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

[Lima Juliet]

DBTW

Fairy Nuff - it was nearly 20 years ago. I do remember that MiG 29 from Belgrade was briefed as a threat to HVAs when I was doing Op DF in 93 - a year prior to NR's event.

I guess it's back to the thread?

LJ:ok:

[Widger]

I think that might have been some sort of veiled apology from LJ? Maybe not.

Op Deny Flight was an interesting one as it did demonstrate the complimentary nature of martime and land based air power. The F3 was mostly used at night as one of the few night capable AD assets. SHAR did not only do CAP but significant amounts of RECCE and CAS sorties day and night. I was one of the LOs in the CAOC and sat feet away from General 'Bear' Chambers and his Colonel Mary who made him blueberry muffins. I personally used to phone the ship asking them to fill in a sortie at often very short notice because Italy was clamped. The ships came up with the goods every time, and the General was particularly grateful. So what I say was not horse poo LJ. (Were you one of the crews that used to fly up for a day or two from GDC to Vicenza to get better rates, as the hotel you were staying in didn't earn you enough money?)

[Widger]

Sorry, Sorry,

That last comment was below the belt I know and very hurtful for a crab. I must be turning into Tourist!

[glojo]

As far as I am aware there is not one single senior Naval officer that has had any experience of serving aboard a conventional aircraft carrier? (question) yes we have pilots who are fortunate enough to deploy on US carriers but have any of these reached the dizzy heights of flag rank? I am CERTAIN that no Royal Air Force pilot has served on a conventional carrier and they will definitely have no idea of what this type of ship can bring to both the military and political table.

I have an open mind on who should command these vessels be they ex aviators or not as this decision is not as straight forward as it might first appear. A US carrier group will always have an experienced Admiral in command, this person is responsible for 'spreading the word and political power of the United States of America'. British carriers do sometimes embark a flag officer but there are times when the captain is in sole command of the carrier and its Air Group, so this officer has to be an all round switched on kiddy, both militarily and politically. If it is an ex aviator, then so be it, but it has to be the very best man for the job, be they ex wafoo, ex submariner or current General Service.

The other point I find boring is this sensitive skin that is continually cropping up on here and other threads. Every single Royal Navy contributor of any substance has to a man recognized the professionalism of their light blue counter part, every single man jack of them has said this. BUT they have also quite correctly pointed out that the nitty gritty air combat has been fought from our carriers! They have never and will never say it has been the sole domain of the Fleet Air Arm, they are simply saying that the pilots have been embarked aboard a floating airfield and boy has this fact caused issues.

The conventional carrier is not cheap, no one has pretended otherwise but as I keep saying, how many operational fast jet squadrons are there in the UK and what are they doing? Can it be a total ignorance of what the conventional carrier brings to the table that has seen these recent decisions being made in the way they have?

[Wrathmonk]

I am CERTAIN that no Royal Air Force pilot has served on a conventional carrier

What, not even the ones who did exchange tours on USN Prowlers and USN F18?

fast jet squadrons are there in the UK and what are they doing

UK QRA. Training to support operations (FI QRA, AFG). Maintaining readiness to deploy on 'Call Me Dave's' next big adventure.

And one small FJ is helping to raise awareness, and money, for the RAFBF.:E

Edited to add:

Just seen this -

The F3 was mostly used at night as one of the few night capable CAS assets.

:D

[Widger]

Edited, thank you for highlighting my mistook as my spillong is alwoos going wroong!

[glojo]

Apologies for that short post which I might delete :O.

If we are having RAF pilots deploy onto US carriers for the full deployments, lerarning the full skills of operating from the decks of these carriers including night flying etc then hats off to them. The shore based operational RAF squadrons are arguably an expensive way to use those resources and why not have them operate from carriers but of course retain one for the duties you have outlined. Far better to deploy from a fully equipped mobile airfield as opposed to what we saw over Libya?

And one small FJ is helping to raise awareness, and money, for the RAFBF:D:ok::O Touche

Get a blooming great windsock to drag behind the thing and let the general public KNOW what it is!!! Instead of looking like an escaped 'Loveheart' :O (As a homophobic recipient of aid from the RNBT I am fully supportive of these Trusts)

[Lima Juliet]

Widger

What would I apologise for? I think we have just agreed to differ!

I was also at CAOC5 with the 'Bear', whom I remember called me Leon for the first week as he hadn't got the hang of my nom de plume on my grow bag. Fortunately, for me I worked there for a few weeks or so, thus I was not investigated for allowance fiddling (were 't they Harrier mates in the end?).

Yes, the F3 was great for NVG night work - especially when escorting a French Puma to rescue one of your wonder jets pilots! ;)

LJ

[Tourist]

ICBM

"Perhaps if 1SL was an aviator not a sub/frigate driver, JFH would still be grooming dark and light blue cloth for JCA. Celebrating a combined success in Libya with the rest of Combat Air and training for STOVL CEPP as we speak. "

Fair point, however one of the bonuses of getting the carriers is that the the boss of the RN will probably become an aviator again like they were before we stepped away from proper conventional carriers.

When your "teeth" asset is the carrier rather than the bombers, then the route to 1SL will most palmost certainly involve Captain of a carrier just like the old days, and most (nearly all?) carrier captains are aviators.

Widger

Nice to see that you and engines are offloading me for the crab baiting. :p

Ivor Nydia

" If every other nation (USMC, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, India, Thailand etc) manages to commit naval aviation on varying degrees of a part-time basis, does the UK have to pay to do full-time USN tailhook-style carrier ops"

France is not part time, and has vastly lower OC than we aspire to due to their carrier problems.

Italy, Spain, Russia, India, Thailand etc are just playing at it.
It is better not to do it at all rather than just play at it. The worst waste of money is to spend 80% of whats needed and end up with a useless vanity project.

USMC are in no way part time on carrier or otherwise.
The USMC is about the same size as our entire armed forces, and vastly more capable due to their equipment and training budget.
With multiple carriers, they are in no way comparable. There is more to doing naval aviation properly than just the pilots, and the USMC take it very seriously.

[orca]

There is a sliding scale here that some obviously get, some clearly don't.

If you want to land on a carrier you can do it in a few seconds. Bell them up, ask where they are, gear down and VV jsut in front should crack it. If you want to be good at it you need to put aside a few days and find all sorts of weather.

If you want a whole squadron to be up to speed (defined as 'unlikely to crash if left to their own devices') then the aircrew will need about three weeks once you have taken the 1 in 7 days off and factored in weather and servicability.

If you want the fighter controllers to be good at the force marshal thing, and the ATC chaps to be good at getting you all down safely in ever increasing numbers you need to be onboard for at least a week after you were prepared to start pushing four ships off the front.

The deck team will take about a week of fourships etc to get used to it and then you can start the complex evolution of recovering fourships at the same time as launching them. Your chaps will start complaining at this point about not being able to get to the jets to fuel and arm them because someone else is quite selfishly trying to launch.

Once you have that cracked you can start thinking about holding a GCAS pair at alert whilst flying your four over four frag.

Not to worry though, because contrary to popular opinion you can actually be training on all these missions - it's not just about wasting fuel. But your planners and Fleet N7 probably need a kick every now and then to make sure the training is actually available.

At about this time Flyco can cope with just about anything up to the planning assumptions you told the ACC at the get go you could manage.

Which means it's time to embark the staff and get ACC talking to MCC about priorities etc and seeing if the deck, ship and weapon supply can cope with changing frag, dynamic targets, aircraft coming home late, ship needing to nip off to avoid submarine threat etc.

So. Assuming you want to be at high readiness as a driver takes a few days, delivering the UK a capability can takes about eight carefully scripted weeks.

Then you can go off to Bright Star, Magic Carpet whatever you fancy, and not embarass yourself. And yes if you are driver you will think one of two things. 1. "But I could do all this ages ago." or 2. "Wow, jets ranged, weapons correct, Green Crown actually there, E-3 talking to boat, Baggers talking to JTAC...it's all been worth it!"

And that is where JFH just about got (back) to when they were canned. I personally heard a OC JFH brief at Shriv that he considered his annual commitment to CVS to be 10 days. I was also there when the last one was stood in the ops room of a CVS briefing the 1 star on the DT his boys were about to service.

I personally thought the first an odd choice for OC of a Joint force the other (and the one before him) I considered a gentleman and one of the best officers I had served under.

[ICBM]

Glojo,

If we are having RAF pilots deploy onto US carriers for the full deployments, lerarning the full skills of operating from the decks of these carriers including night flying etc then hats off to them. The shore based operational RAF squadrons are arguably an expensive way to use those resources and why not have them operate from carriers but of course retain one for the duties you have outlined. Far better to deploy from a fully equipped mobile airfield as opposed to what we saw over Libya?

The RAF and RN have been exchanging for years and years. Lets take the RAF then... they have had conventional carrier exchanges at no less than 3 US Naval Service bases for a large number of years. In fact, a recently retired 4* officer was also an exchange officer who had carrier experience. The problem has been that, until the sudden change from the -B to the -C, conventional UK carrier ops was nothing but a long forgotten myth of the 1970s Cold War era when folk talked of angled decks, steam catapults, jets that were as heavy as the ship but still got airborne, the Buccaneer, the Buccaneer and...oh, yes, the Buccaneer! So, those exchange officers with carrier expertise came back in the 80s, 90s and 'noughties' with no platform to continue their newly-acquired skill. So, back to their old jet and bravo old bean.

18 months ago the unthinkable happened. The UK actually wanted an angled deck, special electric catapults....you get my drift right?! Anyway, many people thought that Britain's Navy would once again be a huge maritime player on the World stage with our two 65,000kg wonderous carriers and a bunch of amazing stealth jets: Awesome indeed! But, it proved to be a tease. We are now left licking our wounds because we're back where we began before that glimmer of hope came our way. People are upset, and some shall forever haunt these forums to speak of the F-35C with a fondness comparable to the Buccaneer, but it shall, alas, never be....

So, Glojo, the skills that the current exchange pilots are getting are not directly transferable to the ramped QEC. That said, their knowledge and experience of the big deck environment and of being on a bigger carrier; the pace of life; the sights, sounds and smells etc, are all relevant and very transferable. However, from a pure piloting perspective, the best place right now to 'keep one's hand in' would be either flying the F-35B in the USA or flying the AV-8B with the USMC. STOVL Ops are where we're headed.

[500N]

glojo
"As far as I am aware there is not one single senior Naval officer that has had any experience of serving aboard a conventional aircraft carrier?"
Something that was written during the Libyan campaign jogged my memory that the 1SL had served on a carrier so I checked.

The current 1SL commanded the Aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious as did the previous 1SL.

(and while checking the above was correct, I noticed that Admiral Sir George Zambella also served on the HMS Illustrious as a helicopter pilot).

[Willard Whyte]

Illustrious (R06) is, was, an Invincible Class carrier, NOT a conventional carrier.

Illustrious (R87) was a conventional carrier that was in service until 1954.

'Conventional carrier' is a phrase that, to most people here I think, would bring to mind catapults and arrestor gear.

There may be serving RN who were aboard Ark Royal, our last conventional carrier, but they'd be aged mid 50s and would, 34 years ago, have been quite junior.

