+ away) or do one final - expensive - landing on the carrier into the barrier.

[John Farley]

Your questions with my answers for what they are worth.

When these aircraft take off with a full load of weapons, percentage wise do they use a significant amount of fuel getting to their operational height?.

No more than a ‘conventional’ aircraft in fact possibly a smidgen less than one that has to be catapulted as that involves running up to full power and then a few seconds hold (going nowhere) as part of the overall launch process.

Would you then go into a holding pattern until your group forms up, or do you head off over the horizon at a more sedate speed to allow the other aircraft to catch up? I ask this as I assume only one aircraft can take off at a time and are they getting airborne as quickly as those that might be launched from a conventional carrier?


Tactics after takeoff do not depend on whether the aircraft is launched STOVL/Cat. Because it takes time to load an aircraft onto a cat the STOVL launch interval will be slightly shorter.

Once over target would the pilot then have to take into account they might return to a blocked deck and be required to go into a holding pattern and if they return with a full load of advanced, stand-off weapons can the aircraft land with these, or do they get stored in Mr Jones’s sea locker?

A blocked deck is not a consideration if you can land vertically. In general you can afford to return with fewer fuel reserves than if you must be arrested (and perhaps even get a wave off due to ship motion)

When landing does this again require a significant amount of fuel especially if you are returning with ordinance? These questions are asked because we read of how the B might have a theoretical range of 450 miles compared to the possible 600 of the ‘C’ but in the real World is this a fair comparison?

I suspect you have a gut feeling that a VL involves the use of a lot of fuel. This is not the case for quite a few reasons (for example the previous point).

Is this a relevant figure as a conventional carrier would or should have a tanking capability, the aircraft take off, they top up, form up and depart. When returning back to mother, they will have the option of taking fuel from the tanker and not have those concerns about having to land as they are low on fuel.

If you can VL your problems are over as long as you can reach the ship (or another platform) in the first place. A VL is much easier than any other sort of landing (afloat or ashore) and so does not need the fuel reserves of conventional operations.

The ‘B’ will not have these options, no tanking from the ship and what you go with, you work with.. If that means a very quick pass over the target and having to get back to the ship, then so be it!


I hope you now realise why the B does not need ‘options’ on return. You might like to take a look at post 303 and the last two paras.

Regarding your apparent concern at the use of fuel in VSTOL operations this mis-conception has been around since 1 April 1969 when the Harrier entered service. At that time the manufacturer demonstrated that if you measured the fuel used from dispersal to reaching cruise speed on heading to the target (or first way point) you used less from a VTO than one that needed a runway. The difference was not great (10 to 20lb) but it was less thanks to reduced taxiing time and being able to rotate onto first heading as you lifted. Please note that does not apply to an STO.

Jet engines are not as some people think. Stationary at full throttle the engine has to suck in air. At high forward speed the air is rammed in and the amount of air passing though the engine is greater. This means that the fuel control unit will permit more fuel to be burned at full throttle and high forward speed than at full throttle in the hover.

I have flown VSTOL from ships belonging to Argentina, Brazil, France, India, Spain, United States and the UK. I would have been reluctant to do that in several cases unless I could VL. To illustrate the value of a VL I asked the Captain of a French carrier to try and stop me landing on his ship. He responded by throwing out the anchor in a heavy swell and making smoke across as much of the flight deck as he could at the same time as providing a wind over deck at 90 deg. I landed vertically cross deck on the bow which stuck out of the smoke despite the ship rolling a silly amount.

Please note I am not advocating the B, or the C (or any other aircraft you can come up with) because I do not have enough information to make that call.

[FB11]

John,

If the part of the deck that is free is safe to land on, you have an option.

But you have an issue if the first aircraft down has an incident - even minor - becuase the deck will be foul for at least a period until the deck can be made safe to recover the next aircraft. If the second (of 4 aircraft) is in the decel behind the first, he will not be allowed to land elsewhere because crash and salvage teams will be coming from varying parts of the deck to assist, even with a burst tyre. The jet will need to be shut down; the pilot removed; the weapons made safe and the aircraft secured in place.

The second aircraft will go around and now has a single crack at the deck assuming the aircraft with the incident is secure within the next 3 minutes.

And a JSF configured for vertical landing will indeed suck down far more petrol than even the big-engined Harrier at 40klbs of thrust vice 23.5klbs, lift fan or no lift fan. But of course, nobody will tell you anything other than the environmental impact of the recent JSF on board Wasp was anything more than an AV-8B. Clearly the laws of physics don't apply at sea (or when you are being positive about a troubled programme).

The fuel flow wouldn't matter if the VL margin with stores+fuel was significant but it's not.

The second aircraft (and subsequent 2 aircraft who will also be approaching the same fuel state only 2 minutes later in a visual recovery) will be committed to a single landing on a deck that may or may not be clear. The probability of the deck not being clear for his one and only landing that day? Low. But not as low one might accept that it's worth throwing away a jet (or jets) that is going to cost the taxpayer more than 3 times the unit cost of a Harrier GR9.

I rarely disagree with you John but nobody is going to be allowed to operate a UK JSF without options for another assured landing surface. The days of carefree flying as you described when picking your way up the wake of Foch in fog or along some flares are, I'm afraid, consigned to the history books. They are the stories I grew up on and sat in the crewroon listening to the old salts talking about. I may have even done something similar myself in the early days.

The MAA and Haddon-Cave have put paid to such antics.

[glojo]

Excellent replies and thank you both for responding. FB11... Regarding the 450 vs 600 mile range that is the average type ranges that are being posted on a number of public locations and I have NOT cherry picked in favour of one against the other.

Excellent points are made but I did smile at the thought of a commanding officer dropping the anchor in a heavy swell. I just hope he was stationary and in shallow water. I have visions of an embarrassed captain having to explain how they lost their anchor plus cable. ;)

Thanks again,
John

[Milo Minderbinder]

presumably with a -B it may need to be one of these so-called rolling vertical landings anyway - which would bring a whole new set of problems?

[Engines]

FB11,

I have to disagree here, a deck the size of CVF offers quite a bit of scope to get a STOVL aircraft back on in the event of a fouled deck spot. I think I could offer three in service examples on the tiny CVS deck without having to stretch. Certainly more flexible than a Cat and trap - but note, like JF, I'm not trying to criticise cat and trap 'in toto'.

I don't know the F-35B hovering fuel flow, but I'm certain it's higher than at 38K pounds than a Harrier at around 25K pounds. But, the lift fan propulsion system is very efficient and the UK expertise in hover flow and gas circulation has helped dramatically.

I was, for a time, very closely involved with F-35B deck environmental impacts. I can tell you, straight, that F-35B efflux impact has been modelled and tested exhaustively (sorry, joke not intended) and it's not a problem for the ship deck material. The key is that the hot gas exhaust is only asked to deliver 18K of thrust or so - the rest of the power gors to the lift fan. Paint is a problem, but it's the same sort of problem Harrier generates, and there are solutions out there.

F-35B VL margin is significant. It's miles better than Harrier was at this stage in its programme. (It's actually better than some older cat and trap aircraft). I can't go into all the details but the guys working this have learned a hell of a lot from the UK'S experience. They'd like more, but that is how it is with powered lift aircraft. You are always fighting weight with thrust. All the time. It's a natural thing.

I really do agree that the current MAA, ODH, DDH, SDSH initiative has the potential to severely crimp all combat operations, including non-diversion deck ops. My view, taking a long perspective, is that we are in a cycle of 'safety first at ALL costs', and we will swing back to a more sensible and balanced approach as the Duty Holders take charge from the MAA. But it will take time.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

[FB11]

Milo,

It doesn't have to be a Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) but the reason the UK did some of the development of it in the VAAC Harrier that John will be very familiar with is to mitigate the poor vertical recovery margins with fuel and stores.

But the SRVL development wasn't completed after the switch to B and I believe the VAAC was taken as a Planning Round option some time back.

SRVL does open up a different issue because you are commiting aircraft to a single landing surface, but you do then have a vertical option with all the same caveats as the above threads discuss.

The other point worth considering when we talk of throwing a jet into any old space on this new, huge flight deck is that in addition to people moving around the deck to secure a potentially stricken aircraft, there will be aircraft - JSF and helicopters - parked in numerous places around the deck that will limit opportunities to land in close proximity. Even a Harrier couldn't land with helicopters parked/folded/tied down in close proximity so even the laws-of-physics defying JSF environmental footprint may have some problems finding a space.

[FB11]

Engines,

Our posts crossed - miles better than Harrier at this stage of the programme? That doesn't bode well considering Harrier never had a useful vertical bring back at any stage of its career.

You say that as though the B is going to get lighter and the engine more powerful (or better at converting fuel to thrust)?

[Engines]

FB11,

A good enough bring back to fight a decent war and a good few campaigns, and deliver an effective service life. No useful bring back at any stage of its career? Sorry, can't let that one ride.

F-35B bring back margin is squeezed because the requirements are tough. Doing a VL with full internal weapons plus a lot more fuel than the Harrier ever had, at high temperatures, with an intentionally degraded engine (allows for in service thrust loss), plus another weight margin, plus a maximum weight engine (GFE so LM have to be given a weight the US government can live with until out of service) - well, you get the picture. If you want some fun, go and look at the bring back margins for some well known CTOL aircraft - you might be surprised.

I'm not trying to sugar coat this. Powered lift is always going to be tight, unless the users want to throw away a lot of capability. But the F-35 team have not gone into this blind. The engine will get more powerful, (F136 would be ven better than F135) but I doubt that airframe weight will go down.

Hope this helps

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[FB11]

Engines,

So why did the UK waste millions of ££ on SRVL if the VLBB was OK? What was the prompt? A belief that the SWAT wouldn't work in the mid-2000's or that the SWAT was always going to cause engineers problems later that may cause them to pile weight back in to the aircraft?

And - hypothetically of course - a Sea Harrier carrying a single AIM-120B because of performance issues in a hot part of the world in a combat environment? Heaven help us and those whom we were supposed to be protecting if we were ever called upon to do the business for them.

GR9A could not have operated with the required fit from the CVS in a current operation. Thank God nobody called our bluff on that one. Do you know how many GBU-12 were carried by USMC AV-8B operating at sea as a result of them needing to have a targeting pod?

I will get behind which ever aircraft the UK chooses 110% just like we all got behind the Defence red-headed step child that was JFH. Two services, both violently against an amalgamation where they both 'lost' to end up producing what I think Defence will look back on as the most effective, efficient and lowest risk 5 year period of deployed air operations when the Harrier deployed to Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009.

However, I can not conceive how we have ended up being boxed into a corner where were are potentially going back to an aircraft that is at the very beginning of its 30 year+ life and we are already trying to mitigate its weight by not adding a few pounds here or there to fit pipes that make the fuel jettison properly. That doesn't sound like a prgramme that is supremely confident about future weight growth.

Even if you ignore the thrust to weight of, let's say, an early GR3 when compared to the GR9A (massively in favour of the earlier aircraft) the additional weight of the stores bolted onto the GR9A to make it operationally suitable was way in excess of the additonal vertical thrust margin gained from the extra 2500lb of the RR 408 (Mk107) engine.

Aircraft get heavier. Engines get weaker. It's not going to get better and we're not in production yet.

[glojo]

Very reassuring to hear that the aircraft can return with its weapon load but does this comment apply to both versions of the F-35?

nobody is going to be allowed to operate a UK JSF without options for another assured landing surface. Surely the whole point of having an aircraft carrier is to have this type of mobility. The days of the Harrier landing on the deck of a nearby large warship are surely over as the Wasp had to undergo modifications to enable her to land the 'B' but if the Royal Navy operate a conventional carrier then I would expect it to have a mixed air wing including tanker aircraft? (Question)

[Engines]

FB11,

Sorry if I've tweaked your tail here - not my intention. Taking the issues one by one:

Design VLBB for F-35B was always driven by the JORD, which (and I've said this many times) the UK signed up to in full. The JORD used a US 'hot day', not the UK 'Persian Gulf' hot day (in itself a new requirement after, well, Persian gulf ops). That led to SRVL studies, and I would defer to guys like GT, with tons of deck test flying experience, who thought it was a feasible proposition.

I spent 6 happy months on SWAT and every design change was checked out for long term issues and ship compatibility. Some trade offs were harder than others, but that's combat aircraft design in the real world.