[glojo]

Wise words ICBM and thank you WW for the clarification... Ark Royal whose final voyage was way back in 1978. Phantoms, Buccaneers and the Gannet....

Definitely a possibility to still ahve a serving sailor but I doubt they would have held a senior position on that Audacious ship! :rolleyes::O

[Navaleye]

I suspect any serving officers that served on Ark Royal (IV) are enjoying a well earned rest after 34 years. We are not going back to that, so lets embrace the new world and show what we can do. I have every faith in the navy to make this work and it will. So lets get a reality check and stop going round in circles.

[GreenKnight121]

Italy, Spain, Russia, India, Thailand etc are just playing at it.

I'll agree about Italy, Spain, Thailand (especially)... and even Russia.

But India? They have maintained carrier capability continuously since 1962, and currently have 1 "second-hand" carrier in service, a second "second-hand" carrier on sea trials and scheduled for delivery at the end of this year, and a third "home-built" carrier about half-completed!

They are even in the design phase for their second home-built carrier, which is planned to bring their fleet to 3 active ships (since Viraat, ex-Hermes, will be decommissioned no later than the commissioning of their first home-built carrier). And serious consideration is being taken for this second home-build to have "cat&trap" fitting, although it might just be a repeat of the first, due to budget considerations.


That seems like a pretty darned serious devotion to a real carrier force to me!

[Tourist]

GreenKnight

Yes, fair point, they don't really deserve to be in that group.

What I should have said is that India is investing a lot in getting to a decent capability because they recognise the requirement, but as yet do not have a serious capability.

Russia could be said to be the other side of the curve.
They used to want a decent capability, but pretty much gave up during the dark years of the USSR breakup.

[Heathrow Harry]

The Indians are no fools - they have two serious potential adversaries on their borders - the Chinese they can't fight conventionally due to the terrain so that requires a missile force. They have proved several times they can roll up the Pakistani's in a conventional war

But they also have a lot of ocean around - and a vested interest in the Gulf area - a couple of carriers and one or two SSN's mean they can do what they damn well like from Cape of Good Hope to Singapore

[WhiteOvies]

Not an Officer but there was an Aircraft Handler on Ark V who had served on Ark IV and been for a swim off Atlantic Conveyor in '82. An absolute wealth of experience and good dits who may just about still be in the Navy. Sadly he will be long gone by the time QE is ready.

I think the benefits of experience operating from a big deck will be relevant to those UK aviators of both cloths currently flying F-18s. They'll probably find it quite spacious on QE compared to what they are used to as we will never have a similar number of aircraft onboard as a CVN. Hopefully we will retain enough and get them into the F-35 training pipeline soon enough for it to be worthwhile.

When given a choice between 1 ship with Cats and Traps and F-35C in 2023ish or 2 ships with F-35B in 2018ish then of course 1SL is going to go for the second option. There's a lot of elements to a carrier apart from the CAG, and nearly all of them involve RN manpower.

Post Afghanistan JFH was getting worked back up to where it wanted to be with regards maritime ops, sadly it wasn't allowed to get there.

We have already had RN and RAF intimately involved onboard the USS Wasp for F-35B initial sea trials so the next step is to build on the upcoming trials of both F-35B and F-35C as a precursor to First of Class Flying trials from the QE. We have the right people in the right jobs to do this today.

[DeaconBlue]

you people have no idea what you are talking about... the -35 has more capability than you can imagine.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Surely you mean "will have".....with the caveat "if it ever comes into service"

[glojo]

When given a choice between 1 ship with Cats and Traps and F-35C in 2023ish or 2 ships with F-35B in 2018ish then of course 1SL is going to go for the second option. There's a lot of elements to a carrier apart from the CAG, and nearly all of them involve RN manpower.
Hi,
Do you think we will have two operational ships with air wings by 2018-ish or even 2022 -ish? I would like to think you are right but that date is not that far off and so far all we read in our papers is doom followed by gloom regarding the aircraft!

Fingers crossed ;)

[LowObservable]

Oh my.

One takes a couple of weeks off, dropping off the odd thumb-drive at nuclear research facilities here and there, and the thread has just surged on, in runaway mode.

Also hearing a lot of LockMart people and their trained parrots (and I am not referring to anyone here) informing all and sundry that the program is just going abso:mad:inglutely wonderfully well, and that the professional customers are just spouting wind about 2019 IOT&E completion dates, A-model cost per flight hour being almost 60 per cent higher than the F-16 and so forth.

Which is all reassuring, in view of the fact that they haven't started delivering Lot 3, which was supposed to be finished last December, and that the earned value management system (a quite basic bit of accounting, intended to show the customer that the money handed to the contractor paid for what it was supposed to pay for) has been deemed unfixable for now, having been broken since 2009.

[JFZ90]

Any more info on the EVM status?

It can't just be 'broken' - where is the baseline and how bad are the indices?

Where does f35 sit regarding the auto cancel triggers I wonder?

[WhiteOvies]

Glojo,

Apologies, probably overstated things a bit there: we won't have both ships up and running by 2018 but we should have initial sea trials sorted. The time frame we're working to according to the politicians is 2020 I believe so 1 ship (QE) plus first Sqn of jets , with the second ship (PoW) getting ready to go for when QE goes into her first refit seems realistic.

But at least 2 ships will be coming into service rather than just 1, with the other being sold/mothballed. I am just hoping that all of this doesn't change again in 2015....

I wouldn't believe everything in the papers!;)

[sevenstrokeroll]

lets see...
the british were either inventors of or instrumental in developing:

jet engines
RADAR
steam catapult
angled flight deck


and you guys won't invest in a ''real'' carrier? even the French have a nuclear carrier.

and is it RUE Brittania or Rule?

[500N]

sevenstrokeroll

I'd like to add another to your list.


The Optical Landing System / Mirror landing aid.

[ColdCollation]

... and we taught you how to regularly get a Vought Corsair onto a ship, if we're going down the baiting route.:}

[Note I have bad teeth. Standard British dentistry...]

[ICBM]

and we also invented..... oh yes, America!

Please drop a note of thanks for your gene pool.

[500N]

Do you really want to take credit for THAT gene pool ?:O

[DBTW]

Ski-jumps, fixed wing VTOL and STOVL...all British. Even the Americans are moving that way slowly...maybe it's the French (and Americans) who are not keeping up with developments?

[Snafu351]

Disclaimer: I'm just a bloke with an interest in military aircraft.

Could some of the learned chap (esses) here provide an explanation to the following, i admit very laymans terms, conundrum:

If each opposing aircraft has kit that 1) provides excellent situational awareness and 2) has attributes that prevent other platforms from detecting and engaging the aircraft at any sort of range beyond very close, how will any air to air, be they offensive or defensive, engagements not come down to "traditional" close manouvering?

The commentary and arguments put forward to date re the effectiveness of both the sensor suite and the stealth attributes seem very similar to the arguments put forward re the missile equipped fighter designs of the 1950's.

Thanks in advance for reasoned explanations as to why what seems an evident elephant to me is in fact not a concern.

[ICBM]

If each opposing aircraft has kit that 1) provides excellent situational awareness and 2) has attributes that prevent other platforms from detecting and engaging the aircraft at any sort of range beyond very close, how will any air to air, be they offensive or defensive, engagements not come down to "traditional" close manouvering?

Our is betterer! When it isn't, we hope we've procured, or are procuring, the 'next generation' beyond this one.

So continues the cycle of military invention.

[LowObservable]

Snafu - No, that's an important point.

For stealth to be completely decisive in an air-to-air engagement, the stealth aircraft has to have the first sight and the first kill, preferably concluding the engagement before the target has even fired.

If one looks at the Su-35S or any other modern conventional fighter versus the F-35/AMRAAM combo, the F-35 may get first sight. However, missile warning will declare the first shot at which point the conventional fighter will evade. What this does is reduce the effective range of AMRAAM, so although the F-35 may see the adversary, its pilot want to get closer before firing.

The $390 billion question is whether "closer" in the above means that detection (by radar, IRST, ESM or the nifty white wingtip vortex trails that the F-35 leaves behind it like snail tracks) is mutual before anyone gets a shot off. If so, then stealth is a diminishing factor.

[cornish-stormrider]

which brings us back to why the **** have we wasted soo much time and money on it?

I know what we could have should have wouold have etc but really.....

I publicly declare that IF we have a sqn able to put more than 6 a/c on the Boooat and operate them in a meaningful way, (i.e blow **** up/down etc) and can sail said boooat to somehere meaningful to do stuff to the enemy. All this before 2022

Then I shall put an INDEX LINKED £100 into RBL...

I really think my money is safe.

[LowObservable]

There is a plan (or at least the desire) to put Meteor on the F-35B, which would be helpful. Engines might know whether the B can carry four internal AMRAAMs or Meteors, with the outboard internal bays being shorter than those on the A/C.

However, another snag with the ideal stealth air combat engagement is if the RoEs call for identification and by what means. Euro and USAF philosophy is not always aligned on that issue.

C-S - I would not bet against that schedule.

[Engines]

Guys,

I know that the baseline AIM-120 internal load was four (2 per bay), but I have seen some info suggesting that LM and the DoD have been working on three per bay. I think that was linked to a 'compressed carriage' version. No difference between the variants on AIM-120 capacity as far as I know.

MBDA showed a clipped fin version of the Meteor in 2010 that was being designed to allow two to go in each bay. I'm not sighted on how far the UK have got with getting Meteor into the F-35 weapons integration programme.

Hope this helps,

Best regards as ever to those working the programme,

Engines

[sevenstrokeroll]

500n...yes the optical "MEATBALL" for landing...very good...but none of the british ships even have that now, right?

and COLD: if I am not mistaken it was an American named ELY who showed the world that airplanes could take off and land from a ship in the first place.

I'm just saying...What the FRICK is wrong with a nation that has such a proud naval tradition...and your sailors even salute RIGHT compared to the other armed forces (big grin)...and you don't even have real carrier.

maybe take Kathreines clothing allowance down a pence and get a real carrier.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

sevenstrokeroll

We are in a complete mess. Whether the carrier is "real" or not is less of an issue than that of having aircraft to embark, and having the skillsets needed. I think that this may be one possible advantage of a STOVL future - the training and skills issues will be less than for CTOL.

I have talked of my failiure to understand the current situation here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-63.html#post7259088).

Maybe I am a simple thicko, but surely the situation is that we currently have no STOVL aircraft, having binned them and having been told that CTOL is the future. Our Pilots are now mostly flying CTOL aircraft (Hornet/Super Hornet) stateside, at cost of HM Government. The US wish that we still had a carrier capability. We currently have a carrier capable of STOVL fixed wing operations, which will be true most of this decade. Other European nations are in possession of Harriers - despite current economic woes. RN fixed wing pilot numbers declined in recent years, which is now something the RN is trying to correct (what will these people fly when not stateside?)

Presumably it will be easier to prepare future CVF crews with the skills needed for STOVL operations than for CTOL ones? Add to that the very real possibility of embarking Harriers aboard Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth? Why can we not embark foreign Harriers?

Borrowing a few AV8Bs from Spain or Italy (particularly the former as they may be needing the UK to chip in to the bailout fund) would give us aircraft to train with, and a real capability. Alternatively (and since the US want us to have a carrier capability) lease a few AV8Bs (with support Memorandum of Understanding).


HM Government could make this into a sucess story (with the political advantages that would bring) - but at the moment they just seem determined to make us all look like idiots.

[longer ron]

I'm just saying...What the FRICK is wrong with a nation that has such a proud naval tradition...and your sailors even salute RIGHT compared to the other armed forces (big grin)...and you don't even have real carrier.

We are a mere shadow of our former self :)
It is a good but very complicated question I reckon,some possible reasons...

(1).We can afford real carriers but we choose (or our guvmints choose !) to waste taxpayers money on other things such as the EU and paying layabouts to do SFA !

(2).The RAF do not want the Navy to have REAL carriers with REAL a/c on them,historically they have told big porkies to ensure the RN do not gain control of naval aviation.

(3).Unfortunately/fortunately stovl got us out of the crap during the falklands war and so is seen as a winner - when of course it was our lads (dark and light blue together) making the best of what they had to operate with (as usual)!

(4).As others have said before...if we had 2 REAL carriers in 1982 the argies would never have taken us on...

(5).Then of course we have our one and only large defence contractor with fingers in ALL of our defence pies...which sometimes muddies the waters LOL...you really could not make it up !!

I have worked with both the RAF and the Navy and do not have any axes to grind but I honestly believe that the F35 is just a political a/c...The way people talk about Cats and traps on here is astounding...like it is rocket science for deck crews to learn how to cope with cats and arrester wires etc.
It seems bizarre to waste such a large carrier on this 'cul de sac' aircraft,never mind the weapons systems...I would be more worried about more basic stuff like structural integrity and systems reliability.

rgds LR

[sevenstrokeroll]

Listen my dear friends across the SEA. The history of the Royal Navy and flying is an important one. Ours here in the USA too.

Remembert the F111A/B? Our politicians thought ONE plane could do the job for both the USAF and the USN. BIG MISTAKE. Whille the F4 phantom was such a plane, it started with the NAVY and just happened to be great (in its own way) and later came to the USAF.

The F22 is a heckuva plane...but our moron in chief (obama) is happy to cut them back (ok sure they have a few bugs...but new planes have teething problems) and go with the F35. And it turns out the F35 is damn expensive too.

A couple of years ago, obama said the F22 was too slow. OF course he doesn't understand that if you have stealthy air intakes, the plane goes slower...what would you rather have , a plane that goes 1800mph, but shows up on RADAR or one that goes 1400mph and can sneak up on the enemy?

ALL I mean is that it is a damn shame to have people that know NOTHING aboutp planes or military history making airplane purchasing decisions.


IF OBAMA were president in the days just before WW2, we would have a fleet of B18 BOLO bombers instead of the B17 Flying Fortress...and you couldn't reach Berlin with a bolo!

Time for those who know planes, to straighten things out.

hands across the sea!

[Milo Minderbinder]

So the F-22 killing the pilots is a teething problem?
Cancelling a budgetary disaster makes o'Bama a moron?
Pointing out that an air defence fighter isn't fast enough to catch incoming aircraft is wrong?

[GreenKnight121]

The F22 is a heckuva plane...but our moron in chief (obama) is happy to cut them back

Sigh.

I voted for McCain, but I have to admit that it was not the Democrats, nor even Obama, that is responsible for the F-22 production cap.

Lets try to speak truth, instead of political lies, shall we?

It was the administration of George W. Bush (#43) that capped production of F-22 at 187 aircraft!
All Obama did was carry out this decision.

The biggest cuts to the F-22 program came during the Clinton administration where it was cut from 650+ aircraft to 438 in 1994, and then cut again in 1997 to 339 aircraft.
Due to a CONGRESSIONAL “cost cap” the procurement was reduced to 277 aircraft in 2003.
In 2004, the air force reduced the procurement to the 180+ in order to implement a multi-year procurement plan to allow for the possibility of future orders beyond the 180+ aircraft.
Every budget since then, until the 2010 budget was passed with provisions to shut down the F-22 line permanently, included requests for additional F-22s.
However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to support any further F-22 procurement... even the 4-aircraft buy that brought numbers from 183 to 187 was opposed by this Bush Cabinet member.
When Robert Gates became SecDef, he continued this policy!
In January 2008, the Pentagon announced that it would ask Congress to fund additional F-22s.
24 Sept 2008, congress passed a defense spending bill authorizing additional F-22s. However, this was to be funded in the FY2010 budget, and it was it that budget that production was instead ordered finished and the line closed.

More detailed info on specifics of the production number reductions can be found here: F-22 Raptor Cost (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm)


Note the date of this article... just a couple of weeks after Obama took office... but note the names of "who killed the F-22 production":
16 February 2009!
Numbers Matter: Strategic Consequences of F-22 Termination (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-160209-1.html)
The Bush Administration’s SecDef Donald Rumsfeld arbitrarily chopped the F-22 program down to 180 aircraft. I hate to use this organization as a citation (due to their habit of wild-eyed ranting), but the transitory nature of the internet has seen articles deleted to make room for new ones, and others edited by those with an interest in distorting history to suit their agendas, and so sources I have linked to in the past to show who chopped down the F-22 program are no longer available.

[sevenstrokeroll]

dear milo

every new technology plane has problems...many new planes have been called: ''widowmaker".

speed isn't everything in a dogfight

yes, he's still a moron...you must have voted for someone just like yourself


and if speed were everything, we would be flying F12a's, B70's and the like...but we don't.

and economic disasters? you must be talking about the obama fiscal policy of everything!

OH GREEN KNIGHT...obama was asked to continue the F22 program but didn't, and it was his staff saying the plane waasn't very fast (see above comments about the F12A and B70...which were very fast). His staff also said the F35 was just fine...oh yeah.
and obama isn't fighting to stop the defense cuts even though HIS secretary of Defense has warned PUBLICLY that this is a mistake.

[ICBM]

Gents,

I suggest you PM each other if you insist on discussing US policy on F-22 and the like. One post on Elephants vs Donkeys is of curious interest; 3 or more is deadly boring. Sevenstroke, whatever you think you can add to the debate here; namely UK carriers no longer 'Cats and Traps' then please do but stay on thread old boy.

[ORAC]

Interesting article from March concerning the planned UK weapons for the F-35, especially on ASRAAM. Replace the underscores in bl_gsp_t with the letter o

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.bl_gsp_t.co.uk/2012/03/f35b-f35c-rethinks-weaponry-costs-and.html

[ColdCollation]

Link doesn't work, Orac...

[dat581]

The F22 is quite capable of flying A LOT faster than it's stated max speed after all it has pleanty of thrust to reach M2.0 and faster (probably at least as fast as an F15). It was decided at the design stage to set the top speed at M1.7 because the F15 in service didn't oftern reach it's max speed of M2.5. To have the F22 reach such speeds the leading edges of the wings, intakes and stabs etc would need to be lined with titanium. Several other small mods would be required so if needed it can be done. Why nobody told this to the politicians is beyond me. If I was the head of the USAF I'd modify one Raptor in this fashion and take back the time to height records from the Russians.

[Lima Juliet]

Longer_Ron

Well said, Sir :D

[Lima Juliet]

Oh, and I believe a historic point of order...

and COLD: if I am not mistaken it was an American named ELY who showed the world that airplanes could take off and land from a ship in the first place.

Cdr Charles Rumney Samson RN became the first Naval Aviator on 9 May 1912 when launched off HMS HIBERNIA whilst she was underway. The US Navy trials the year before were from a ship at anchor, which is no different than an airfield on a small island. Samson later became an Air Commodore in the RAF.

I also believe the UK invented the steam catapult?

LJ

[sevenstrokeroll]

DAT...agree.


Leon...true enough about steam catapults...all the more reason to have them on the E class carrier. they invented RADAR too....I'd like to think your new carrier will have RADAR.

BUT everyone knows its easier to takeoff and land on a ship in motion due to the ''wind'' created by ship moving. ELY was first.

[orca]

Interestingly enough we always tried to get wind over the deck for VSTOL recovery, but I recently spoke to a USMC fellow who said they didn't! I have no SHOLs to hand to suggest he is incorrect.

Despite our disagreement about landing we both (along with most of Christendom) agreed that a few extra Bernoullis on launch never went amiss.

[LowObservable]

Big Navy's need for the F-35C seems to be being questioned here, no doubt by some liberal peacen.... wait, what?

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/did-cno-just-take-a-big-swipe-at-f35/

Full piece here:

Payloads over Platforms: Charting a New Course | U.S. Naval Institute (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course)

[Courtney Mil]

Right, LO. But I always thought most of that was bleedin' obvious. Not criticising your post, just the poeple that hadn't taken the point in the last thousand odd posts. :ok:

[LowObservable]

The CNO's feelings about buying an even more expensive Stealth jet for the Marines can only be guessed at.

[glojo]

Is this what happens when we put submariners into these decision making positions? :O;)

[Ivor Nydia]

So where does it end?

Stealth can be countered if the other guys are smart enough and throw enough technology at it, so there's no point having stealthy aircraft.

Modern radars aren't fooled by Electronic Attack techniques, so we might as well not bother with EA as it's expensive.

Modern radars aren't deceived by chaff either, so there's no point putting expensive chaff dispensers in aircraft.

Modern IR missiles have good IRCCM so there's no point putting expensive flares or IR jammers in aircraft.

There's no point using armor plating because some bullets can go through that and it's expensive.

Therefore you're saying the perfect flying war machine is in fact the Wright Flyer. And then you need lots of ships for the Navy with Tomahawks because there's no known counter to the Tomahawk....

[Milo Minderbinder]

So where does it end?


It ends when someone runs out of money
Or else takes a conceptual jump to a new paradigm which makes the opposition irrelevant

guns vs arrows
steam vs sail
tanks vs horses.

its time for such a jump - but most of the options have been negotiated away

[Ivor Nydia]

The trouble is that all the paradigms you mention come with a bigger price tag than the thing they replaced. So history suggests that X-37s, Auroras, hypersonic attack systems or sharks with laser beams on their heads are likely to cost more than a bog-standard F-35.

The other way of looking at it is that you can still do an awful lot if you intelligently operate an aircraft with maneuver, chaff, flares & EA. Wouldn't you be able to do the same things easier, or do much more, if you had a bit of stealth as one of your tools too?

[LowObservable]

Ivor N - I think part of the point is that there is no "ultimate weapon" or indeed ultimate platform, so you don't want to mortgage your future on any one solution.

[kbrockman]

So where does it end?

It can still end because of many things,
beginning with the technology and its continuing troubles to make it both work on a reliable base and easy to maintain, something which is far from being achieved up until today.
It can end because at some point its customers just run out of money, the ongoing recession/depression and the ever increasing pricetag, combined with rumours all around that production volumes will be severely cut by many users which , according to LM, will again severely increase the unit costs, can still bring this whole project to its knees.
It can end because it becomes more obsolete and less cutting edge every time delays are announced.