FA2 bring back was an issue waiting to happen once we added 15 inches of fuselage and didn't fund a thrust increase. I was unhappy at the arguments deployed in favour of GR9A, and how the extra thrust would solve all CVS issues. It was 'situating the appreciation', a habit of Strike Command staff and one of many that made JFH such a bear, despite very good work by the more junior staff guys. The achievements in the Stan made the Harrier cancellation all the more galling, but it's done now.

Fuel jettison on F-35 - a real problem due mostly (in my own view) to lack of focus by LM, who have been able to do without jettison systems on F-16 and other aircraft by the simple expedient of using reheat at low thrust settings. Ok for land basing, but not for embarked ops. Also, LO makes a solution harder. They are working it, and will fix it.

Yes, aircraft get heavier. Engines do NOT necessarily have to get weaker. In any case, as I posted before, the F-35 VLBB already assumes a weaker engine (at end of life). Don't forget also that the VLBB definition includes kit like EOTS that would normally require a pod. I could PM more details if I remembered them (Which I don't).

Just once more - I'm not sugar coating this. Powered lift aircraft have to carefully manage weight and lift. It's a disadvantage of powered lift. But, just ask any cat and trap aviator what happens to their aircraft through life - weight goes up, approach speed or trap WOD goes up, gear life suffers, and so on. Not as much as powered lift, true, but still an issue. Especially for an LO aircraft that can't deploy a lot of high lift devices. (F-35C...)

Hope this helps,

Best regards as ever,

Engines.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Just found this press release which slipped out Friday night....timing eh?

""F-35 fighter jet, the U.S. military’s most expensive weapons program, will cost $1.51 trillion, a 9 percent increase from the estimate a year ago, according to Pentagon officials.
The program’s projected “life cycle cost” -- including development since 1994, production of 2,443 jets and 55 years of support -- increased from $1.38 trillion in 2010, the officials said today in a briefing for reporters."
Lockheed F-35 Cost Estimate by U.S. Increases 9% in Year - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/lockheed-f-35-fighter-estimate-increased-9-in-a-year-u-s-says.html)

and from
U.S. Outlines Cost of F-35 That Canada and Others Are Purchasing | Ottawa Citizen (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/03/30/u-s-outlines-cost-of-f-35-that-canada-and-others-are-purchasing/)
"New cost information has just been made available regarding the F-35. The Pentagon has just released its Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) dated Dec. 31, 2011. ..............................
" The just released SAR provides a perspective. It shows that the US Airforce’s planned expenditures for the unit recurring flyaway costs for the F-35A version are as follows (these figures include the costs for the aircraft and the engines):
2016 – $93.38
2017 – $91.43
2018 – $83.13
2019 – $83.95
2020 – $87.36
2021 – $95.16
2022 – $87.14
2023 – $88.08

[John Farley]

Chaps

I am going to leave you to it because I think some people are muddling up/ignoring the reasons for (and the differences between) some very different things:

1 Commercial contractural specifications placed on suppliers.

2 The rules and practices used for routine peace time operations.

3 The likely procedures for aircraft emergency situations in peactime.

4 The business of using an aircraft's actual capabilites in time of war.

[glojo]

I am going to leave you to it because I think some people are muddling up/ignoring the reasons for (and the differences between) some very different things:

1 Commercial contractural specifications placed on suppliers.

2 The rules and practices used for routine peace time operations.

3 The likely procedures for aircraft emergency situations in peactime.

4 The business of using an aircraft's actual capabilites in time of war. Hi John,
I hope my questions have not caused you to submit this post. :O

You are someone that I hold in the highest of regard and your wise words on these issues deserve to be heard and respected.

[Lowe Flieger]

I am in awe of the wealth of knowledge, experience and expertise in this debate of the merits and de-merits of conventional fighter operation and STOVL operation. To try to reach a conclusion I think we need to distil what we’ve learned such that an idiot can understand it. As my wife never tires of telling me I'm an idiot, I think I am perfectly suited to the task.

In a nutshell, it seems that hurtling along a length of runway or deck to overcome gravity, or a controlled crash along the same deck or runway to permit gravity to hold sway again, gives your aeroplane some significant additional fighting advantages.

If you can go straight up or straight down, you achieve some ease of operation and have less space requirements. The price you pay is a host of additional engineering challenges, and significant fighting disadvantages.

So, if you could do STOVL without the fighting and engineering disadvantages, why would you do it any other way? Well, it’s a no-brainer, you wouldn’t do it any other way. But you can’t (yet). So logically you would choose this route when you are hampered by constraints that mean that you accept the fighting limitations and engineering challenges in exchange for achieving a fighting capability you would not otherwise have. Thus STOVL is very understandable for Italy (Cavour is STOVL or nothing) or US Wasp class, or Spain or Thailand.

The overall objective is to deliver the best fighting capability you can. A carrier is more than this, but that’s it’s raison d’etre. As the QE class is big enough to permit operation of the aircraft with significant fighting advantages, it’s logical to wield the biggest stick. You have to accept some additional operational difficulties, associated with launch at the start and the controlled crash at the end. (Damn and blast Sir Issac, things would have been so much easier if he hadn’t invented g.)

I deduce therefore, that F35C and CATOBAR is the way the UK should go to achieve the primary objective: the best military advantage.

Now, intervening constraints may interfere with this choice. These constraints are basically called politicians, or money, or a combination of both. Money will determine if the fighters make it into service at all and the politicians whether we can afford them if they do. If they decide for political or financial reasons we will not have the biggest stick, then we must accept that we will have a fighting capability: F35B.

So, in considering the F35 carrier options, I conclude F35C is the best choice. F35B the next choice. Providing they both meet their performance parameters, either is acceptable and will be a step-change of the UK's maritime capabilities.

[Not_a_boffin]

As someone with a ship design/build background and only a rudimentary aero eng background I'd like to echo Lowe Fliegers post. This is the absolute guts of it.

However, one thing that might be worth thinking about is that the scale of the proposed QEC (forget the current IOC-number limits) operations when first conceived are significantly in excess of what we (or anyone else) have ever done with SHAR/GR7.

If - as postulated in the original requirement for QEC, you're launching a 16 ship mission, with a significant number of aircraft on deck alert or servicing, then as FB11 suggests, we're looking at a very limited amount of clear deck on recovery. One of the major reservations I always had about SRVL.

I was always a little concerned during the early CVF deliberations 1999-2003, that manpower scaling and so-forth was being done on the basis of 800/801 AE and manning, without the understanding that the CVF requirement was for something else entirely. With larger CAGs you tend to do more diverse and potentially more demanding (certainly in terms of weapon / stores loading) than we have done hitherto - even including the Balkans campaign and the Deny Flight ops over Iraq pre 2003.

I'd be interested to hear whether FB11, Orca, Engines or JF consider this a real issue or just in the noise.

[Engines]

Guys,

I'd like to respond. This is a very good discussion that gets to the core of what has become a political issue - and we know how they can go...

LF's analysis is really very good. I absolutely agree that cat and trap is the way to go if you can afford it. 'Affording it' means a number of things that don't come with STOVL. These are:

a. A big and fast ship - at least 65,000 tons and around 30 knots
b. A ship stuffed with expensive kit to launch and recover the aircraft, e.g. cats and traps
c. The training burden of keeping the specialised and perishable skills required for night bad weather ops current.

On top of these, the operational norms for cat and trap also require organic AAR, and probably a decent AEW/EW capability.

The problem for the UK has been to know where the cost boundaries for each option lie, and what is included and excluded. Then the challenge has been to accurately cost them. The recent debate over cat and trap conversion costs illustrates the point - I strongly suspect (but don't know) that the figures being thrown about varied so much because they included different things, depending on who was trying to make their point.

I absolutely agree with NAB that trying to model manning and costs for a new carrier that isn't a CVS (but isn't a CVN either) is a really difficult exercise, made harder by the dilution of carrier aviation knowledge and experience within the FAA and the RN.

Hope this helps

Best Regards

Engines

[glojo]

Hi Engines,
You are the second person in two days that has mentioned a sped requirement for the carrier

A big and fast ship - at least 65,000 tons and around 30 knotsHMS Hermes was a very small conventional aircraft carrier that operated Buccaneers and the ugly duckling. On a very good day with a following wind and a two mile long down hill slope she MIGHT just reach 28knots but that would be on a wing and a prayer, yet she still managed to launch and recover those aircraft.

We have all read how more efficient, powerful the latest EMALS system is, so my question to you and others that are pushing the speed requirement is why? Why the need for the 30 knots and what escort ships will achieve these types of speed in anything other than the calmest of conditions.

I absolutely agree with NAB that trying to model manning and costs for a new carrier that isn't a CVS (but isn't a CVN either) is a really difficult exercise, made harder by the dilution of carrier aviation knowledge and experience within the FAA and the RN. The last time we launched\recovered an aircraft via cats and traps was 1978! I would suggest our experience is now so diluted it is as pure as the water we made on those old steam powered ships! We are starting from scratch but thanks to our very close ally we can at least make a start at re-creating this lost skill.

Instead of debating which aircraft, I believe our politicians should be asking, 'Can we afford to be a nation that operates aircraft carriers?'

[Rulebreaker]

If were going to spend all the money to keep pilots current and have new procedures for cat and trap operations with amphibious assault helicopter movements ect does it not also have to be a full time capability. Which means both ships really need converted because it they're isnt the cash for that what happens when the cats and trap carrier hits a rock, has a engine fire gets hit with a tug boat or just needs an overhaul? Are the french going to come to are aid? I think F35B offers the best all round capability for the UK.

[LowObservable]

Just to make things more interesting, the new Selective Acquisition Report makes it very clear that the best-case cost of the F-35B at full rate is a cool $21m more than the F-35C.

That's a full procurement price - flyaway plus everything that goes with flyaway, like initial spares and ground equipment - and in 2012 dollars, for 2020 delivery.

So if the UK was to buy 50 Dave-Cs vs Bs, the $1-billion saved would convert the second carrier, if NaB's numbers are right.

The actual 2020-delivery average procurement cost for the F-35C is $117m and the F-35B is $138m. The equivalent price for the Super Hornet is $80 million.

Oh, and the A model costs 42 per cent more per flight hour than the USAF spent flying F-16C/Ds in 2011. Want to hazard a guess for the F-35B, with all the extra moving parts?

[XZ439]

I can only repeat the words of a friend and colleague who said 'STOVL = options'. The F35B brings a new age of options, I think we should making the step into the future rather than going backwards!

[Engines]

Glojo,

The reason for 30 knots (or thereabouts) is that it's the USN default assumption which drives the design of carrier borne aircraft like F-35C and indeed Super Hornet. It affects aircraft design for both launch and recovery, especially at the higher weights that are of such interest these days. Not to mention high temperatures.

I have friends who flew fixed wing off both Hermes and Ark Royal - and they all tell me that these were marginal ships with some really narrow safety margins for launch and recovery. A Sea Vixen pilot told me that they used actual aircrew weights (down to the pound) instead of a standard weight to wring out more performance. It's my view that a 28 knot ship would be a slow F-35 ship, but I hope I'm wrong.

The basic thing to remember is that cat and trap demands a very close integration between all aspects of the ship and the aircraft to achieve effective launch and recovery. That's not a criticism, just a fact. STOVL is more flexible, but you pay a performance price, and, it seems, an aircraft price.

LO - thanks for flagging up the selective acquisition report - good spot.

Best Regards

Engines

[Not_a_boffin]

One thing to bear in mind when discussing speed and old ships is that none of our old carriers (including Ark) had anything like the catapult stroke or pendant runout that the QEC fit will have.

However, speed will still be important on recoveries if you have light to moderate wind from astern of your desired MLA as opposed to flying course. Higher ship speed increases the amount of stern wind you can tolerate without having to reverse course off your MLA. As noted before, it isn't about not being able to launch / recover, it's all about operational flexibility - a PITA rather tha show-stopper.

Engines - I think the 30 kts is an assumed WoD for the Mk7 gear rather than ship speed, but am happy to be corrected.

As for the cadre of experience. I remember visiting SFDO/Siskin in around 2000 when doing some early flight decks designs. The WO there had been the last captain of the flight deck on Ark IV. I'm sure we're starting again from scratch here.

[glojo]

Hi Engines,
Totally agree about weights etc on these old carriers and I'm sure I used to watch the Sea Vixen drop a few feet before gaining air speed, but with this EMALS system are we also talking about no wind over the deck? In my opinion the only way you will achieve this is by having a stationary ship on a day with no wind or a moving ship travelling in the same direction as the wind.

This is Ark Royal travelling at speed, although looking at that image I would not think she is flat out... However that is immaterial as look how calm the seas are, yet look at that spray coming over the bow?? I respect what you are saying but only the VERY biggest of ships could cruise at high speeds without the upper deck getting 'wet'

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/blogphotos/HMS_Ark_Royal_4.jpg


On Centaur just like all other British carriers of that era we would always steam into the wind at flying stations but as I said earlier there was no way we could get anywhere near 28knots and if there was a slight swell then fast speeds would mean at the very least huge amounts of spray coming over the bow!. Having said that wee needed wind over the deck to take off and recover our aircraft.

Just noticed Boffin's post and I TOTALLY concur, plus of course regarding landings.. That wind speed was just as important and for the new 'traps', I am sure the same things will apply..

[LowObservable]

MLA? Outside my acronym range...

[Lima Juliet]

MLA=Mean Line of Advance

[Engines]

NaB,

The point is that the USN assume that the ship can get to 30 kts, and that forms a starting point for the range of WODs that the aircraft design is built around.

As you so correctly point out, cat and trap design and operations involve a very close linkage between the two platforms. Available ship speed will drive the WOD available and thus maximum cat launch weights available on any given day, as well as the maximum recovery weights. More WOD also reduces speed to the wire, reducing wear and tear on the gear. Basically, ship speed is your friend for carrier ops, and the USN's devotion to that truth is, in my view, well founded. It's one of the drivers for nuclear propulsion.

I am a bit of a sceptic on the magic properties of EMALS, to be honest. It should deliver a smoother stroke, but peak loads on the nose leg are peak loads and given the short time available in the cat stroke cycle I'd expect any increase in launch weight to be low - but happy if I'm wrong on that. You also have to bear in mind that the immediate post-launch dynamics of aircraft are fairly critical, and ever faster speeds might not always be your friend there - in any case, plenty of tests required. Once more, very happy to be proved wrong.

The UK used to tolerate some sink on launch, with some sophisticated analysis on fly out profiles backing up that judgement. One of the interesting challenges of cat and trap will be taking USN led safety analyses and getting them through the new MAA regime. In my view, another reason why the ODH and DDH for carrier operation will have to be the FAA - you just can't split the ship/aircraft factors out here.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

I'll guess that there will be an ideal WOD for F-35C and CVF which will be within easy reach but what that is I have no idea. This PDF indicates that the recommended WOD is best rather than a higher value (counter intuitive?).

EFFECT OF WIND OVER DECK CONDITIONS ON AIRCRAFT APPROACH SPEEDS FOR CARRIER LANDINGS 1991

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA239511 (1.2Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_WODincreaseFromIdealNotGood.gif (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/WODincreaseFromIdealNotGood.gif)

[GreenKnight121]

So why did the UK waste millions of ££ on SRVL if the VLBB was OK?

You didn't.

Most of the SRVL contracts were paid for by the USN on behalf of the RN!



As for the WOD issue... sigh.

The spec for EMALS was to launch both F/A-18s and F-35Cs with ZERO WOD. Yes, this does likely mean that the track is longer, but that's the price you pay for this spec.

The AAG, which is to replace the Mk7 in all current USN carriers as well as be in new construction, is also designed for greater operating margins.

[kbrockman]

It looks like you guys are gonna have ample time to decide what to do, the F35 production is shifting ever more backwards;
NHK WORLD English (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20120402_03.html)
The latest report by the US Defense Department says that full-rate production of F-35 fighter jets will not start until 2019, 2 years later than planned.

The production delay may have an impact on Japan's plan to purchase the fighter jets.

Also a a top Pentagon official said on Friday, noting that software failures could "bring us to our knees."
Production shift to a later date is now sold as being a good thing according to
Air Force Major General John Thompson.
Pentagon focused on resolving F-35 software issues | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2E8EU8C420120330)

All is well in JSF land it seems.

[LowObservable]

Thanks, LJ - I have to confess that my knowledge of nautical terminology gets wobbly beyond "port", "starboard", "Arrrrr, ye lubberly dogs!" and "golden rivet".

Back to subject: The latest SAR notes that the F-35C max approach speed at required carrier landing weight was supposed to be 140 knots, but that it is now estimated at 144.6 knots with 15 kt WOD.

[SpazSinbad]

From an earlier page on this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-13.html

Download a 0.4Mb PDF here: Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html

The KPPs have been given more detail: "
"...The [US] Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of wind over the deck. This must be possible at Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW). The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel. The minimum required bringback is two 2000 pound air-to-ground weapons & two AIM-120s. The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with internal & external stores; the external stations must have 1000 pound capability on the outboard stations & maximum station carriage weight on the inboard.”

All KPPs I have seen have given 'below 145 Knots' as the Maximum Carrier Approach speed (under above conditions I gather).

A 2007 US Navy League Brief Graphic KPP at 145 Knots

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_F-35KPPs2007usNavyLeagueBrief.gif (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/F-35KPPs2007usNavyLeagueBrief.gif)

+ latest LM Fast Facts 13 March 2012 from:
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/F-35-Fast-Facts-March-13-2012.pdf

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/th_LMf3513march2012Fastacts.gif (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/LMf3513march2012Fastacts.gif)

[Engines]

SS,

Thank you for the Navair report on approach speed vs. WOD - yes, it is counter-intuitive, I'll go away and have a closer look to get my head around it. But I'm not arguing with it - these guys really know their stuff...

Best Regards

Engines

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

F-35 program to get overhaul following AG report - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/02/f35-auditor-general-report.html)

The Canadians are going to strip the program from the Defence Department. What effect this will have on the likelihood of procurement is anyone's guess.

[ORAC]

JDW: Cameron orders independent review into F-35 decision (http://www4.janes.com/subscribe/jdw/doc_view.jsp?K2DocKey=/content1/janesdata/mags/jdw/history/jdw2012/jdw48665.htm@current&Prod_Name=JDW&QueryText=)

Prime Minister David Cameron has asked the UK Treasury to conduct an independent assessment of the costs associated with converting one of the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to operate the F-35C: the carrier variant (CV) of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Cameron's intervention follows a meeting with Defence Secretary Philip Hammond on 19 March, during which Hammond is believed to have recommended backtracking on the CV acquisition plan because of the costs of carrier conversion. He is thought to have instead advocated the purchase of the F-35B, the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of JSF.

The prime minister's decision to seek an independent review is thought to reflect two principal concerns. First, the political embarrassment resulting from a U-turn on one of the central components of the coalition government's October 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR); second, the possible adverse reaction from the US government and the US Navy (USN), both of which have been working with UK counterparts on a long-term carrier co-operation formalised under a Statement of Intent signed in January.

The F-35B was originally selected to meet the UK's Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement in 2002. However, as part of the SDSR, the coalition government announced its intention to switch to the F-35C variant on the grounds of interoperability with allies, improved performance and reduced through-life costs.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance responsible for the design and build of the two ships have been working on plans to adapt the second-of-class Prince of Wales for CV operations from build. While Conversion Development Phase studies are due to run to late 2012, the decision was taken in early 2011 to maximise aviation equipment commonality with the USN's CVN-78 Gerald R Ford carrier programme. This includes adopting the same Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) systems.

However, concerns as to the 'in-years' affordability of the CV conversion - with some estimates now topping GBP1.6 billion (USD2.5 billion) - have prompted the MoD to reconsider the STOVL option as it attempts to finalise its 2012-13 budget and balance the equipment programme.

The Treasury's Major Project Review Group is due to complete its report by mid-April, with its findings to be put forward to the National Security Council shortly afterwards.

Meanwhile, a letter sent by US Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development & Acquisition, Sean J Stackley, to the UK's Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Minister, Peter Luff, in mid-March has provided insight into the projected cost of the US-supplied aircraft launch and recovery equipment (ALRE) earmarked for Prince of Wales .

According to Stackley, the current estimate is in the range of USD733 million to USD840 million. This accounts for USD156 million in non-recurring engineering, plus the costs associated with the procurement of ALRE, including a two-track EMALS system and three-wire AAG configuration.

[LowObservable]

It's not the program's best day:

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a77626f47-3e4e-4a75-99be-604b211bdf73&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The above includes a link to the SAR.

And...

F-35 program slammed by auditor general - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/02/f35-auditor-general-report.html)

Full report here...

Chapter 2?Replacing Canada?s Fighter Jets (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Perhaps to save Ppruners some time.
From the full Canadian AG report
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)
2.34 (Industry Benefits) .. Moreover, in the majority of cases, only the most optimistic scenario was put forward, rather than a range of potential benefits that reflected the inherent uncertainties in the projections.

2.57 ...To support the use of this (competition) exception, National Defence was required to identify its operational requirements and to provide a full justification to PWGSC. Neither was provided to PWGSC in a timely manner, despite several requests from PWGSC. PWGSC was not given a copy of the statement of operational requirement until August 2010, well after the government had announced its decision to purchase the F-35 in July 2010.

2. 60 ....Practically speaking, by 2010, Canada was too involved in the JSF Program and the F-35 to run a fair competition.

2.62 ... As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the JSF Program has experienced cost increases, schedule delays, and technological difficulties, and has been subject to several major reviews. Officials from National Defence who participated in the senior decision-making committees of the JSF Program were regularly informed of these problems. Yet in briefing materials from 2006 through 2010 that we have reviewed, neither the Minister nor decision makers in National Defence and central agencies were kept informed of these problems and the associated risks of relying on the F-35 to replace the CF-18.

and the headline info

2.68 National Defence internal estimate for 20 year costs (Jun 2010) $25 bn
National Defence estimate provided to Parliament (Mar 2011) $15 bn

My Conclusion.
It will be very hard for there not to be a competition in Canada now.

LowObservable - Thanks for the slip info. This now puts the max rate production (when the Canadians say they will buy) beyond the latest In-Service date for the CF-18. More costs whatever the consequences.

[Bastardeux]

So the report say that testing isn't going to be completed until 2019? Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be wise for us to hold back on any firm orders until the bulk of that testing is complete? i.e. is it not time to start looking at an interim replacement...or is that simply too sensible for the MoD to get their head around?

[Lowe Flieger]

So what are the alternatives....JTO,

As I see it there are two fundamental choices:

1. If the UK continues with a carrier programme, the only near-term alternatives are Rafale and F18 (absent a left-field purchase from Russia). The F18 successor may just become available between 2025 to 2030 IF it goes ahead and IF it doesn't encounter the same problems as the 35.

2. If the UK drops the carrier programme, then it's Typhoon and Tornado until about 2025, when we will need to replace Tornado. Upgrade of Typhoon should take place.

For either scenario, around 2020 we could reconsider our situation, including F35 (A, B or C) in the light of what we know about it at that time.

I accept that these two courses offer different capabilities.

[JFZ90]

Can't help wondering if it would have been a good idea to let the US finish JSF and then buy some - was there a good reason why we couldn't use transfer a much reduced short/mid term JSF money (2012-2018), make savings and keep some GR9s going on the new carriers until 2020ish, then bin them and get mature JSF Bs?

Not ideal, but a capability better than the nothing we seem to be staring at for many years and coping with creeping delays and cost growth whilst the gap gets bigger?

I'm not trying to start another bring back harrier moan as I understand why it went and tornado didn't - but I do now wonder whether a massive 10+ years JSF postponement (and its savings) was really looked at?

[Bastardeux]

I do now wonder whether a massive 10+ years JSF postponement (and its savings) was really looked at?

Particularly as this is rapidly becoming the new programme timeline, or as near as makes very little difference!

[LowObservable]

Naysayer!

The program schedule is stable! Full-rate deliveries were 11 years in the future when we started in 2001, and are 11 years in the future today. How much more consistency do you want?

[JSFfan]

Can't help wondering if it would have been a good idea to let the US finish JSF and then buy some - was there a good reason why we couldn't use transfer a much reduced short/mid term JSF money (2012-2018), make savings and keep some GR9s going on the new carriers until 2020ish, then bin them and get mature JSF Bs?

Isn't that what the UK is nearly doing?
I read they are making an order decision in 2015 and if they order the long lead items 2015/16, it will be first delivery about 2019

[Lowe Flieger]

Can't help wondering if it would have been a good idea to let the US finish JSF and then buy some....