But last and certainly not least , it can end ,or become the victim of very substantial cutbacks, because too many political influences seem to have taken an aversion of the whole project.
In the US it remains to be seen what will happen once the presidential elections are over, but many scenarios are pointing at severe cutbacks, in Holland it has come so far that a big majority in the parliament is all for selling the 2 testplanes, cutting their losses and retire from the whole JSF project, at the same time there is once again (remember the 2 previous LM scandals) a new scandal emerging involving ministers, high military, and lobbyists about the JSF.
Italy won't be able and politically willing to take up any or all of its initially planned F35's.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"The trouble is that all the paradigms you mention come with a bigger price tag than the thing they replaced"

On a one for one basis yes, but it doesn't need one to one substitution to provide a significant military advantage,
How many horses equal one tank? How many arrows equal one gun? By making the business of killing more efficient, you cam actually keep the cost of that killing static. Indeed by using the advanced technology you can reduce the cost because you can cause the opposing to force to surrender with a smaller number of kills: True shock and awe
The problem is that modern improvements in military technology are incremental. not revolutionary. Aircraft in the last fifty years have got incrementally faster, more efficient, better targeted, but with incremental increases in costs. But what we need is something new - something which will make the aircraft as irrelevant to warfare as the tank rendered the horse, and reduce the overall spend.
What is that change likely to be? Hard to know, but the obvious choices - space based bombardment systems, advanced rocketry, are all curtailed by treaty forcing us down the expense route. Likewise treaties over the use of chemical and biological warfare, which I would argue have prevented the development of cheap low-lethailty incapacitating systems.
Maybe the answer is in pulsed energy weapons, but again our ability to develop those is hampered by space warfare treaties.

[peter we]

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert makes the very valid point that having a very expensive aircraft to deliver a cheap bomb does not make economic sense. If the risk is that high, send a Tomahawk. If the risk is low, why limit your self to small internal loads only?

The size of the F-35 internal bay is academic - war technology has moved on to make stealth of marginal value.

Where it should still be useful is in A2A and anti-shipping, which suggests that UK's choice of the F-35B was the better one.

[Willard Whyte]

Where it should still be useful is in A2A and anti-shipping, which suggests that UK's choice of the F-35B was the better oneSeems a bit of a non-sequitur, not compared to 'C' anyway.

[peter we]

"Stealth can be countered if the other guys are smart enough and throw enough technology at it, so there's no point having stealthy aircraft."

Simply using a differant radar frequency isn't a massive technological issue, especially when the technology used to do so is 50+ years old.

[ORAC]

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert makes the very valid point that having a very expensive aircraft to deliver a cheap bomb does not make economic sense. If the risk is that high, send a Tomahawk. Two different arguments here. One is the smart platform+dumb weapon vs the smart weapon - the other is stealth.

Smart weapons have their place at the beginning of a camapign when the targets are high value and well defended, but you end up with the problem that you are using £1m weapons to destroy £5K targets. Smart platforms allow precision strike using dumb cheap weapons, they may be expensive but the return over time is cheaper, as long as you don't lose the platform.

The second argument is whether the additional security of stealth is worth the price.

If you use smart weapons during the first days of the campaign against high threat targets, do you platforms need to ingress and be stealth - particularly if, after the first few days, you hang external tanks, pods and weapons on them and lose the stealth anyway.

[ORAC]

Commentary on DoD Buzz concerning the CNO's speech: Did CNO just take a big swipe at F-35? (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/did-cno-just-take-a-big-swipe-at-f35/)

Interestingly he did, as a naval man, address my point above. I'm sure the air force would contest the figures based on the number of targets over a full campaign, otherwise they've got problems ahead - even more at risk are the carriers and their air wings, if the intent to build/preserve the conventional ship fleet of littoral, destroyer, frigates, cruisers etc.

The ability of a few very-precise standoff weapons to be more efficient and effective than a larger number of less-precise weapons leads to a surprising result. In modern warfare, precision standoff weapons such as Tomahawk or the joint standoff weapon are now more cost-effective in many situations than short-range gravity bombs such as the joint direct attack munition (JDAM). A Tomahawk missile, for example, costs about $1.2 million, while a JDAM is about $30,000. To strike a single target, however, the total training, maintenance, and operations cost to get a manned aircraft close enough to deliver the JDAM is several times higher than the cost of launching a Tomahawk at the same target from a destroyer, submarine or aircraft operating several hundred miles away. That is one of the trends leading us to focus more effort on improving and evolving our standoff sensor and munition payloads.

[SpazSinbad]

Apparently all of the CNO UNSI article is here: (scroll down)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-19509-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.html

CNO spokesperson clarification here:

The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list By Philip Ewing Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/the-navys-advanced-weapons-shopping-list/

""There’s a reason Adm. Jonathan Greenert didn’t call for the Navy to back out of F-35, his spokesman said Tuesday — he doesn’t think it should.

The chief of naval operations continues to support F-35C, said Capt. Danny Hernandez. So what was all that stealth skepticism in his Proceedings piece this month questioning the value of low-observable strike aircraft? That was Greenert arguing that stealth has a limit, Hernandez said, and that there may come a point at which the Navy has to draw the line or risk diminishing returns...."

[glojo]

Have we asked what aircraft would ever replace the F-35B once it reaches its sell by date? The reason for this strange question is that a carrier is not a short term ship with a life span of just 10 or even twenty years.

I believe this year sees the retirement of the United States Navy Mighty 'E' a ship that was in service way back in the early 1960's. How many types of aircraft has that ship operated? We were operating sea Vixen and as the years went by these aircraft were superseded by better more modern hardware all capable of operating from that mobile airfield, but the Mighty E remained in service happily accepting these newer types of fast jet.

Is the F-35B the last in the line of STOVL aircraft and is there even a competitor that might encourage development?

When or if we ever get the F-35B and it retires, does that mean we are back to where we are now with an aircraft carrier totally incapable of operating fast jets? This is already more than embarrassing with a carrier pretending top be something it is not.

Why not STOP the build for the second carrier, take an even deeper breath and re-think this done deal. Am I guilty of just bringing previous arguments and if so what other aircraft will these carriers be capable of operating once the F-35B gets retired, what other Navies will be capable of cross decking (apart from the USA) Are we convinced Italy and Spain will stick with their master plan of buying this aircraft?

Today is not a good day and MUCH respect goes to ALL our brave service personnel that are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice :( :D:D:D

[Courtney Mil]

Well said on all your points, Glojo.

[Willard Whyte]

glojo, you're asking short-term Whitehall 'residents' to indulge in long-term defence planning. Shame on you.

[Milo Minderbinder]

by the time the F-35 is due for replacement the carriers will be due for a major constructional refit anyway, so catapults - if needed - could be fitted then.
But by then manned aircraft will be too vulnerable to use anything - it will all be missiles, UAVs, railguns and pulsed energy weapons

[peter we]

"Have we asked what aircraft would ever replace the F-35B once it reaches its sell by date? The reason for this strange question is that a carrier is not a short term ship with a life span of just 10 or even twenty years."

Modern Military aircraft have a very long lifespan. The Harrier (1969) is going to be in service over fifty years as is the F-18 (1983) and other aircraft like the C-130 (1957), F-16 (1978). The Tornado (1979) should stay in service for forty years at least.

The reason why there was a high turnover of aircraft types at the start of the jet age is that the aircraft were too limited to operate effectively and caused huge death rates on carriers.

[Willard Whyte]

I think the high turnover of almost any aircraft type until ~30 years ago was due to the rapid advance of technology and knowledge in materials*, systems, and propulsion - all with regard to both weapons and airframes. Only in the field of aerodynamics has knowledge, albeit sometimes often in theory, advanced little since the 50s; the boffins in white coats had it pretty much sussed by then.

*It could be argued that only the advance in material tech & knowledge has made advances in other areas possible, where advances were only held back by lack of suitable alloys, composites and semi-conductors.

The AV-8B was essentially a completely new design compared to the Harrier/AV-8A; only the general layout stayed the same - although admittedly it will have been in service ~35 years when, (if), F-35B takes over.

[glojo]

by the time the F-35 is due for replacement the carriers will be due for a major constructional refit anyway, so catapults - if needed - could be fitted then.
But by then manned aircraft will be too vulnerable to use anything - it will all be missiles, UAVs, railguns and pulsed energy weapons

First part of your reply:

I hope you are right but I dread to think of the work involved in ripping apart an operational ship to install this equipment :sad:

Second part
Possible but unlikely, my thoughts are that the Aircraft Carrier is more than a carrier of aircraft.. It is a huge statement of both military and political power. Look at the American ship building program... They clearly think there is a future for this type of vessel.

I am NOT saying we can afford to go down this route but giving the EU £50m per day does not do us any favours :( (oops did I say that)

Peter We
I fear you are giving an answer I would expect from a politician.

Harrier lifespan 1969..

When did the first squadrons of this aircraft go operational and deploy on an aircraft carrier, and when did the last squadron deploy on a carrier?

I do not mean a quick flying visit to see if the aircraft can land on the deck...

I would suggest that instead of 1969 you might want to go forward a few years and start looking at the 1980's?

Clue
At the end of March 1980 the Royal Navy Sea Harrier IFTU was redesignated No.899 Sqn, becoming a Headquarters Squadron performing operational training duties, and at the same time No.800 Sqn, the first operational squadron, was formed. No.800 Sqn served briefly on HMS Invincible before transferring to HMS Hermes, an old anti-submarine/command carrier. In January 1981 a second operational unit, No.801 Sqn was commissioned to serve aboard the Invincible. An amazing consideration when we think back to how this aircraft performed just two years later

The last FULL squadron that deployed on a carrier might be a bit more controversial but hopefully you and I will accept that these aircraft did not get anywhere NEAR the lifespan we must expect from such an expensive ship?

Yes some modern military aircraft may well last for over 50years but do we include the F117 in that statement and the F-35B is an amazing piece of kit that might be described as a flying computer and we all know how quickly those things get out of date? (polite question)

Is that last statement relevant I have NO idea but I would genuinely love to hear what better qualified folks have to say on that very specific issue as I cannot help asking how quickly technology will overtake the advantages of this aircraft and make it just as vulnerable as aircraft costing a small percentage of this amazing aircraft.

[Willard Whyte]

Yes some modern military aircraft may well last for over 50years but do we include the F117 in that statementEven that managed 25 years until its official retirement in '08.

Although, allegedly one (or more) has been spotted flying since then, the YouTube footage won't play though.

[kbrockman]

If jane's are anywhere near correct, this is certainly going to be one hell of an expensive fighter jet.
Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane (http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes)
http://www.stratpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/janes-600-x-331.jpg

For us, replacing the F16, it would mean going from 7.000-ish $/ flighthour
to a whopping 21.000$/hr, a 3 fold in operating expenses, after the already expensive purchasing costs that need to be made.

Even the Typhoon and Rafale are cheaper, despite being 2 engined vs 1 engined planes.
21.000 for the A
31.000 for the B and C.
For the F35, Keep in mind though that these numbers are estimates based on reasonable assumptions, while fuel needs and other costs are fairly easy to calculate, there are some areas that still need to be better determined, as such the numbers could go down a bit, but also up, the general ballpark should be correct though.

Just to put things in perspective, the F22 is supposed to be 70.000, using the same cost phylosophy.

[peter we]

"I would suggest that instead of 1969 you might want to go forward a few years and start looking at the 1980's? "

You are proving my point, aircraft continue to develop and evolve, there is no reason why the F-35 cannot do the same as long as the requirement is there.
It is questionable whether a manned fighter will be required in 50 years, but honestly why should we care and how can we?

[glad rag]

And why should we care how much they cost?