JFZ90,

Yes it would. This is the conundrum that F35's other foreign buyers are getting very nervous about (Australia, Canada and Japan at least). Whatever euphemisms the Pentagon uses to explain deferral of purchase of the F35 for their own forces, the fact remains they could use the space to dump one, two or all three versions of it should testing not shake out or a new show-stopper bring it to a standstill.

While the US will, for now, buy small numbers of airframes (small for them that is), it is not really going to commit to significant buys until 2020+. This potentially puts the foreign carts before the launch customer's horse, which would be very unusual for a project of this magnitude, and would leave them in a desperate situation should the horse bolt.

The UK is in an even bigger bind because two programmes are mutually dependent - carriers and fighter. Contingency planning against this risk must be being considered, in the same way we have seen the USAF, USN, US Marines and the Australians all take at least some steps to mitigate the risk. Publicly, we seem to be focussed on F35 B or C with the associated carrier implications, but it would be be dereliction of duty not to be planning for other eventualities, even if such plans are not reaching the public domain.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Judging from the Sweetman piece, the yanks are assuming big foreign orders in FY18+, but the delayed testing will delay decisions, which will likely delay production still further. Since elections are due in many partner Nations in 2015/6, it will be hard to keep to any kind of schedule. Then economics will likely force a couple of nations out, and a couple more will need replacements earlier than F-35 will be available.

[Lowe Flieger]

Well, there's always Japan's own 5th generation Shinshin to fall back on. They intend to have a flying demonstrator by 2017. And haven't the UK and Japan just signed an understanding for joint development of defence projects? All that needs doing is to add a naval version and a STOVL one too and have it all operationally available by about 2020, cheaper than F35, and the Japanese-UK axis will have cornered the market.

Leave you to think that one over, as my wife is just asking if I should be drinking all this wine on top of my medication....:hmm:

[Milo Minderbinder]

"Sino-UK axis"

whats China got to do with it? Other than stealing the plans.....

[Lowe Flieger]

MM,

Seems my wife has a valid point.

[Milo Minderbinder]

LF
I dunno, you might have a point.... get the Middle Kingdom involved at the start and you wouldn't have to worry about the costs of securing the project against them.
They're going to get the details anyway one way or another

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Canada is also trying to get some bilateral trade going with Japan. Shinshin will be in service at the right time and has 2 engines (Arctic).

Hmmmm.................

[Milo Minderbinder]

And another point about the Shinshin is that the Japanese have got the development / production sequence the right way round.

To quote wikidpaedia "The ATD-X will be used as a technology demonstrator and research prototype to determine whether domestic advanced technologies for a fifth generation fighter aircraft are viable, and is a 1/3 size model of a possible full-production aircraft"

So they're doing the research to see if it works first, before any design is fixed for production. If that had been true of the F-35, so much would be different.

[LowObservable]

Odd that it is called Shinshin when one of JSF's precursors was CALF....

[Waddo Plumber]

I remember being told at a DARPA Prognostics and Health Management conferences at Warton in the 90s, that the JSF was going to be brought in on time, on budget, and to the design weight, because of the radical new concurrent engineering and cutting-edge program management techniques that were to be applied. I also remember thinking "yeah, right!".

[kbrockman]

This ongoing issue that now exists in Canada, also exists in the Netherlands,
The national accounting office (a non partizan official advising office) responsible for calculating and estimating all things financial from the government has ,today ,issued a rather condemning rapport concerning the oversight on estimated costs ,both in the past and present ,by the DoD and partners involved in the JSF project.

Also the originally planned purchase of 86 F35's has already been put into question as the DoD is already backscaling its pilots training program and supposedly have already taken into plans to get rid of at least 19 out of 86 JSF's for now, putting more and more credibility into the claims of exterior investigating efforts that in the end there is just enough money for maybe 55 planes (and that was with prices predicted in 2009-2010).

If the US are counting on foreign salesnumbers to achieve their goals on the level of pricing for the JSF once full rate production starts, than they are certainly sabotaging their own plans by allowing for this level of financial mismanagementright up until today and as it looks, also for the foreseeable future.

in Dutch (phlegm-alert)
'Kamer mist inzicht in kosten JSF en F-16' - Binnenland | Het laatste nieuws uit Nederland leest u op Telegraaf.nl [binnenland] (http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/11842456/___Kamer_mist_inzicht_kosten_JSF___.html)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thanks, kbrockman. Google translate did an adequate job. Maybe the KLu will be getting Gripens!

[kbrockman]

Solely Gripens, I highly doubt that but a return to the old style of dedicated
fighters for dedicated tasks migh well be in the future.
Many countries (Like the Swiss are stil doing up until today) had at least 2 types of fighters, each for their specific tasks.
the Dutch/Norwegians operated the F104 side by side with the F5 as did the Canadians, in Belgium it was the Mirage 5BA and the 104, the Danish had the
F100, Drakens and F104.

The F16 was a succesful but ,limited in its roles, new fighter in the beginning of its career, with the very succesful MLU it became fully mature and eventually could fulfill all roles previously been done by 2 types all by itself.
Keep in mind though that it took a big effort and took quite some time to get at that point.

This is where the F35 strayed from a wel prooven path.
Once again, someone got the idea that it would be a good idea to program one fighter that fits all needs to all services from the getgo, and once again we now see that this has prooven to be too much of a burden.

Like I said ,I don't think the Dutch (or any other JSF partner) will ultimately go for a single alternative like the Gripen, this wouldn't make any sense.
But a more conservative approach would have been so much better, why not get an initial batch of 24-36 F35's and fully develop its capabilities in a couple of roles like Air Support, Strike, Reconn and get another cheaper and prooven alternative for all other tasks for the next 20 years (like F16V, SH, Gripen ,EF, Rafale or even F15's).
If by then the F35 turns into the new and versatile fighter, like today's F16's have become, than expand upon the force and make it a 1 type force for all tasks again.

If this adagio would have been followed I think that the risks would've been lower as would be the price, but I'm also sure that we would see how limited the F35 basic design (frame-aerodynamics, engine) really is.
I doubt it would've turned in to the new F16, it would probably look more like what the F104 ultimately turned out to be, a fundamentally flawed design limited in its use.

[GreenKnight121]

So they're doing the research to see if it works first, before any design is fixed for production. If that had been true of the F-35, so much would be different.

Yeah... and they could have called it... oh, X-35 maybe?

And called the competing technology demonstrator made by Boeing the... X-32?


And they could have used that technology demonstrator program to see how well each manufacturer handled the advanced composites, and how close their predictions of aircraft performance came to actual performance, and awarded the contract on that basis?


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[glojo]

I think we need some positive thinking here..

What about if Lockheed actually does slow the program down and then see\spy on those 'other countries' and note how they are overcoming the software\hardware problems of their X-35A\B\C projects?

The only good thing to come out of all this stealing is the fact that those countries are now facing the same problems. Little or perhaps no comfort but let's make sure that the stable door is FIRMLY bolted and NO UNAUTHORISED person will EVER get access to that type of material again.

[Lowe Flieger]

I think we need some positive thinking here..BBC News - NY Auto Show: World's first 'sky-worthy' car (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17626818)

Well, here's another F35 alternative. Folding wings so carrier friendly, and while not really a stealth design, it's capable of going really low and so under the radar. Refuelling courtesy any roadside service station and the 'BAR' bit of CATOBAR could probably be performed by half a dozen matelots with a sort of modified bouncy castle on ropes. Very effective in the SEAD role against SA-21 as it can be driven right up to the launcher while it's radar and crew are still looking skywards, and pour sugar in the launcher truck's fuel tank.

Possibly a tad short on a couple of KPP's, but then so is F35. IOC scheduled for 2013, but 2019 after some UK specified modifications (converting to right hand drive). Priced at under $300,000 at today's prices or $15,000,000 each when acquired through a PFI, including RHD mod. So we can afford lots of them.

There is just a slight worry about training costs in the UK because it could be susceptible to fixed penalty speeding tickets if caught by GATSO cameras or average speed limits on motorways, but this can be amortised over the through life costs which are otherwise reckoned to be very reasonable consisting as they do of an annual service, road fund licence, and MOT every 3rd year.

Can't see any downsides myself. Expect to see this, with possibly an optionally manned version, as a corner stone of Future Force 2020, while F35 has disappeared without trace.

Pity the BBC didn't cover this story on 1 April really.

[Heathrow Harry]

no doubt British Aerospace will charge $1bn for changing it to RHD and $2Bn a year for support

[Heathrow Harry]

I see they've stuck two bits of the first carrier together.......

BBC News - Giant hull sections of Queen Elizabeth carrier joined at Clyde yard (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17656638)

[althenick]

Guys
I thought I would post this as it may give an Idea of how much work is involved on getting a CTOL Aircraft launched and recovered. It has quite a bit of engineering gen on the old steam cat and arrestor gear but all in all pretty informative. The film was made for the RN in 1960 but perhaps some of the contributors from across the pond could tell what - if anything - has changed - Its 30 mins but a very good watch if you have nothing better to do

Launch & Recover (1960) - YouTube

[GreenKnight121]

The modern catapult (both steam and USN), when combined with a modern aircraft, is much simpler to hook up and launch.

The USN never used that "pull the tail down so the nose gear is off the deck" launch method, and the last bridle-launch aircraft left USN carrier decks in the 1980s.

All current USN aircraft (F-35C included) use a nose-wheel catapult attachment, which is far simpler and quicker to use than the archaic 1950s method shown in the video.

Here is a video of the incredibly complex method used in today's USN catapult & Super Hornet.

Note the complex equipment to attach the aircraft to the catapult shuttle:
1 hold-back bar, attached on the catapult;
1 nose-tow bar, lowered by the pilot.

The hold-back bar can be installed by one person... I suspect they were doing training here.
Hooking up Super Hornet (Rhino) to catapult #3 buffer hooks - YouTube

[orca]

That video ends with the hold back in place but the launch bar raised. The other (not exactly earth shattering) half of the process would be the launch bar being lowered and driven over the shuttle, the shuttle being brought home on the launch bar, the whole system being put into tension, aircraft coming to full power and the launch bar being pre-emptively retracted (but staying 'home' in the shuttle detent).

One salute and you're off to the races.

[glojo]

It certainly takes me back although the Scimitar had just retired and we only had Vixens and Gannets, which I believe did not require that same angle for launching? (question)

That RN video was filmed right at the beginning of the 1960's and what we saw was at the time, state of the art technology, we could easily launch aircraft quicker than our US allies (we exercised with both Enterprise and Sarratoga). The only difference was that once we had launched our half dozen or so aircraft, we could then sit back and watch those HUGE American carriers put further aircraft, after aircraft up into the air. The Enterprise certainly paved the way for the American super carriers of today (much respect) Happy days.

Incidentally when at flying stations I could NEVER recall that wind coming across the deck at an angle, it always blew directly across the bow.

Looking at the uniforms made me smile.... my shorts were made in the 1940's and I wonder if the style has changed? We were taught that the beret which we all hated was to be no higher on the forehead than two fingers(horizontal) :ooh: I guess those officers were using the same two fingers that they used to measure their gin? ;)

Looked like the Hermes a Centaur class carrier of some 22000+ tons

[Schiller]

Yes, it was indeed the 'Appy 'Erms.

As a one-time OOW on a carrier, I can assure you that we always tried to get the relative wind down the angle. Of course, with little or no wind, that wasn't always possible, but flying with the wind down the axial wasn't much of a problem except for the funnel smoke obscuring the deck as one came over the round-down.

[glojo]

Totally agree about relative wind but did you say 'smoke' ;):=

Just been thinking ... The angle of the flight deck always goes off to port, so any smoke coming from the funnel would obviously drift out away from the deck.

For any smoke or perish the thought steam coming from the funnel to go across the deck... that would need a very stiff breeze coming from t'other side? Or am I to dosed up with medication? :bored:.