Oh we don't know that either.......:ugh:

[peter we]

>> And why should we care how much they cost?

..in 50 years time. Given that we have no idea if the f-35 maybe canceled in the next year worrying about it lifespan is silly, isn't it?

[glojo]

I would suggest that instead of 1969 you might want to go forward a few years and start looking at the 1980's? "

You are proving my point, aircraft continue to develop and evolve, there is no reason why the F-35 cannot do the same as long as the requirement is there.
It is questionable whether a manned fighter will be required in 50 years, but honestly why should we care and how can we? Difficult to do as the only fixed wing fast jet strike aircraft to embark on a carrier is the F-18 and that aircraft has possibly been upgraded like no other before. Will it be even possible to do anything similar to this extremely complex, eye wateringly expensive aircraft? If we look at our own 'backyard' then the SHAR deployed onto carriers in the 1980's and sadly sea going deployments were ended in 2000, the aircraft being removed from service in 2006. If our carriers ever join the fleet, I would like to think they would remain in service much longer than a mere quarter of a century.

Will there be a place for piloted strike aircraft or will missiles\UAV's rule the skies? Who knows but as a projection of power I cannot see anything on the horizon that will 'out trump' the carrier?

The F-35 is on paper an amazing aircraft and I for one would like to see this thing be the success that we hopefully all hope it should be, but the 'B'??.

[peter we]

"would like to see this thing be the success that we hopefully all hope it should be, but the 'B'??. "

The B is irreplaceable. Who would have thought there would ever be a successor to the Harrier? Evolving it will be the only practical solution to the many worlds navies that will eventually use it.

"Will it be even possible to do anything similar to this extremely complex, eye wateringly expensive aircraft?"

Until its in full production and in service we won't know the true cost of it. But its much cheaper than the F-22.

[Bastardeux]

Who knows but as a projection of power I cannot see anything on the horizon that will 'out trump' the carrier?

IMHO I would argue that not building the carriers/selling them, and spending the money on 13/14? well financed Typhoon squadrons, MPA, more A400s, whatever you would spend the money on, would provide much more power projection capability than 2 lumbering, unprotected turkeys with 6 un-serviceable and still developmental jets on them that have bankrupted us for the pleasure of their company.

Why do we have to get the 'best' as soon as it comes out, why can't we stick with the tried and tested and move with the curve of platforms hitting their maturity rather than their infancy? Lets be honest, no-ones going to deploy their F35s this side of 2020...maybe even 2025, the way things are going; so why do we need it on operational squadrons before then?

[Willard Whyte]

IMHO I would argue that not building the carriers/selling them, and spending the money on 13/14? well financed Typhoon squadrons, MPA, more A400s, whatever you would spend the money on, would provide much more power projection capability than 2 lumbering, unprotected turkeys with 6 un-serviceable and still developmental jets on them that have bankrupted us for the pleasure of their company.

There could come a time when the various tin-pot nations in an area of strategic interest to the UK make it awkward to overfly, let alone land and 'project power'.

[idle bystander]

Glojo:I hope you are right but I dread to think of the work involved in ripping apart an operational ship to install this equipment


Well it's been done before. Think of VICTORIOUS coming out of a 6 year refit in 1955, aged 15 years, 30ft longer, with steam catapults, and an angled deck so large that they had to demolish a building beside the dry dock at the last moment before they could float her out.
And ARK ROYAL (IV), in 1969 with a new waist catapult instead of the starboard forward cat and direct acting arrestor gear, completely redesigning the hangar deck-head. It's surprising what you can do to an old hull.

Lovely discussion, chaps, keep it up.

An old badger (of a sort)

[Milo Minderbinder]

"IMHO I would argue that not building the carriers/selling them, and spending the money on 13/14? well financed Typhoon squadrons, MPA, more A400s, whatever you would spend the money on, would provide much more promotion projection capability"

There you are, back in the original RAF speak

[glojo]

Well it's been done before. Think of VICTORIOUS coming out of a 6 year refit in 1955, aged 15 years, 30ft longer, with steam catapults, and an angled deck so large that they had to demolish a building beside the dry dock at the last moment before they could float her out.
And ARK ROYAL (IV), in 1969 with a new waist catapult instead of the starboard forward cat and direct acting arrestor gear, completely redesigning the hangar deck-head. It's surprising what you can do to an old hull.

Lovely discussion, chaps, keep it up.

An old badger (of a sort) I take aboard what you are saying and we NEED Mr Boffin to offer his thoughts regarding this and doing a little research I see that the good ship Centaur also underwent this type of conversion with her hydraulic catapults removed and steam catapults installed, plus the invaluable angled flight deck. They must have quite literally torn those ship's apart to do that type of 'plumbing!' It would be so interesting to compare costs taking into account inflation costs of materials etc

Paging Not-a-Boffin, paging Mr Not-a-Boffin. :O:)

[Bastardeux]

There could come a time when the various tin-pot nations in an area of strategic interest to the UK make it awkward to overfly, let alone land and 'project power'.

I'm not disputing that, but given a constricted budget, I think the idea that these carriers will give us more ability to project power compared to other ways of using our finite resources, is a complete fallacy. All in for the carriers and JSF, we're looking at upwards of 15 billion...at least; and for what? 6 jets on the worlds biggest, defenceless floating target. That's a lot of F35As or Typhoons, and even more tanks and helicopters. In my mind, having all those things in usable numbers, presents a far more formidable fighting force than one that's sacrificed, and plans to sacrifice even more, capabilty to build two empty behemoths.

would provide much more promotion projection capability"

Well if we aren't angling for a promotion, what is our job description??

[Corrona]

Forgive me if it's been asked/pondered before, but I can't help but wonder what the americans would have charged us for a refitted carrier of theirs, a bunch of new f-18's and a smattering of E2's etc.

The problem seems to be that it's nothing to do with getting military bang for your buck, but everything to do with jobs back home....which is fine until the day that you need military capability, when suddenly paying over the odds for a smaller number of ...... (whatever you care to mention) suddenly isn't much use.

[Thelma Viaduct]

I can't ever see the carrier being used without the cover of the US&A and their approval, i.e. Another war where the UK hides behind the master but gives it the big one via politicians ala Hague on the TV to pretend we're still a world player on the cheap. UK hasn't the bollocks to go it alone against a half decent adversary, so the threat to the aircraft transporter/carrier isn't a credible one. US&A will provide the logistics & aew, we'll just be tipping up with a few more aircraft to up their sortie rate and preserve the 'special' relationship.

[orca]

Bastardeux,

I think you have valid points and some will always fall on either side of the fence as regards the carrier debate.

Interesting to me, though, given your figures of 15 billion for (both?) QEC carriers and 6 F35B is the price tag for Typhoon - which you would buy instead.

The NAO quotes 20 billion down and 17 billion more to come, for Typhoon, and IRRC we can field 16 (FE@R might have gone up - admittedly, but with a total buy of 160 I can't see it getting much above 30 or so) and they aren't going to be fully up to spec until 2018.

That seems like a hideous cost for what we actually get given that the F-3 was more than capable of providing homeland security and Falklands QRA.

But anyway, it's a knock F-35B and carriers in the main thread, not a 'golly how the Typhoon's crippled us' thread - so I do apologise, but I think we need to compare like with like.

[cornish-stormrider]

Yeah but Tiffin does mighty good air displays at BOTH shows it deploys to and it makes a senior hoccifer go all wet that we have an aircraft to supercriuse.....


No Dave, no Boats (Yet) and a bill going upwards faster than a paniced new dad on a mothercare spree.....

place your bets as to which ever version we get - I reckon the lot gets canned and we spend the threepence we save on lager for chavs....
Oh and funding t'barons new pool house

[Bastardeux]

Orca, I agree with the thrust of your argument completely, if I had been CAS back when the decision was made, I would like to have told BAe to find someone else to bankroll them and we'd all be flying Strike Eagles, in large numbers, right now. My point is that we're about to make the exact same mistake again...crippling every other element of the military for a jet that is almost 100%, at this point, not going to be working when we get it or anywhere near the initial budget. For me, the F35 is going to have the same storyline, but even more frustrating and with fewer numbers.

And your point that Typhoon won't be getting up to spec until 2018...right when we're scraping 1/3 of them to pay for the gold-plated wonderjet - that will still be a developmental aircraft - further reinforces my point that we should be making the most out of Typhoon while it's a good jet and then replace half of them with the F35 after 2020...once the JSF begins to get up to spec.

We need to get out of the mindset that by having the JSF in 2015, we're somehow going to be a supreme air power that is capable of taking on the world, when in fact we're crippling ourselves for a non-existent capability. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully convinced the F35 will eventually become a war-winner that we should buy eventually, but we shouldn't be destroying everything it's taken us decades to develop, from challengers to Nimrods, for the sake of a jet in its extreme infancy.

[orca]

Don't disagree with what you're saying. Only a few weeks ago I thought it made sense to buy or lease a few F-18E and wait for Gen 5 to mature. But that still involved a single boat which never made sense and a conversion cost which was dreamt up by someone on crack.

As regards navies. My (very own) opinion is that if you want to be one of the big boys you need a nuclear deterrent. If you want to be one of the big boys and relevant you need a nuclear deterrent and carriers.

£5 billion isn't that big a price tag for the carrier bit if that's what you want.

If you want to be a relevant air power you just need some decent aeroplanes - which come in at less than £37 billion for a deployable total that gets bigger than 20.

I am gradually persuaded by experts such as SSSEOWTF, ICBM etc that STOVL F-35 'ain't that bad', in fact I think it's going to be pretty special, but for the total cost of the systems involved I would have liked to see a CV capability.

So I think we're getting a reasonable capability, for which the price is high, but for a small island nation with worldwide repsonsibilities and delusions I think we're somewhere on the right lines.

I dread to think what our forces would look like if we'd bought F-15E, F-18E and a USN CVN...somewhat less dismal I would imagine.

Still, when we're not paying through the nose for Typhoon we're being quoted astronomical prices for conversions of a supposedly eminently convertible design...there is a common theme here!

[Bastardeux]

You're right, with its radar etc. etc. it will be a good aircraft when it comes up to spec, but that doesn't change the fact that we're buying the most expensive and arguably the least capable variant, both to purchase and to fly.

The price, for me, is too high and I think by trying to achieve the very goal of reasonable capability for protecting worldwide interests, we're actually painting ourselves into a corner and achieving the opposite, with far too few assets to do anything at all.

The dutch seem to be with me!

Dutch plans to buy F-35 fighter jets in doubt (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/7/6/worldupdates/2012-07-05T171849Z_1_BRE8640X6_RTROPTT_0_UK-DUTCH-FIGHTER-F35&sec=Worldupdates)

[Not_a_boffin]

Forgive me if it's been asked/pondered before, but I can't help but wonder what the americans would have charged us for a refitted carrier of theirs, a bunch of new f-18's and a smattering of E2's etc.

Assuming that the USN would even countenance such a thing, the only carriers they have that aren't CVN are the old Forrestal & Kitty Hawk classes. Mostly built in the 50 and 60s, worked very hard through life and even after life extension refits in the 80s & 90s they were beginning to fall apart. JFK was allegedly a wreck towards the end of her commissioned service which ended nearly six year ago. It also assumes that we could find 2500+ matelots to run the ship on top of any FAA complement.