[Lowe Flieger]

Some news items and articles just out:

Flightglobal article that gives a flavour of some of the skills and co-ordination necessary for the efficient operation of a cat & trap carrier, the USS Stennis in this case. IN FOCUS: Why the UK's carriers will not be 'airfields at sea' (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-why-the-uks-carriers-will-not-be-airfields-at-sea-370186/)

Another Flight item, this time reporting news of the Netherlands trimming their F16 fleet and capping expenditure on F35, the decisions on which will be deferred until 2015 elections (sound familiar?). Netherlands makes final trim to F-16 fleet size (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/netherlands-makes-final-trim-to-f-16-fleet-size-370531/)

Lastly an update, courtesy of Defense News, of the Canadian government's response to the criticism it received from the recent auditor's report on the F35 acquisition programme. F35 funding has been capped, the programme's control removed from the Department of National Defence, and further 'due diligence' is to be applied to the F18 replacement programme. Canada Caps F-35 Funding After Audit | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120408/DEFREG02/304080001/Canada-Caps-F-35-Funding-After-Audit?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)

With a number of customers now capping funding for F35, it occurs to me that some of them could arrive at a crunch point if they stick to these funding caps. Should unit prices continue to rise faster than currently projected (which must be a high risk), the number of aircraft that can be bought for the money allocated could drop to such a level as to become unworkable. It's unlikely LM will charge less than the budgeted amount, so what happens if this only gets you, say, half the numbers you originally wanted?

I sense that the delay that is F35's nemesis may be the politician's friend - someone else may have to make the call, or the economic and political climate might be such that the cost problem might be less of a stumbling block than it is right now. And F35 might be getting some good reports by then too - if it's known to work and work well, stumping up the huge chunk of cash might not seem such a bad thing by then.

One thing is depressingly consistent though. Most governments are woefully inadequate at applying proper processes and controls to complex military procurement programmes. There's clearly a different attitude when it comes to spending someone else's money.

[LowObservable]

A key difference between the US funding systems and most others is that the apportionment of money in the US is not fixed year to year, let alone longer than that. In many nations, it's "OK, air force, you have X billion blats in 20xx-20yy to replace the fighters. Navy's next in line with new SSKs, then the Army needs helos and IFVs".

So if my X billion blats buys 30 LockMart FifthGenTM WondaJets, that's my lot. And lo the powers on high may say "Dude, is that enough to deploy airplanes with a coalition, maintain anti-loony homeland defense/air policing and continue to train and modernize?" and I say "Well, Minister, not exactly" then a stand-up, no-tea-and-biscuits meeting may ensue while I try to defend the idea of a fighter force.

Seriously, if the Cloggies go back to 68 F-16s, will they ever reconstitute to 85 F-16s? Maybe, about the same time that LO dates Felicity Kendal and wins the lottery on the same day.

[Lowe Flieger]

LO, Good luck with the Lottery. If you crack that, the odds of completing the second bit of your double would probably shorten.

Yes, there appears to be a collective and conscious decision by all parties to ignore the basic logic that dictates that less money means fewer planes. The UK's official F35 requirement still stands at 138, which everyone knows is now a fantasy.

I think it's to do with the fact that LM's pricing is driven by production numbers which they calculate from official order numbers. So, if e.g. the UK cuts its official order to 50, the unit price goes up again. As it might for other customers too, or for us if they also officially cut their order. So everybody plays the game that they stand by their requirements. Interesting to see what happens if someone breaks ranks and makes a significant official cut or cancellation, as that will throw everyone else's numbers into another spin.

Quite how you can plan for a cost that is rising due to technical issues and delays, but is further complicated by changes in the timing or number of orders from other customers over whom you have little or no control, I have no idea. Which is neither here nor there of course, except no one else knows either. The biggest factor in this charade was the US decision to delay it's purchases. Their numbers are the really significant ones, so their deferral has the most potential impact on final price.

Tricky.

[Schiller]

Glojo

Indeed, if the relative wind is down the angle, the smoke will be parallel out to starboard of the approach path and hence not a problem. However, in low or nil wind conditions, when it isn't possible to have the relative wind down the angle, the smoke (and there tends to be a lot more of it in low wind conditions since the ship is going b*lls out to give sufficient wind over the deck) will stream directly aft. Since you're approaching along the angle, you have to fly through the smoke; this gives a bit of turbulence, and it's occasionally possible to lose sight of the deck and mirror altogether for a brief period.

Not a problem with the new electric carriers, though.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The numbers game is probably the best argument for those not wanting the purchase of F-35.
With a now-fixed budget and using US figures, it will be difficult to claim that Canada can be defended with 35 aircraft, no matter what they are fitted with.

There's no need to worry about the single engine over the Arctic, as the Canadian Defence Minister has promised it will never fail.:ugh:

[glojo]

Thanks Schiller and if we end up with the 'B' it will sneak down the port side and then plonk itself on the deck :ok:

We should have a poll to see who believes the F-35 will be scrapped or even the carrier program will be sent to that big scrap yard in the sky.

[skydiver69]

If we do switch back does anyone have any idea how is the SRVL programme going?

I always wondered why we needed it in comparison to the US Marines who didn't seem to express any interest? Is it because we plan to use our aircraft with a heavier combination of weapons than the Americans and therefore need a greater bring back capability. If so is that linked to the different designs of carriers ie with the marines using a flat deck versus our use of a ski jump, meaning that our aircraft can take off with a heavier load?

[Lowe Flieger]

...wondered why we needed [SRVL] in comparison to the US Marines who didn't seem to express any interest?...Think it has a lot to do with the Wasp class having less space on deck than the QE class, so not practicable for them.

...There's no need to worry about the single engine over the Arctic, as the Canadian Defence Minister has promised it will never fail...To which I believe there is is a time-honoured response that goes something along the lines of 'Just as soon as we can get you qualified on type, Minister, we'll let you put your theory to the test'.

Would Canada not be well served by something like F15 Silent Eagle for Artic work? You'd get more of them than you will F35 and a good chance they will work pretty well a lot earlier than F35 too. I hasten to add I am well out of my depth here so just thinking out loud really.

..We should have a poll to see who believes the F-35 will be scrapped or even the carrier program will be sent to that big scrap yard in the sky. Yes, that would be interesting. My vote is: Carriers dumped SDR 2015; decision on F35 deferred until SDR 2020.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

My vote is the same as Lowe Flieger.

As to Canada's requirements, I was just a shag pilot, and wouldn't feel qualified to argue with the Generals. However, I would note the following.

Complete engine failure on long oversea/night/remote area mission would be liable to result in death quite often. I can recall numerous sorties where we would have been unlikely to survive the parachute descent (surface windspeed), or died of hypothermia long before rescue reached us. I would thus be bloody unhappy about flying single-engine.

"Quantity has its own quality"

There is also a tendency to fight the last war. I would purchase Super Hornet before 2020, and get to work on UAVs right now. I strongly suspect they will be the major (but not sole) component of Air Forces by 2040. It also gives Canada, and every other smaller nation like Australia, The Netherlands, etc, a chance to get back into the aircraft building business.

[Finningley Boy]

Just changing the subject slightly, does anyone know if the Government are due to announce their decision on whether its answer B or C?:confused:

Or is this question going to continue to vex that an ill-advised decision won't be at hand until the Billions more pounds, which they seek to avoid, have been wasted and further costs accrued? And all before knowing the actual price tag of either C or B? It'd be interesting to know what each of the service Chiefs are both openly, and secretly, advising?!:E

FB:)

[SpazSinbad]

Probably on the backburner for USMC now that they will share CVNs with their F-35Cs (rather than an all F-35B force). The ski jump at Patuxent River is still in midfield AFAIK.

US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique DATE:15/06/07 Flight International

US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/15/214672/us-marines-eye-uk-jsf-shipborne-technique.html)

“A shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique being developed by the UK for the Lockheed Martin F-35B is being eyed by the US Marine Corps as a way to facilitate operation of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighters from US Navy aircraft carriers....

...For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short landing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs.

“We strongly support what the UK is doing on rolling landings,” says Lt Gen John Castellaw, USMC deputy commandant for aviation. Studies on how the F-35B will be operated continue, but SRVL “appears to be a viable option”, he says....

...“We continue to work with the navy on this,” Castellaw says, pointing out the STOVL Harrier has been operated successfully alongside US Navy fighters as part of an air wing the carrier USS Roosevelt.” [1976-7]
__________

JSF To Develop Landing Technique For U.K. carriers Oct 15 , 2010 By Graham Warwick

AVIATION WEEK (http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/mstory.do?id=news/asd/2010/10/15/03.xml&channel=null&headline=JSF%20To%20Develop%20Landing%20Technique%20For%20U. K.%20Carriers)

"While the future of the U.K. Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers is uncertain, Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $13 million contract to incorporate shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) capability into the F-35B for the U.K...."

[Lowe Flieger]

Just changing the subject slightly, does anyone know if the Government are due to announce their decision on whether its answer B or C?....Aviation Week has an item that partly addresses your question: U.K. F-35 Ready for Takeoff (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a08cf4b73-7a93-4995-8aa6-db4019e3d138&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[Finnpog]

I feel like a bitter old cynic, possessed with the desire to ramble like a curmudgeon.

The more I read about JSF, the more I feel that this has precious little to do with providing the key combat aeroplane for most 'Western' air forces, and the more it looks like a huge job creation scheme.

It is probably not in anyone's interest (other than the shooters at the sharp end) to get the project delivered at a Combat Effective level early, as that would means loads of money would not get thrown about for decades to come.

It seems to be a gravy train which is trying to fabricate an answer to a question for which there are tried and tested answers.

Unfortunately it links into the mindset of blokes (politicians and military) who want the 'best thing', and scores highest in a game of Top Trumps against over rivals. If I could point you in the direction of a psychologist called Cialdini, he wrote about the "6 Weapons of Influence" which affect human decision making.

I would say that all 6 could apply to the continued support for this project as opposed to good business sense.

There are other options, which have been refined over years of combat ops which are clearly not ready for the boneyard yet.

Chasing the Holy Grail (or Dave if you prefer) is not necessarily the answer.

If it is that good, why aren't we (Euro air forces) going to bin Eurofighter? If the Typhoon is so good in the FGR role, why would Euro air forces go for F-35?

I tend to agree with the posts above which talk about the Top Trumps inspired "Day 1" capability.

Is this not a role of already stealthy(ish) drones (tee-hee. Other TLAs are available) or long range guided munitions like Storm Shadow & Tomahawk?

I grew up on the Day 1 role of the Tonka GR force with JP233 which I always felt was one of the ballsiest jobs for any air arm. Would we do that the same way now, 20 years on from Op Granby?

[LowObservable]

SRVL - I think it has been intimated by those who seem to be in the know that the RN wanted to recover on a "Gulf hot day" which is more demanding than the Marine hot day.

UK decision - My bet at the moment is that there will be no early announcement and that the cat/trap decision will stand. The implications of the SAR data for the operating and acquisition costs of the F-35B are eyewatering. The propulsion system costs $21 million more than the A/C engine, at full rate.

Fox3 - A good point and one that is missed all too often. Your troubles are not all over with a successful ejection. The same goes for much of the GAFA, or the Great Australian :mad: All. And in fact the RCAF has never used a single-engine jet dedicated to air defense - the Voodoo did that job during the F-104 era, having replaced the CF-100.

What the Canadians should really do is build the Arrow 2020 with a bloody great AESA, F110 engines and a bay full of Meteors. Suck it Ivan!

Finnpog - The JSF has created more bitter old cynics than you can imagine. And of course the result of chasing the Holy Grail is that you get your head bitten off by a rabbit, or the French squash you with a flying cow.

[SpazSinbad]

LO, as mentioned earlier if the F-35B KPP (from the 'Scorecard' article) is "sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD" then what is a GULF hot day? Thanks.

[Finnpog]

But...what is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

African, or European?

[LowObservable]

Blue. No yel-- Auuuuuuuugh!

Spaz - I don't know specifically, but I suspect if you search Engines' and Not-a-boffin's posts you may find information of value.

[SpazSinbad]

LO making assertions that cannot be backed up are not useful. How about you search to back up your 'nebulous claim'. Thanks. Sharkey Ward makes similar claims without attribution. It is a bit pathetic IMHO.

[Heathrow Harry]

maybe we should run a sweepstake on who will pull the plug on their F-35 buy first.....

Normally it's the Canadians or the Norwegians..................... two big countries with (relatively) small populations whose military have top table aspirations and whose politicians like spending money on "social" issues

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The Conservative Canadian Government is desperate to spend money on the F-35. So much so that they've ignored all the procedures for purchasing (you wouldn't be allowed to buy a box of pencils the way they've gone about F-35). Problem is the Auditor General has just hung the dirty washing up in public, and the backlash may lead to the cancellation.

Canada is not all pinko liberals; think oil sands, seal clubbing and hockey. It's an interesting mix.