If you're thinking CVN - dream on, we can hardly get enough qualified kettle watchers for the boats and we'd again be in the same position wrt life expired, knackered ships with huge manning requirements.

As far as back-fitting EMALS / EARS later in life is concerned, it should be possible, it will be merely a question of money. Compared to the rebuild of Vic (stripped down to the hangar deck and rebuilt - literally) or Eagle and Ark, the configuration changes required should not be massively demanding. QE has a significant margin allowance for weight growth - equivalent in weight to "a number" of frigates being welded to the hangar deck - another reason why a large design is more sustainable through life.

Doing this in a refit as opposed to at build will almost certainly be more expensive, but there you go. The "adaptable" design was always meant to be big enough to switch variants if required - and it is. Imagine how difficult a "CVS on steroids" type ship would have been to convert to a CTOL configuration had F35B been canned (you'd end up starting again, from scratch). However, the timing of such a switch would always affect the price, the later you do it, the more drawing and equipment changes are required, never mind undoing work done already.

Nevertheless and without wishing to re-open the debate - it's done and we need to get on with getting the ships completed and as many F35 as we can get (definitely more than 6!) worked up and available - the actual content of the conversion has never been satisfactorily explained. Given that the cost of the hardware was reasonably well known (~£500M) it is still difficult to see how the remainder of the "conversion cost" (~£1.5Bn) adds up. As noted ad nauseum, it's somewhere between 12 and 20 million manhours depending on how expensive you think a manhour is and I just can't envisage how that would be needed to fabricate troughs, add local stiffening, run cables and control, inspect, test and commission etc.

It may be that there is a big nasty lurking there which I'm not aware of, but I'm b8ggered if I can think of anything that would have that sort of impact.

One thing that will be certain. If and when it comes to back-fitting such a system twenty-years from now, the risks and requirements should be a lot lower, even if the physical work content may be higher.

[Harley Quinn]

2 thoughts from a total outsider:

If NAB is correct and we couldn't scrape together 2500+ matelots to man a Kittyhawk class boat, who is going to man both QE boats at c 3000 between them?

If F-35 is a stealthy aircraft why are we bothered about overflight of neutral nations? They presumably would be none the wiser, unless the F-35 is not stealthy, which begs the question; why buy it?

[Not_a_boffin]

HQ

Each QE requires something less than 800 matelots to run the ship as opposed to US CV/CVN which need 2500+. Both figures exclude the CAG which is projected as 7-800 for UK and is usually about 3000 for the US.

F35 is only fully stealthy at night. Mk1 mod 0 eyeball will be capable of identifying it given the right optics. Violation of third-party territory is something that will land you in the UNSC bad-boys corner in fairly short order if caught. The BBC and John Simpson might get a bit upset and self-righteous about that.......

[Navaleye]

Its also not all-angle stealth. They might not see you on the way in but they would on the way out. Plus that big tailpipe would make a juicy IR target.

[Harley Quinn]

Thank you for your answers.
NAB I did use the figure of 3000 between the two boats and I still fail to see where that manpower is to come from.
Navaleye, won't the target nation also see you on the way out, they may even be more alert because the boat is within striking distance (I believe c700 miles for F35B)?

[hulahoop7]

Deleted double post

[hulahoop7]

They won't be active at the same time as a matter of course. But the UK will be able to now generate a full time capability - the ships will cover each others refit periods. Much like the Albion LPDs will be run. Clearly it would be a great idea for the RNR to train for these two capital ships to ensure that they could be regenerated quickly if required.

I guess it very roughly works like this:
Before SDR availability was 150%
After SDR it was 75%
After 2015 it may be 100%

As QE will also need to supply the UKs LPH capability, I personally think the U turn was worth it if it gets the UK that crucial 100%

[Navaleye]

1SL has stated that with pool of just 30,000 sailors he won't have the manpower to manpower for 2 carriers except in an emergency. The idea is to rotate them and that is what will happen.

The interesting question is what will the RAF use to replace the GR4. Given that we have just spent the family silver on Voyager. I suspect it will probably end up being a mixed order over time for B (first) followed by A. We will see.

[glojo]

Interesting post Navaleye and having crews to man a ship in an emergency would to me indicate waffle....

In this so called emergency does that mean our illustrious First Sea Lord would

'Rob Peter, to pay Paul?'

In other words take sailors from the rest of our mini or minuscule fleet to man these ships?

[ICBM]

Navaleye,

I suspect you are spot on, as is Glojo.

Nothing is all-aspect stealth, not even a RAM-coated rugby ball, it is about 'how much stealth do I need'. The combat edge that sufficient stealth brings is part of the allure of 5th Gen but not all of it. Now add in the phenomenal SA, networked everything, jaw-dropping weapons capabilities and the potential for as-yet-untold growth and you start to appreciate why the UK should be in that game. It costs to be in, it is sometimes frustrating and many rightfully ask 'why' but the US/Brit relationship is a big factor in this programme through choice. Pulling out cuts off not just our own noses but that of others. It will drive cost up even more and introduce more risk where enough exists.

Just an opinion.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

They won't be active at the same time as a matter of course. But the UK will be able to now generate a full time capability - the ships will cover each others refit periods. Much like the Albion LPDs will be run. Clearly it would be a great idea for the RNR to train for these two capital ships to ensure that they could be regenerated quickly if required.


The RNR does not have the range of skills to run ships as complicated as a LPD. They are quite busy supporting operations too.

As QE will also need to supply the UKs LPH capability, I personally think the U turn was worth it if it gets the UK that crucial 100%

Agree.

[Bengo]

In this so called emergency does that mean our illustrious First Sea Lord would

'Rob Peter, to pay Paul?'


A future 1SL will if needed no doubt find the men the same way that Henry Leach did in 1982, when all sorts of things re-appeared off trots. Denude the shore establishments for experienced Officers and Snr Rates and the training pipeline for Jnr Rates.

Worry about the ensuing mess after the emergency.

That was always how the third CVS and its CAG was designed to be manned, even in the days when 'committed to NATO' actually meant something.

N

[LowObservable]

ICBM -

Now add in the phenomenal SA

If and when the DAS and HMD all work. The last time I saw a DAS relative operating, it was trying to shoot down clouds and the odd bird and couldn't see a 737 a klick away.

, networked everything,

Like an in-service Gripen?

jaw-dropping weapons capabilities

Superior to those of anything out there today, exactly how?

and the potential for as-yet-untold growth

Hopefully more so, and more affordably than LockMart's last fighter product, which may get self-targeting of multiple SDBs, AIM-120D and AIM-9X late in this decade at a double-digit-billion price tag.

They do have great PowerPoints, though.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Bengo

I like your thinking, However, two things come to mind that may be a spanner in the works. Firstly, the RN is much smaller now that it was in 1982, with fewer sailors and shore establishments, and training posts increasingly filled by civilian personnel. Secondly, the ships that went south in 1982 were manned in the most part by their normal crews. Augmenting the ships company of a frigate, or forming a naval party aboard a STUFT vessel is one thing, forming an entire crew is a quite different challenge.

That was always how the third CVS and its CAG was designed to be manned, even in the days when 'committed to NATO' actually meant something.

Presumably this would have made use of personnel who has served aboard a CVS before? This seems to be another argument for doing something (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131) to continue embarking fixed wing aircraft this decade, so that those skills continue to exist.

You would hope that things that were judged too difficult or too costly in peacetime would become possible in wartime, but are we still able to innovate and think outside of the box?

The First Sea Lord recently discussed the carrier issue, according to Pompey news:

Navy boss warns aircraft carriers are ‘vital’ (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/navy-boss-warns-aircraft-carriers-are-vital-1-4018227)

Admiral Stanhope pointed out that before HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier jets were axed in 2010, the UK’s aircraft carriers were used almost every year since the Second World War.

He said: ‘For the UK, the year 1989 is instructive. I say that, not because it was the year the Berlin Wall came down, but because it was the only year between 1945 and 2010 that the UK did not deploy her carriers in support of her national interests.’

He added: ‘To put it simply, countries that aspire to strategic international influence have aircraft carriers and countries that have them, use them.

‘Air power from the sea was an important part of our national story last century and it will continue to be a vital part of our national story this century.’

[Courtney Mil]

WEBF,

I find myself in agreement with you. The UK needs its carriers AND ALL THE STUFF THAT GOES WITH THEM. So we need the manning, the right aircraft and the right warships to go with them.

Would you argue that the it should be the very best aircraft available? So, -C. Build up the manning in good time to build the new fleet. Keep the build going for the Ds and Fs, counter mine, AEW, various helos, etc, etc.

Most of that is not my territory, obviously. But for God's sake, get the right air on those decks.

[glojo]

...

WEBF,

I find myself in agreement with you.

I never thought I would hear those words..

Has your account been hijacked?

Has Commander Ward spiked your drink? :ouch::ok:;)

I stand by your right hand side and also am in full agreement..

Stop paying the EU their £50m per day and we can EASILY finance both carriers..

I thought I read somewhere that if we get both carriers they will be expected to be operational for over 400 days per year!! If that is the case then how do we plan to man these ships along with the rest of the fleet? Taking sailors from other ships does not work as we only have a limited numbers and I doubt VERY much if there is any slack within their manning levels?

[Milo Minderbinder]

"operational for over 400 days per year"????

time to ease off on those meds glojo

[glojo]

time to ease off on those meds glojo Shhhh.

Two ships Milo..... two ships :)

Two ships at 365 days per year EACH equates to...... ahhhhhhh ummmmmmm

Okay, okay I got it = 730days IF they were both operational for the full period :):ok: ;)

Why drink and drive,
When I can take Pils
And fly

Pils ... pills .. Get it :O:O

[Milo Minderbinder]

some pils for you

http://www.visit4ads.com/sitecontent/LG/fullPR-010890-813-1.jpg

[WhiteOvies]

Shame that 1SL didin't argue the point made to Pompey News a bit stronger sooner...

Seems to me like an early heads up for the 2015 reiew that the Navy could do with an increase in manpower. The cuts have been made too deep and we now need more people to get the capability the politicians want.

Not sure it'll happen but it seems like a good strategy to me!

[Heathrow Harry]

An on-going issue for all the UK armed forces is their inability to recruit - no-one yet has said where the 1600 plus sailors are going to come from for each of the new carriers for example

The army recruits Commonwealth soldiers on a large scale - some of the Scots regiments have appalling recruiting records- only the RAF seesm to be able to more or less balance leavers and joiners

[WhiteOvies]

Have seen a lot of Commonwealth sailors and marines in recent years, although the recruiting hasn't seemed to pay off in recent Army Fijians vs Navy Fijians rugby match at Twickers!:}

If recruiting is an issue then more effort needs to be made on retention. With the pension overhaul in 2015 though I can't see that happening :*

[glojo]

Just been reading some old political 'jaw, jaw' and I see that on the 30th November 2011 the US Senate Armed Services Committee approved the exchange of the third British F-35B for the F-35C. The airframe which was an early build was designated for the US Navy but instead the Americans kindly allowed it to be transferred across to the UK.

The UK government agreed to cover the costs of our F-35B being modified to the specifications required by the US Marine Corps????