[Lowe Flieger]

..who will pull the plug on their F-35 buy first...Finnpog's description of the programme being a giant job creation scheme is, I think, uncomfortably close to the truth. F35 is so important to the US military/industrial heartbeat that it's too big to fail. And other countries have a finger in this pie too, so, to a lesser degree, have the same sort of motivation. If the programme survives and prospers as a commercial success, those governments want to be associated with that success, even if it is only a relatively small percentage of the whole. So, while the F35's trials and tribulations raise the fear of failure and spectre of additional cost which suggests they should get out, there is a counter-balancing fear of success if they do. Making a decision is therefore dangerous and most politicians will choose to do nothing if the opportunity presents itself. Once more, I support Finnpog's analysis that the military objectives of the people who eventually have to fly the plane into battle are probably not the most important issue for the continuation of the programme.

Now, if F35 were a Euro-consortium programme, it would have shaken itself to bits long ago. If the US were a customer rather than producer, it would have cancelled way back and made such a dent in the production numbers that the programme would crash anyway, assuming it came through the Euro-politics. But the way it is, with the US the biggest customer and manufacturer, it is likely to survive as a commercial programme, even if initial capability does not turn out to be what was expected. Capability will be developed over a long period. This happens with complex military programmes, but F35 will likely really push the boundaries at this stage as it pushed reliance on simulation and modelling too far at an earlier one.

The biggest threat to the programme is US cancellation, which is the fear that rattled export customers when the Pentagon slowed production down a couple of months ago. I think it would take a significant new technical issue for that to happen, an as yet unknown show-stopper. As far as any outsider can tell, this is unlikely. But only a complete collapse of capability is likely to deflect the US from continuing to support it's military manufacturing base. It would be a monumental dent in their credibility too, so further glitches will not be enough to derail the project, even if the accumulation of such problems erodes military capability.

Now, an export customer or two might cut and run, and this will impact pricing somewhat. LM will work hard to sell the dream to a new client fearful of being left behind or anxious to join the big boys, and this would take up the slack. Most, I think, will wait and see. Stay with the party for now and see how it looks in a few years time.

At present F35 excites public debate because times are hard, government spending is under scrutiny, there are technical challenges which put more pressure on price and delivery dates and a strong whiff of political incompetence and public service ineptitude wherever you look. So, F35 is a politically-driven programme for now. It will only become a military programme again several years into operational use, when upgrades and associated costs to make it work as required can be assimilated in smaller, more manageable phases. These will attract little attention outside military circles but will probably determine if it's the fighting machine everyone hoped for at the outset.

[LowObservable]

Fox3 - Cancellation may be a few steps down the road. On the other hand, imposition of a cost cap will cause problems unless the program stays on plan, which would be a first.

Spaz - No need to be rude, sunshine. I was commenting on what I recalled reading here and where I remembered reading it (from two generally pro-JSF posters). At a certain point you need to take on some responsibility for doing your own research, because I have neither the time for, nor any interest in doing it for you.

[SpazSinbad]

LO, back at you: "...At a certain point you need to take on some responsibility for doing your own research, because I have neither the time for, nor any interest in doing it for you."

I'm willing to provide my own research to all on 'Carrier Landing' for all manner of aircraft, including the F-35B/C. It is clear you have nothing to back up your claim and I'm not going to do 'your research' for you. You make the claim - you back it up. Thanks for the effort though.

_How to Deck Land March 2012 PDF 2GB folder name:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791#cid=CBCD63D6340707E6&id=CBCD63D6340707E6%21296

HowToDeckLand13MARCH2012.pdf name of PDF in 20 parts which re-assembled make a '2GB PDF'.

[LowObservable]

Spaz - Let me make it clear that I am not interested in debating you about this, still less download two gigabytes of randomness. I was not trying to claim anything (because I'm not aware of any official source), merely to point to a possible answer as to why the UK led the way in SRVL, by way of helping the conversation along.

[FB11]

LO/Spaz,

Is your debate about why SRVL existed for the UK F-35B?

Yes, it's because of marginal F-35B performance in the UK (and US) 'hot/tropical' day criteria.

Do you need more?

FB11

[LowObservable]

FB - Thanks.

In your view, was there a reason that the UK was leading on SRVL (with, IIRC, the National Accounting Office mentioning its necessity)?

Different emphasis, or a different flight deck shape that provided the opportunity?

[FB11]

LO,

The UK would never do something purely because opportunity presented itself. Not when it costs money.

SRVL is required if a B model is to ever safely carry a useful warload and have an option of bringing it back to a QEC in operationally representative environmental conditions.

The QEC deck is big enough for SRVL. Other STOVL decks are not.

[LowObservable]

"SRVL is required if a B model is to ever safely carry a useful warload and have an option of bringing it back to a QEC in operationally representative environmental conditions.

"The QEC deck is big enough for SRVL. Other STOVL decks are not."

There is a lot there to ponder, FB.

Are we saying that "other STOVL decks" (do we mean the narrow LHA/LHD?) don't have the option of returning a "useful warload" under "operationally representative environmental conditions"?

Because VLBB including weapons... was sorta why we got into this in the first place.

[FB11]

LO,

If you look at the deck layout of an LHA or LHD and consider the other assets on board you will be able to make your own sensible judgement on the safe recovery of an aircraft doing around 35 knots along the deck on landing with no arrested 'hold back' from a conventional cable.

VLBB is physics limited as you know. A F-35B isn't going to get lighter and the current VLBB KPP is challenging. With the assumption you will always want at least the 'standard' load (already a pretty limited loadout in a B) this simply means you have a tighter margin for fuel and the motor wears out quicker.

If we go back to the B, it would be good if we could look at where we will be in 10 or 15 years time when we will have tired engines and a heavier basic aircraft. On an aircraft that will have another 15 to 20 years ahead of it. It won't be pretty for those who can only VL onto their landing spot if they want to bring anything useful back to their ship.

You could also look now at how you are going to bring back anything other than 2 firecrackers in the belly from the first day of service if all you can do is VL.

[Mach Two]

I agree. It's already pushing its mass limit and we know it will only keep getting heavier. The vertical option comes with too many capability limitations. Mind you, so does being single engine. Options are being examined very carefully.

[LowObservable]

FB, thanks again.

Having had some involvement in the early service intro of Concorde, there's an interesting parallel with the B: Concorde's nominal payload (100 pax and bags, 20-25000 klb) was a tiny fraction of TOW (408 klb IIRC), so very small percentage increases in OEW, or declines in aero-propulsion efficiency, could wipe it out. And TOW was maxed.

Likewise, the B's weapon bringback is a small fraction of VL weight, which cannot itself be increased without upgrading the entire propulsion system - engine, fan, transmission.

Conversely, if you look at history's more successful aircraft, many either started with a very healthy payload margin or were adapted through-life to have one, through higher operating weights and more power.

[FB11]

LO,

Thanks. It's lucky that we are focussed on the cost of cats and traps and not the cost and capability of the aircraft.

Strange that the B costs more to buy, costs more to fly each hour, you need more of.them, carries less over a shorter distance and we're worried about a low risk installation of EMALS and AAG because it's cost is more than anticipated.

Penny wise dollar foolish.

[Not_a_boffin]

Bear in mind, it's cost is probably not more than anticipated. However, what is being presented as conversion cost may be.

[FB11]

The cost of conversion is more than the cost of keeping Queen Elizabeth as a STOVL carrier no matter how much the CV conversion cost has been skewed.

The point is that you are not hearing anyone commenting on the long term financial impact of F-35B yet the costs of that aircraft are increasing by the minute. Odd that we are tumbling towards a decision to revert STOVL with no apparent concern for the bigger 30 year F-35B mortgage payments for less capability.

[Not_a_boffin]

Agreed. And that's if F35B survives.......

Snatching defeat from the jaws of a victory springs to mind.

My point was, some are being seduced by the no conversion = two operable carriers argument on the basis of flawed (inflated) conversion costs. For the budgetted amount, suspect you could get two conversions, particularly with QE done post 2020 (far end of EPP).

[Bengo]

Indeed, but the viewpoint here is a Treasury one, not a military capability one. Treasury thinking probably goes something like:

Cost of F35 - not known, but nothing like predictions and higher than we want.
Cost of converting QE's - not certain but significant and MoD always gets taken for a ride by Contractors.
Probability of killing off both QE's in SDR 2015- High.

Optimum Treasury solution:

Opt for F35B now (real costs of which are later) so no conversion costs now to be wasted in next SDR.

Hope to Cancel F35 entirely later. Then buy cheap manufacturing licence for something else to deal with industrial issues if needed.


All easily spun as MoD balancing budget, achieving F35 IOC with first QE, maintaining interoperability with USMC etc etc.

Cynical? Moi?

Still, I hope I'm wrong. The old Ark's Roof was a fun place to be once you got up the learning curve. The Invincibles and Hermes with SHAR were much more relaxed, even nearly forgiving by comparison.

N

[t43562]

I don't know anything about any of this so my question should be seen purely as one arising from reading this discussion:

It has been said that operations with a catapult are about a great combination of all the elements. Lots of training is needed and crews need to remain current. I was reading about the pre deployment training of one of the US carriers recently and it seemed very extensive. Could this be the cost that's making people pause for thought? i.e. a very large fixed cost that cannot ever be put aside?

In the computing world I see lots of systems of great capability and cheap unit cost whose running cost is moderate but which don't run well unless you maintain about 10 very expensive people to look after them and those people have to stay on the system to maintain their knowledge. The system has to be running continuously for them to be able to do this. The company could buy simple, crappier software and much more expensive hardware to run it and be able to put those skilled people to use in generating new revenue.

I know this isn't the same but I am wondering if there is any similarity. Is the B something that is expensive to buy and fly but doesn't need such large and continuously commited and trained group of people to be effective?

[LowObservable]

t43562 - That has been the theory. Because the B is much easier to land (an operation which is automated to a remarkable degree) the carrier group spends less time working up in home waters and more time available to generate sorties at full rate, anywhere that it might be.

It's also been suggested here that the RAF liked the idea of Joint Force F-35B because you don't have to be a full-time carrier pilot (locked inside big grey floaty thing with a bunch of matelots) to be ship-capable.

However, you're not just training pilots, but the whole wing - maintenance, armourers, deck crew, helo crews - all performing a complicated ballet in a confined space, on a much bigger scale than SHAR or JFH.

And even if you don't go all the way to autoland - surely FBW and full-time autothrottle have to make the job easier? Typhoon, I believe, has a landing mode where you basically dial in the airspeed and hold a HUD pipper on the landing spot, to reduce scatter if you want to use a short runway.

[Heathrow Harry]

see this weeks "Flight" for further discussion of operations afloat

basically if the RN try and re-invent the wheel after 40++ years instead of following USN practices it will be a terrible cock-up

[FB11]

t43562,

I'm afraid you don't get something for nothing.

There are indeed less personnel directly related to the launch and recovery of a B vice a C but you need more in other areas if we revert to B.

In order to produce the same effect as a C with a B, you will either need more aircraft (= more maintainers) or fly the same aircraft more often (= more maintainers).

And the training burden reduction inherent in C operations when compared with legacy (even the USN is looking at reducing the training burden with a C) will offer relative savings.

[longer ron]

basically if the RN try and re-invent the wheel after 40++ years instead of following USN practices it will be a terrible cock-up

They will not do that,the USN procedures will do just fine LOL :ok:

[LowObservable]

FB11 - Not to mention that the B carries an extra complete, dissimilar propulsion system = more maintainers.

[t43562]

Thanks very much, for that explanation, LO and FB11. It makes the whole thing more comprehensible.

It is obviously an argument that needs a spreadsheet model and accurate data. Danger of having insufficiently powerful capability vs trying to operate a model that only the Americans have a big enough margin of wealth to be sure they can always maintain.

Might be a question of how fragile each option is. e.g. how easily can one lose capability how hard to regain it. Is all the complexity at the dangerous end or in some hangar where there is time. Is there any way to operate a degraded capability or do you need every bit of a big operation to be perfect for it to work at all. If the americans solve problems with money then that might present problems for anyone else and their experience might be no more than interesting.

Hence the incredible difficulty for someone without any experience like me or the rest of the public in knowing what to think.

[LowObservable]

t...

There's also a strategic issue. Carriers have had a longer service life than fighter aircraft types. Only two US carriers have been commissioned since the Super Hornet became operational.

It is as close to certain as we get in this business that there will be CATOBAR aircraft in service and under development through the life of the QEs, because that is a major US strategic capability.

There are few who would argue seriously that the Marine STOVL capability is at the same level of importance. The B came close to being chopped in 2010. Given its performance, likely operating costs and the budget environment, its survival is not a given.

[Finningley Boy]

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:)

[glojo]

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.

[Not_a_boffin]

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.

[mmitch]

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

[green granite]

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.

[Finningley Boy]

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:)

[fallmonk]

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 !

[Not_a_boffin]

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.

[BUCC09]

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.

[Bastardeux]

Is there an undeclared £1Bn associated with Tornado GR4 extension in service?

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

[Finningley Boy]

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:)

[Bastardeux]

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...

[Finnpog]

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

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.

[Finningley Boy]

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:)

[Darren_P]

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


http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/14/aca9b5b0-558b-43cd-8e34-6a2b879f0b00.Full.jpg

[GeeRam]

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?

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:

[Finningley Boy]

Bugger the French Carrier!

FB

[Milo Minderbinder]

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

[glojo]

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'

[Finnpog]

EXCLUSIVE: Cameron makes humiliating u-turn on future of Britain's aircraft carriers | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130612/EXCLUSIVE-Cameron-makes-humiliating-u-turn-future-Britains-aircraft-carriers.html)

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

[Bastardeux]

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

[Lima Juliet]

Rolling Goat anyone?..

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

[Cows getting bigger]

This is all getting a bit embarrassing..

[Bastardeux]

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...

[Finnpog]

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."

[Lowe Flieger]

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.

[Bastardeux]

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.

[Finnpog]

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.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

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

[Finningley Boy]

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.

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:)

[glojo]

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/ii527/glojoh/th_MV-22Wasp1.jpg

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii527/glojoh/th_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?

During Wasp’s four-month maintenance availability conducted earlier this year, major modifications were completed to various elements of the ship including the flight deck and combat systems equipment. These modifications included moving the flight deck’s “Tram Line,” or yellow line, which is used by pilots to guide them when performing short landings, closer to the port side of the ship. Also, the aft NATO Sea sparrow missile launcher mount was removed and replaced with a “dummy” launcher. 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.

[GreenKnight121]

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. (http://www.thermioninc.com/nonskid.php)
(http://www.thermioninc.com/nonskid.php)
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/tt271/SpudmanWP/thermionwaspbutlerzoomagain_630-1.jpg

[glojo]

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

[Engines]

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

[John Farley]

Is it just me, or is there a baseline presumption of trouble/stupidity/omission when it comes to the JSF programme?

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

[cokecan]

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...

[Finningley Boy]

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

FB

[LFFC]

Britain faces £50bn more spending cuts and tax rises to cover elderly care, warns IMF (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9210207/Britain-faces-50bn-more-spending-cuts-and-tax-rises-to-cover-elderly-care-warns-IMF.html)

To bring public debt down from 82.5pc to 60pc of GDP and pay for rising health and pension costs, the UK will need "a fiscal adjustment strategy" over the next 18 years equivalent to 11.3pc of national output, or roughly £170bn, according to IMF estimates. By comparison, the existing £123bn austerity programme is equivalent to 7.5pc of GDP.

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!

[Engines]

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

[LFFC]

... and another viewpoint!

Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/17/f35_carriers_plot_by_bae_and_raf/)

Comment The Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010 was, overall, a total c0ckup: but there was one major decision in it which made good sense for British servicemen and taxpayers. It now seems more and more likely that Prime Minister David Cameron, prompted by arms mammoth BAE Systems and by the RAF, intends to reverse that move and continue the destruction of British combat power which has been underway now for more than a decade.

[althenick]

You are quoting that idiot on this forum????

I dont like to say it but I can see where he's coming from. JSF will no doubt be a very good aircraft but If the RN were to get Superbug or Rafale instead then it would create a few options -

If the political will was there the government could lease some of these aircraft now and the FAA/RAF could stand an independent squadron with fully trained Air and Ground crews ready for POW

As said the buy would be cheaper and it would open the market for other Aircraft types

Flight safety - If it was between stealth and two engines whilst flying over water then I think the choice is a no-brainer


Just a few thoughts

[Lowe Flieger]

Engines,

The fact that F35 is under public scrutiny is a positive as it offers hope that past failures are less likely to be repeated. Avoiding the mistakes of over-promising or under-costing, or whatever combination of them it is that results in too many military projects going off the rails must be best for everybody. The days when the taxpayer would just pick up the tab are gone and unlikely to return for a while yet.

..the key is how well they meet the KPPs and other requirements that the customers and the design teams have set...Totally agree - getting it to work is the most important objective left to play for.

My opinion remains that it would be unwise to place firm orders for any version until cost, delivery and performance are much more certain.

[Not_a_boffin]

What we have here is a confluence of two programmes that have been linked, probably shouldn't have been, but for a number of co-incidental reasons are inextricably intertwined.

Once upon a time, there was a Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter, which then turned into a STOVL Strikefighter, which also turned into Joint Affordable Strike Technology. That beast was supposed to replace the A10, AV8B, F16 and (implicitly) the A6. Some thought it would also replace the F14. By virtue of part of it being STOVL it also got the prime position replacing the SHAR (and IT/SP AV8). Today we call that beast F35 A, B and C.

Once upon a time there was also a ship called CVSG(R). Then it became CV(R) and in around about 1998 it became CVF. There is a reason that the (R), became an F and that was the realisation (and endorsement) that the UK didn't need a replacement ASW helicopter carrier with the ability to carry a limited number of f/w aircraft. What it needed was a maritime capability to provide both f/w Fleet Air Defence and deployable strike capability for expeditionary warfare. The requirement for Fleet AD has not gone away (despite the enforced capability holiday on retirement of SHAR) and is complementary to delivery of Strike (one set of support facilities, crew etc). That means a substantially bigger ship than CVS, which led inexorably to CVF. The difference in size between CVS and CVF is partly a consequence of this, but also due to correcting the inherent limitations of the CVS design. However, despite size not being proportional to cost, the difference between CVS and CVF/QEC has been used as a stick to beat the project with on a purely subjective basis for the last 10+ years. Shrinking the design has been looked at, but gave little cost saving for a significant loss in capability. It did lead to significant delay and consequent cost escalation.

Once CVF/QEC became the size it is, it might have been more sensible to divorce aircraft choice from type of operation. That stage was probably reached in 2004 when a decision could have been made to go with FA18 or Rafale and get a 5th gen aircraft later. Trouble was, EMALS was seen as very risky at that stage and steam cats as undesirable (manpower heavy, likely to be replaced), so the STOVL comfort blanket looked safer, particularly once JFH formed. On top of all this was the absolute refusal of anyone in MoD to commit to carriers (largely based on the "size" perception, combined with the F35 cost profile), which led to significant cost escalation in the ships through delay.

Only later, as F35B struggled, did F35C start looking more attractive, but still EMALS was "high-risk" until fairly recently. Trouble was, F35C then starts to experience issues, just as EMALS began to deliver. However, EMALS is still likely to offer the best long-term option, particularly when you consider that a successor STOVL aircraft to F35B is highly unlikely (one of the reasons the adaptable CVF design was proposed in the first place).

So here we are, apparently about to make a (wrong imho) decision to follow a blind alley for short-term cost saving reasons. I have been particularly critical of the MoD (but mainly The Great Financial Genius - Cyclops) in terms of the decisions made - or more precisely, the decision to avoid decisions. That vacillation has led to the ship project (though should more precisley be the both ship and aircraft projects) gaining a reputation for being a basket case. I stand by those criticisms, but in fairness, there has been a confluence of competing risks that have been difficult to balance. Doesn't excuse the failure to sh1t or get off the pot, but does illustrate the potential for unsightly skidmarks.

Finally, to echo Engines - whatever happens with F35, getting a STOVL aircraft to sea for what will probably be only the third distict type operationally in fifty years is no mean achievement. That (and the other elements in the wider programme) deserve respect technically, whatever one thinks about the wider programme management.

[LOAgent]

After three or four failed programmes (ATF, NATF, A-12, F-22)

The F22 is most definitely not a failed program. Expensive yes, unmatched in A-A capability yes, failed no.

[kbrockman]

Finally, to echo Engines - whatever happens with F35, getting a STOVL aircraft to sea for what will probably be only the third distict type operationally in fifty years is no mean achievement. That (and the other elements in the wider programme) deserve respect technically, whatever one thinks about the wider programme management.

I have to agree that ,with all the problems faced by the JSF program, we don't always seem to give enough consideration of the technical achievements made by the engineers and all others involved of what is undoubtedly a massively ambitious program.

Having said that, I also truely admire what people achieved, technologically speaking, with programs like Concorde or even earlier the Hughes flying boat.
That doesn't mean they where good ideas to begin with, for their intended use they where pretty much either useless or overly complicated and expensive.

Because it is the only available option for the US , the JSF program will be a commercial succes and I'm sure most military organizations will make it work and use it as the powerful weapon it must be.
But at what cost?

I'm not only referring to the dollar/pound cost, but also the inevitable loss of possible manufacturers (most notably over here, in Europe) that are able to build new fighters independently, the loss of quantity of fighters just to add a very debatable increase in quality, the loss of sufficient amount of flying time because of excessive flighthour cost ,eg; just look at the latest intentions made public by Norway to decrease the number of allocated flying hours for the JSF (and numbers ordered BTW).

Last but not least, and it comes back as an issue time and time again, 1 type of fighter that has to do all the work for different services in a different role is a bad idea, it is a recurring trap the military and the politicians seem to step in every single time.
It adds needless complexity in the beginning of its carreer and makes it very hard in the future to both upgrade without loosing most of its commonality with the rest of its users.

As a Belgian I have become convinced that we will also go for this LM adventure solely because the Dutch are involved so deeply and we are effectively building up 1 common military between Belgium, Luxembourg and
the Netherlands ( see comments of Hans Hillen and P de Crem ).
We'll be glad to have 68 planes to divide between the 3 of us reducing us ever further into an ever more insignificant force, a(n even bigger) joke in the NATO alliance.

The budget is still big, compared with other poorer nations, but nonetheless under severe strain and will remain so for some years to come, programs like the JSF are the last thing we need now, they undermine our ability to field sufficient numbers of both well trained troops equipped with weapons in sufficient numbers.

last but not least,
Just look at the last 20-30 years and what this whole stealth saga has done to the biggest and most powerful military in the world , the F117, B2, F22, complex combatships and others , are all technological marvels by themselves but both operationally and/or financially complete nightmares ,all used in heavily reduced numbers and very challenging to upgrade to newer standards later in their carreers.


¨[end of another useless rant]

[Easy Street]

kbrockman :D

No matter how good the F22 and F35 are as individual platforms, they can't defeat the basic law that you can't be in two places at once. I really hope the planners and operational analysts have done their sums right because I have a nagging feeling that a medium-sized force of 'legacy' aircraft, without much care for losses, could embarrass us.

[ORAC]

ISD has slipped from 2012/3 (and I attended the first programme briefs) to around 16/17. DOD Buzz: More cost overruns, delays and uncertainty for F-35 (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/20/more-cost-overruns-delays-and-uncertainty-for-f-35/) ......F-35 program boss Vice Adm. David Venlet told lawmakers he still does not have an estimate for when the F-35 will reach its initial operational capability, although the committee members could not be bothered to ask why. GAO’s report gives an explanation: The program is not performing reliably enough for them to try to guess: “Until greater clarity is provided on the program’s path forward, the military services are likely to wait to commit to new initial operational capability dates,” GAO said........
---------------------------------

In the meantime.....

US Navy Looks For New Jet, On Top Of Its Trillion-Dollar Model (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/04/us-navy-looks-for-new-jet-on-top-of-its-trillion-dollar-model/)

On Friday, the US Navy quietly released a “market survey” asking the big defence contractors for their “candidate[s]” for “strike fighter aircraft” in the decades to come. Which is a little weird, considering the Pentagon is currently spending a trillion dollars on just such an aircraft: the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.

The stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is supposed to one day make up 90 per cent or more of America’s combat aviation power. But the program has been hit with all kinds of expensive technical glitches and delays. So the Navy has long hedged against the giant JSF bet by buying more of its beloved F/A-18 Super Hornet; that way, the Navy can keep flying modern fighters, even if the JSFs slip. With this “market survey”, the Navy appears to be making a second hedge: a Son of the Super Hornet — one that would come online after the F/A-18s are retired in the 2030s — just in case the JSF flames out entirely.