This begs a few questions, firstly how much money, time and of course 'face' was wasted on this 'W' turn (W = two U's)

Did we exchange this 'B' way back in November? Rome was not built in a day and it could be that this agreement even though 'agreed' was actually torn up and we kept this aircraft.

Did we pay any money for any aircraft to be converted to Marine Corps specifications even though I am guessing we might not have made this exchange?? We seem to be giving the Marine Corps our 'Crown Jewels, so why not give them some money as well?

what are the differences between the Marine Corps 35B and the UK aircraft?

There is talk of our Fleet Air Arm pilots undergoing all their training in the USA... Even all their fixed wing training and are any current Navy pilots undergoing LSO training on the large super carriers and if so should we now be looking at putting our Navy pilots onto Marine carriers operating the harrier? Did we once operate this aircraft? :mad::mad:

We are all hearing dates when we should have an operational carrier but I find it interesting to read the words of Rear Admiral Hussain the Controller of the Navy and Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) in charge of the carrier programme confirm how the Royal Navy expects to be fully operational by 2031. It could be sooner or it might be later... Do we believe it will be sooner?

When asked to comment about each carrier only being at sea for 200 days per year, he stated it was an operational imperative for each carrier would stay at sea for 300 days a year Words are copied from his meeting with the Public Accounts Committee Meeting. My thoughts here are.... Is someone is being confused with 'sea time' as opposed to operational time? (question) for Milo that is 600 days per year for both carriers :ok:;) I don't see how we could take sailors away from the rest of the fleet for this manning, but if we can, then we can.

[WhiteOvies]

Glojo,

Armed Forces Committee were approving request made in 2010 post SDSR, took that long to be approved, just in time for us to change our mind again and want the 3rd STOVL jet back.:ugh:

[glojo]

If this appeared in a 'Yes Prime Minister' episode we would think they were being silly and nothing like that would ever really take place.

I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure and I might be getting better at making decisions, what do you think?

To 'B' or not to 'B'

Would the 'C'... 'B' the aircraft to go to 'C'

:8:8Surprising what a bit of medication does to the old brain box.

[peter we]

"This begs a few questions, firstly how much money, time and of course 'face' was wasted on this 'W' turn (W = two U's) "

I read somewhere that it all cost nothing.

[Milo Minderbinder]

another question - was this ICAALS system ever evaluated - see Launch-Systems.com - Home (http://www.launch-systems.com/default.html)

I found a report which shows the Americans were looking at an earlier version of it, but dropped it for the new carrier in favour of EMALS

[orca]

I very much look forward to hearing where the extra people are coming from and how the pension reform coupled with 200 - 300 days of the year away from the wall is going to retain them. Sounds like a brilliant plan.

glojo - LSO progress is being made if not exactly 'in hand'.

Everyone will have their own opinion on which is closer to F-35B and QEC, a CVN deck or a USMC VSTOL deck. Given the complete change in vertical thrust philosophy and ease of handling one could argue that pilots' motor skills are irrelevant either way. As the deck will be big on QEC perhaps the deck choreography needs to be learnt on a CVN not a Wasp class. Then again I'm sure there is a counter argument that my long deceased grandmother could manage a deck the size of QEC with only a handful of jets on it!

Carrier strike is what we are buying the jet for which will be more akin to USN ops than USMC. But again, we could debate that into the night as well.

Long and the short of it is we've made a complete pig's ear of this so clarity of thought is no longer a privelege we enjoy. It's a goat.

[hulahoop7]

I don't understand the issue of man power? At the moment the RN is manning both Lusty and Ocean. Both these ships will be replaced by the QE class, of which only one will be operational at any time.

Type 42s continue to be replaced by the less head count hungry 45s, and in the next decade the 23s will in turn be replaced by 26s - which will no doubt also show head count efficiencies. But the 1SL has already said, while he has enough to man 1 active CVF, if the UK decided to run them concurrently, he would need an increase. It ain't going to happen though. The reality will be that 1 CV and 1 LPD will be held in deep reserve, and rotated out to cover long refit periods. This should extend the lives of both classes of ships. I believe that CVF is built to last 50 years, so they might be still showing the flag beyond your children's lives. Not bad for £6bn!

[SpazSinbad]

'glojo' asked: "...Did we pay any money for any aircraft to be converted to Marine Corps specifications even though I am guessing we might not have made this exchange?? We seem to be giving the Marine Corps our 'Crown Jewels, so why not give them some money as well?

what are the differences between the Marine Corps 35B and the UK aircraft?..."


Vagaries Continue To Cloud U.K. F-35 Agenda Aug 15, 2011 By Robert Wall

Vagaries Continue To Cloud U.K. F-35 Agenda (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/08/08/AW_08_08_2011_p47-352385.xml)

“...Also still in process is an effort by the U.K. to switch one of three F-35s bought for the JSF test program from the “B” to the “C” model. The U.S. Congress must approve the move, as the U.S. would swap an F-35C to be bought in the sixth low-rate initial production (LRIP) lot for an F-35B the U.K. funded in LRIP 4.

The Pentagon says, “The proposed exchange would benefit both participants — the exchange would provide the U.S. with a Stovl aircraft 24 months earlier than planned to support maturity assessments and training needs; it would allow the U.K. to avoid the costs of a CV aircraft for operational test, and it would increase operational test capacity through the use of an instrumented CV aircraft in the LRIP 6 time frame.”

The move should come with no financial penalty to U.S. taxpayers. “The U.K. would bear the costs of upgrading and modifying the LRIP 4 Stovl aircraft to the more advanced LRIP 6 configuration. In addition, the U.K. would be responsible for bearing the costs of incorporating flight-test instrumentation of the CV aircraft as well as any other U.K.-unique CV aircraft requirements,” says the Pentagon. A U.K. defense official insists any costs associated with the change are already budgeted....”

[glojo]

We are always in a hurry to criticise this amazing aircraft and no doubt the doom and gloom merchants will dismiss this latest piece of information

F-35 Flight Test Progress (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/10/4621095/lockheed-martin-f-35-flight-test.html)

[Willard Whyte]

It's easy to be cynical...

SOURCE Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

[ColdCollation]

... it says the -B will be flown by the USMC and the Italian Navy; do they know something we don't? :E

[WhiteOvies]

Willard, feel free to be cynical but those are all facts. Testing has improved significantly but still has a long way to go. (For info I don't work for LM!)

Interesting that LM have put out a statement of where the programme is that is relatively positive but only a tiny local newspaper publishes them..thank goodness for the internet.

Spaz - Wall's article was correct in Aug 11, if the UK wanted some special test wiring put in it would have had to pay for it. If we want to change anything we pay to be different. In this case the Pentagon were probably hinting at buddy refueling capability which would involve significant work.

[Bastardeux]

Yeah but it's also a fact that the senate armed services committee has some very big reservations about the programme. The progress in testing is of course, welcome news; but an article sourced only from Lockheed Martin has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The quick look report makes for far less encouraging reading!

Are you sure you don't work for Lockheed, WO?

[glojo]

I'm sure that nay sayers will once more suggest that Lockheed Martin are dreaming but I like to think the glass is half full (or should that be fool)

Click (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/airshow-lockheed-fighter-idINL2E8IB35F20120711)

[ORAC]

Two snippets from this weeks AWST (Farnborough Special). The first raises the issue of obsolescent hardware - IIRC a problem also met on the F22 at about airframe 50-60. Caused due to the 20-30 year protracted design/production cycle. The second reference the F-35C hook.

.....The 3I package, to be installed on aircraft in LRIPs 6-8, will include the 2B release rehosted on new computer hardware, selected to handle obsolescence issues...

....Work also continues on a redesigned tail hook and dampener for the F-35C. The original design failed to grasp the arresting wire in slow, ground based trials last year. Carvalho says Lockheed Martin began testing the tailhook - which has a sharper point designed to scoop under the wire - in May and it ""caught the wire every time" in ground tests. Work is underway on the dampener, and Vemlet hopes to see it tested by early fall. The first arrested landing on a runway is expected in 2013....

[ORAC]

Sorry, subscription paper copy. Should be available online next week for non-subscribers.

[JSFfan]

here is the text for that part from AW
In addition, the Pentagon has broken the Block 3 increment into two pieces—Block 3I (initial capability) and Block 3F (full capability), says Venlet. “We don't want to throw too much in it so that it can't be done,” he says, noting that Block 3 may also include some regression work from Block 2B. The 3I package, to be installed on aircraft in LRIPs 6-8, will include the 2B release rehosted on new computer hardware, selected to handle obsolescence issues. The 3F tranche will feature new capabilities that are key to the F-35's core mission‚ such as multi-ship suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses as well as new air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. This package also will include the full complement of weapons carried internally and externally on the aircraft, says Venlet. It is slated for inclusion on the LRIP 9 aircraft, and defines the capability that will be available at the end of the development phase of the program in 2017, he notes.
Once the process is stable, Venlet says the program office hopes to issue a software refresh every two years.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

ORAC

Sorry - trouble with PPRune/my machine/it being Friday the 13th meant that I managed to delete my reply whilst trying to edit it. I attempted to make the point that Technology Insertioon is becoming the norm - see this RUSI paper (http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/3contention.pdf).

These are a couple of replies to previous posts that I managed to write and not post. Sorry if this appears messed up, with replies not in chronological order...

WEBF,

I find myself in agreement with you. The UK needs its carriers AND ALL THE STUFF THAT GOES WITH THEM. So we need the manning, the right aircraft and the right warships to go with them.

Would you argue that the it should be the very best aircraft available? So, -C. Build up the manning in good time to build the new fleet. Keep the build going for the Ds and Fs, counter mine, AEW, various helos, etc, etc.

Most of that is not my territory, obviously. But for God's sake, get the right air on those decks.

We also have to think about what is actually achievable, considering finical, technical, manpower, and training considerations. No point in aiming for things that are not achievable.

Nevertheless and without wishing to re-open the debate - it's done and we need to get on with getting the ships completed and as many F35 as we can get (definitely more than 6!) worked up and available - the actual content of the conversion has never been satisfactorily explained.

Nor has the Government outlined a coherent policy for preparing for a F35B/STOVL future, as opposed to the post SDSR plan of attempting to prepare for a CTOL future, with personnel on exchange Stateside.

I have commented in this before. We need to just get on with it, which to my mind seems to mean that a policy change is needed as I suggested here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-63.html#post7259088).

Presumably it will be easier to prepare future CVF crews with the skills needed for STOVL operations than for CTOL ones? Add to that the very real possibility of embarking Harriers aboard Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth? These things make the switch from F35B to F35C seem more logical.

Why can we not embark foreign Harriers?

Better still, borrowing a few AV8Bs from Spain or Italy (particularly the former as they may be needing the UK to chip in to the bailout fund - and are allegedly looking to mothball their carrier) would give us aircraft to train with, and a real capability. Alternatively (and since the US want us to have a carrier capability) lease a few AV8Bs (with support Memorandum of Understanding). But we need to do something (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131).

When I heard of the move from F35C back to F35B (and STOVL operations), I thought (hoped) that it would follow that a lease or whatever of Harriers would take place - as this would give us the capability back now and allow us to prepare properly for the future. Why are the politicians so unwilling to consider making this a success?

We need to do something.