“That’s absolutely not the right interpretation,” says Capt Frank Morley, the Navy’s program manager for the Super Hornet and its cousin, the EA-18 jamming Growler. But if the Son of the Super Hornet isn’t a hedge against the JSF becoming too expensive for the cash-strapped military, then the aircraft carrier decks of the future may be stocked with redundant planes.

After the Super Hornets retire, the Navy wants “a multi-role strike capability” that can fly from a carrier, according to the “market survey” that the Navy released Friday. Some of its primary missions: “air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW) and close air support (CAS)”.

And that sounds suspiciously like the role that the Navy’s version of the JSF is supposed to play. That plane, already the most expensive weapons program in the history of mankind, is in serious budget trouble. In addition to newly discovered design flaws, the Government Accountability Office last month found additional problems with its software and safety systems. The military wants the F-35 to ultimately replace nearly every tactical fixed-wing aircraft the Navy, Marines and Air Force fly, but the admiral in charge of the program has backed off the 2018 estimate for when the plane is expected to enter the air fleet.

So the Navy has bought more Super Hornets as delays plague the JSF. At the Navy’s annual Sea Air Space convention, Morley self-congratulated by noting that the Super Hornet is “on time, on cost, and on schedule.”

But the Son of the Super Hornet, the Navy’s survey swears, isn’t supposed to be a backup in case the JSF fails. Instead, it will be a “complementary … asset to the F-35C and an unmanned persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) vehicle with precision strike capability.” In other words, it’ll fly in a carrier air wing alongside the JSF and the Navy’s future carrier-based drone, currently known as the X-47B.

But if so, that raises a question of redundancy. Both the JSF and the post-Super Hornet plane would be performing very similar manned strike missions. (Although the survey doesn’t suggest the post-Super Hornet will need to be stealthy, a central asset of the JSF.)

Morley strongly denies that the Son of the Super Hornet poses a threat to the JSF or will replicate its missions. “We are an all-F-18 fleet today,” Morley tells Danger Room. “In that 2020-2030 time frame, those decades, we intend to be a Super Hornet-JSF fleet. And then those Super Hornets are going to be ageing out, those earlier ones, and we need to be a JSF-and-something-else fleet.”..........

[GreenKnight121]

The last paragraph of that article is the only accurate part.

The rest is a journo trying to create a false impression by distorting and outright falsifying the situation... as well as calling a senior Naval Officer a liar.

The reality is that ONLY the legacy Hornets (F/A-18A/B/C/D) are to be replaced by F-35C... the Super Hornets were ALWAYS to be operated beside F-35C, NOT replaced by them!


The original plan was to replace the F/A-18E/F/G much later with UCAVs ONLY.

This proposal for yet another manned carrier strike-fighter seems to be for a less "cutting-edge" aircraft.... to fill out the numbers that UCAVs were supposed to have filled all on their own.

So much for that "The F-35 is the last manned fighter we will buy" hype the DOD was spouting before 2010!


The real headline and story should have been "Navy loses confidence in Unmanned Combat Drones, seeks manned substitute!".

[Engines]

LOA,

Thanks for picking me up on that - I included the F-22 as a 'failed' programme not on capability grounds (it's an awesome technical exercise) but on affordability and sustainability.

F-22, in my personal view, stands alongside the Typhoon as an example of what I consider to be the last of the 'gold plated dinosaur' combat aircraft projects. These were characterised by going for performance at just about any price, massive programme delays (if anyone thinks F-35 is late, try an analysis of the F-22 timelines) and simply eye-watering cost. The result is a programme that was cut from 1,000 aircraft to 138, and became unaffordable even for the USAF at the height of the Bush spending bulge.

Another characteristic of these programmes was a tendency to home in on one single role (in both cases AD) and make a series of decisions that reduced the aircraft's ability to undertake other roles.

The end result is programmes that consume huge proportions of national defence budgets (Typhoon is a really good example) to deliver just one capability. These were never affordable in any real sense - the world economic crisis has just exposed the problem, not caused it. And that is why I think, in the final analysis, the F-22 'failed' - it's just not a sustainable model.

F-35 is different because if is aiming to cover multiple roles with a common basic airframe and (more importantly) common avionics fit. It was also held down to a single engined single seat solution - cost driven. As I've often said, these decisions can (and in free society, must) be questioned - but in my view, the wider analysis by the DoD back in the 90s was right.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[glojo]

I really enjoy reading the F-35 threads, sensible questions have ALWAYS been answered in a polite, constructive manner and by people who know what they are saying and always manage to keep their cool when answering even the most silly of questions.

A very big THANK YOU :ok::ok:

I am sure the F-35B is a very nice aircraft but is it the right choice?

Is the Typhoon allegedly the best aircraft of its type outside of the USA
Is the Challenger tank possibly the best tank in the World?
Is the type 45 destroyer possibly the best warship of its size?

It is quite right and proper to give our military the best of equipment IF we intend being a nation that wants to be a force on the World stage but I just do not think a carrier with a single type of fixed wing capability is good enough, will it be as good as the Chinese, Indian or possibly the Russians when their carrier comes out of refit?

Stealth is obviously good, but if we lack that ability namely the F-35C, then how good is the F-18 Growler? In Libya this aircraft allowed the RAF to safely go where they needed to go to deploy their weapons, could we not perhaps develop EW as opposed to stealth?

The F-35C carrier gives us options, the F-35B is surely a cul-de-sac with no options and no future after the B either gets chopped or ends its career as the last STOVL aircraft. Would the F-35B ever land on the deck of a ship that has not been deemed suitable to accept this unique aircraft? It is no lightweight Harrier that had a far lighter footprint, it is an amazing aircraft that is far heavier and as such might not be welcomed on an untried untested deck? (question, NOT a statement)

I am in the corner that predicts more back pedalling, more U-turns and more shrinkage.

For those that criticise the development of this latest aircraft, I ask this question... How can any private company possibly afford to develop a modern military aircraft without financial support from the relevant government. It is not rocket science to predict there will be problems and these issues will cost both time and money to rectify but can we ask private companies to be the sole funder of this procurement? (question)

[Finnpog]

I think that GreenKnight's comments raise another set of questions for the MoD.
If the F-35 was ony ever to replace the legacy Hornets, and have the Rhino work alongside them - then surely the Top Trumps inspired equation of
F-35 > Super Hornet
therefore the conclusion thatmit should be the only game in town is rendered a bit farcical.

So some FAA squadrons of E/F/G F-18s would not be quite as obselete or outdated as some would have us grockles believe.

[Willard Whyte]

Perhaps 'Uncle' Joe Stalin had a point when he's quoted as saying "quantity has a quality all its own".

[LowObservable]

Good comments as always.

There is a strong presumption in DC that the F-35B will survive because the Marines will not let it perish. But personally I sense a disturbance in the Force: the new and next generation flag ranks in the CV are seeing their future capability and affordability being sacrificed to the ambitions of Marine air. Basically, through the 2020s, the Navy gets 25 CV jets per year, which is not the historic replacement rate, but spends far more on TacAir acquisition than today because of the B.

The floating of F/A-XX - at the Navy League show this week - is not an accident. "Oh by the way, we're taking the first step in procuring a hot new fighter jet" is a tasty goat to dangle in front of the reptiles, and the Navy flags are smart enough to know it. Note also that Boeing briefed UltraBug for the first time in DC.

GK - I don't think unmanned CV has gone away. But for the moment it's being reoriented to persistence rather than the J-UCAS mission.

As for Lewis Page - even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Engines - Where are you getting 2016-17 ISD? The SAR says that no IOC will be announced until next year, and is specific that IOT&E will not complete until 2019. For a program of this size to try to declare IOC before IOT&E is complete (and reports out) would be a nightmare.

[Engines]

LO,

Good spot on the IOC, and you are absolutely right on the SAR content. However, in the UK, the ability to declare 'IOC' is FAR more flexible than that allowed to the US customers, where the fully independent OT&E setup calls the shots to a large extent. (Remember 'Case White' for Typhoon?)

If the UK wanted to achieve an earlier 'political' IOC for F-35B in a land based role with some form of 'undeclared' deck capability, I have no doubt that they could do that.

That said, your point is well made. I'd agree that a 'proper' IOC looks to be around 2019.

Best regards

Engines

[orca]

One assumes that in the 18 months since David Cameron and CAS both went on record as saying that the C model was more capable that an amount of money has been spent 'de-VSTOL-ing' the QECV design and CV-ing it.

I am also going to assume that there would be a cost associated with putting it all back to where it was 18 months ago, or at least making it look like it would do now had that decision not been made and taken.

So there really can't be a 'spend nothing' option here. To march on the bearing will cost the ludicrous figures (still drops in oceans compared to some projects) we have all become familiar with (and sceptical of) but has to be cheaper in the long term. To re-brigade back to VSTOL will not only mean Cameron saying he was wrong, that SDSR was wrong, that Labour was right etc etc. It will also mean that his government has delayed UK Maritime Strike and made it more expensive for no good reason.

We've all heard 1.7 Billion or similar or the upgrade, does anyone have a figure as to how much a down grade will now cost?

[TEEEJ]

First flight of UK F-35B serial ZM135

mNYD-F8SXfc&feature=related

[LowObservable]

Orca - The UK has signed a contract for the EMALS and AAG hardware, and since the US Navy has ordered the hardware for CVN-79, they're probably in no rush to buy it back from us. So presumably there is some cancellation liability.

[Not_a_boffin]

Not sure we have signed for the hardware, probably more like an MoU at this stage.

Orca - I doubt very much whether any significant sum has been spent on de-STOVL-ing either QE or PoW. What will have been done is a lot of initial scoping studies, with manhour totals in the tens of thousands, hundred at the outside. Cost incurred £5-10M tops.

However, that kind of reinforces the point that the £1.8Bn "conversion" cost is some sort of fantasy. I'll say it again until my head drops off - if the hardware is £500M (which it is), then £1.3Bn in manpower rates now would allow you to build Illustrious in her entirety thirty years ago! They (and I don't think it's BAES here) are making it up, but as it suits some agendas, that's the number.

Clunk.....

[John Farley]

Chaps

The team that briefed Cameron the weekend before the SDSR announcement and got him to change to the B were I am sure very convincing and professional. It was probably one of the best briefs that the PM has ever had.

It made the point that because the C had more range and payload than the B it "had more capability" and was therefore what the UK needed.

That was rather debatable. Yes the C has more payload and radius but it does not have the operating site flexibility of the B afloat or onshore. It needs more complicated ships and even they cannot operate for recovery in some sea states or visibilities. (How may helos fail to get aboard due motion and vis?) Plus of course there is also the CV skill aspects. You don't even need a PPL to be able to land a B vertically (thanks VAAC).

By any real objective analysis to say the C has more capability than the B is not totally true. It has different capabilities and one could argue the B is better suited to the things that the UK might wish to do.

Having said all that I don't think the B is really what the UK needs.

Supersonics and stealth come at a very large cost which the likes of the US, Russia and China might think value for money. But the UK?

Surely the UK needs lower costs plus REAL reliability and a proper number of aircraft? A Harrier III which would do .95 on the deck in the air to air config and only needed replenishment (not maintenance) for say 10 hours, with modest exhaust velocities and temps (because it did not have a supersonic capability) and VAAC no skill FBW handling would be a very useful piece of kit.

But there you go - real men do not bid for subsonic aircraft even though they are only going to use them in the tactical not strategic sense. For this you can blame internal service politics, inter-service ditto and personal agendas. Very sad.

[kbrockman]

John (or anybody else who knows about this),

Just a question as you seem to be the man to ask this.
I know it is a pointless question but I'm just asking out of my personal
technological interest.

Would the F32 conceived by Boeing have been a better platform for the VTOL variant?
I was just wondering about this because it seemed a lot simpler, more straightforward.

Because it had a harrier type set of swingnozzles (no extra liftfan) a centrally placed engine (good weight balance/ CoG) and a substantially lower empty weight combined with a lot of place to store fuel in that massive one piece deltawing, it seems that it would have been a better choice for the B (and maybe also C) version , no?

http://www.oocities.org/de/tommittler/us-air/xf32b.jpg