[Willard Whyte]

We need to do something.True, but unless one is a feckless waster, dodgy foreign power, anthropomorphic global warming activist or Olympic (all praise the great olympic cock-up) related, anything that costs more than three shillings and tuppence is not going to get past government bean counters.

[JFZ90]

For "not_a_boffin" - question 143 onwards is Bernard Gray shedding a bit of light on the factors behind the cats/traps conversion cost escalation.

There is a reference to "other equipment being needed to operate CV variant as well as the cats & traps".

House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC9-ii (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/uc9-ii/uc901.htm)

[Not_a_boffin]

Thanks for that JFZ.

Suspect the "other equipment" might be a Fresnel fit, the camera system and potentially they're suggesting they hadn't included the AAG fit as well. 280 compartments changed will often mean something as simple as the parts list altered for a different piece of equipment, although in some cases it will mean major structural mods.

However, still doesn't explain the mahoosive amount of manpower. Combined total of EMALS & AAG procurement in the USN budget book ranges from $675M + $146M to $846M + $184M over the two ship sets ordered thus far, including engineering support. Worst case, call it $1Bn, which is £700M in real money, leaving £1.3Bn of manpower to execute the conversion. At £50/hr, that's still 26 million manhours, half that if you go extreme and suggest £100/hr. Given that HMS Illustrious took around 22M manhours in total to build from scratch thirty years ago, I remain sceptical that the figures purely reflect the conversion.

However, it's done, let's get the ships in service and crack on.

[glojo]

:):)Smug grin on face


I have NO knowledge or experience of the EMALS system so please accept these are questions and NOT disagreements.

The Americans are staying with a four catapults to launch their aircraft and we are opting for a more feasible two catapult system. Looking at your figures you have roughly cut the costs by 50% so my question is...

Is each catapult a self contained and independent unit. By that I mean FULLY self contained with one power source, one control unit per catapult? My only experience is with steam powered cats and we would always operate ALL boilers whenever at flying stations and the extra boilers supplied steam to all the catapults on the deck.

Would something similar be used for EMALS namely one huge power unit to supply the copious buckets full of volts required to launch the aircraft. If yes then the costing for our system might not be 50% cheaper and possibly on 20 - 30%. The3se are questions and definitely NOT statements. If each unit is indeed autonomous then 50% it is http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

I was thinking that the operating components of the catapults were not independent and it was unlikely that buying two would be half the price of buying four but I was assured they were indeed fully independent..

However we now find out that the basic research might not have been done and there was no glojo to ask such a basic and fundamental question!


Let us leave aside the start and end point. On the component parts that build up the change, the cost-in particular of the catapult system-proved, on further dialogue with the US, to be significantly higher. I cannot remember the exact figure for that component, but it was of the order of 50% higher than the original estimate for that piece of equipment, largely because of the assumptions, made broadly at the time of the defence review, that we would be procuring half of a US system. The US system has four catapults on a Ford-class aircraft carrier; we would have two. Broadly speaking, therefore, the assumption was that the cost of the equipment would be about half.
In practice, there is a lot more common equipment that is required to drive the system overall, regardless-up to a point-of the number of catapults that went into that. There was also a significant component of additional technical advice, which the contractors in the US were recommending was required. As usual I sing the same song as Not A Boffin and if this is an example of their lackadaisical costings then let's pick a number, double it and then divide by the angle of the dangle to get the figure we want.

Bernard Gray, Chief of Defence Materiel talks about wanting to pay his senior staff more money to retain them and then make it easier to employ retiring senior officers.. I would suggest employing people capable of simple costings and asking the most basic of questions! That committee meeting contained more waffle than my evening Waffle Pie!

[Milo Minderbinder]

So, to repeat a couple of earlier questions

1) was the competing EMCAT system from Converteam ever costed out?
2) was the Internal Combustion Catapult Launch System (ICCALS) ever looked at? I understand thats a possible retro-fit to the older USN carriers that can't be fitted with EMALS

[GreenKnight121]

I have seem statements from someone claiming to work on CVF that part of that "cost of additional equipment relating to "cat & trap"" includes carrier-based airborne refueling aircraft for recovery tanking (either separate aircraft or integrating buddy-tanking capability on F-35C and buying the buddy-tanking equipment).

[Not_a_boffin]

That wouldn't surprise me and is a bit naughty if true. Larger STOVL formations may also require tanking, it isn't just a CTOL thing.

[LowObservable]

NaB - The requirement for tanking support for STOVL ops might be more rigorous in the SRVL case, with less recovery flexibility in the case of a fouled deck.

On the other hand the B does can't carry enough gas to be a very interesting tanker, anyway.

[peter we]

"The requirement for tanking support for STOVL ops might be more rigorous in the SRVL case, with less recovery flexibility in the case of a fouled deck. "

The plan is to dump the extra weight and land vertically in case of a fouled deck

[JFZ90]

I have seem statements from someone claiming to work on CVF that part of that "cost of additional equipment relating to "cat & trap"" includes carrier-based airborne refueling aircraft for recovery tanking (either separate aircraft or integrating buddy-tanking capability on F-35C and buying the buddy-tanking equipment).

Presumably the tanking costs were not included in the STOVL option? Interesting - makes you wonder if they were comparing like with like - for a fair comparison of options, the combat radius of the B vs C option should have been the same - in this case would recovery tanking really be needed for the C to achieve the same strike capability as a B?

[ColdCollation]

Buddy tanking's not just about recovery, though, is it? There're a bundle of other capabilities involved. More and more it's clear that this was a case of, 'Now this is your answer, go find me the reasons.'

:ugh:

[glojo]

It is absolutely senseless talking about tanking capability as that died when the option for cats and traps died.

We have ALWAYS been quite clearly told that if we want the 'B' to have ANY type of tanking capability the FULL costs of research, design,development and testing for this feature will be down to the United Kingdom. The USA are not interested, never have been interested and presumably never will be interested in having such an expensive, technological advanced aircraft as a tanker!

Judging on how our bean counters do their costing I think it fair to suggest that these design costs would far exceed the simpler task of converting our floating steel launch and recovery platforms into proper, self supporting aircraft carriers.. Have I still got a strong opinion regarding this decision?

[cokecan]

Glojo,

i'm as thick as a whale omlette - how/why would giving an F-35B a tanking capability be that much harder than taking a buddy re-fuelling pod from a Tornado, or F/A-18, and nailing it onto the inboard pylon of an F-35?

i'm not saying a 'good' tanking capability, i'm merely asking why physically addapting such simple, legacy equipment would be so cripplingly expensive/hard?

[Finnpog]

Cokecan, be careful of trying that new-fangled common sense. It has no place in modern military procurement, and could even be considered as career-limiting at your annual evaluation ("...candidate demonstrates a lack of strategic perspective...")

I mean, why use a perfectly effective system as fitted to the Super Hornet? <when a riduculously sky-high priced new system, which is is 'conceptualized' (my deliberate Zed / zee) and CADed from scratch - and can then have the original TOR amended so that the cost can ramp is of course the model answer>.

[glojo]

i'm as thick as a whale omlette - how/why would giving an F-35B a tanking capability be that much harder than taking a buddy re-fuelling pod from a Tornado, or F/A-18, and nailing it onto the inboard pylon of an F-35?

i'm not saying a 'good' tanking capability, i'm merely asking why physically addapting such simple, legacy equipment would be so cripplingly expensive/hard? :ok:

Way beyond my pay grade, I am just the thick whale omelette that queried the guesstimated costs of the UK version of the EMALS system. We are possibly being fed a huge degree of bovine excreta, but I doubt you could go to Halfords and buy a few jerry cans to lash under the wings of this latest aircraft and then maybe trail a syphoning tube for any aircraft in need of a quick 'Splash and dash!'.

There have been lots of discussions on this very topic, the Americans have always made it perfectly clear of their position. We basically pay up, or shut up!

Is 'Jerry' a politically correct term? I have not mentioned any war???

[Justanopinion]

I am also probably missing something in all the discussion as to the extensive costs of bringing a tanker capability to F35. On the Super Hornet it is a tank that fits on the normal centerline tank pylon and can be fitted to any of the jets. Then it's a case of adding extra fuel tanks depending on how much give is required. Doesn't stop that jet still being a regular Super Hornet the next day.

[FODPlod]

Would someone confirm that the implementation of a buddy-buddy AAR capability (supply and receive) involves somewhat more than just bolting on a piece of legacy equipment? In my experience, a re-fuelling pod does not contain any fuel and would need a 'wet pylon' plus the associated control systems and safety features to work.

[Justanopinion]

Would someone confirm that the implementation of a buddy-buddy AAR capability (supply and receive) involves somewhat more than just bolting on a piece of legacy equipment? In my experience, a re-fuelling pod does not contain any fuel and would need a 'wet pylon' plus the associated control systems and safety features to work.

The refuelling pod fits on an ordinary fuel tank pylon, it is full of fuel on take off and can be used as an ordinary fuel tank. When airborne you select to or from to either put fuel into the tank (while refuelling) or from to use the fuel in it. It is just a piece of legacy equipment which takes some extra checks from maintenance once put on.

[FODPlod]

So no need to control a hose reel, pump turbine, supply valves, status lights, etc?

[JFZ90]

The point about the aar is not whether it's difficult or not, but was it really needed in one option and not the other? If so why? Might be a complicated answer....might not!:)

[ColdCollation]

It was needed in one option (-C/EMALS) but not the other (-B) to bump up the cost of the first to justify the selection of the second...?

Not a complicated answer, just complicated politics (sadly, all our own)?

:(

[Aggamemnon]

According to the SofS, the UK is only to buy 48:

Britain, U.S. hail F-35 fighter as tightening ties | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/uk-britain-usa-jet-idUKBRE86H1IU20120718?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=401)

First official reduction from the 138 figure that I've seen.

[glojo]

If we read all that report it states at the bottom..

Hammond told Reuters before his speech that Britain ultimately planned to buy an unspecified number of additional F-35 models after deciding - as early as 2015 or as late as 2020 - on a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft to replace its multirole Eurofighter Typhoon fighters.

[ORAC]

I think someone mixed up Tornado and Typhoon. At least I hope they did......

[Jackonicko]

According to the SofS, the UK is only to buy 48:

Britain, U.S. hail F-35 fighter as tightening ties | Reuters

First official reduction from the 138 figure that I've seen.


There's no official confirmation of this '48' number in offficial MoD releases - eg at:

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | UK takes delivery of first Lightning II fighter jet (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/UkTakesDeliveryOfFirstLightningIiFighterJet.htm)

[BEagle]

Jackonicko - please reply to the PM I sent you!!

[Willard Whyte]

48?

No point in the raf getting any. Money saved from any joint b-s can go to running both carriers simultaneously, as much as is possible.

[Not_a_boffin]

As Jacko rightly points out, no official source has come out with that number.

One suspects that the "48" has been extrapolated by a journo source from the number of GR4, the aircraft that it is supposed to "replace". The requirement to provide Carrier Strike will be on top of that GR4 number, remember it was the "type" retired, not the requirement, which merely lapsed due to no suitable aircraft type.

Or so one would hope......

[BDiONU]

First one delivered After 10-year wait, navy finally gets its hands on new planes - Local - Portsmouth News (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/after-10-year-wait-navy-finally-gets-its-hands-on-new-planes-1-4075975)

[Milo Minderbinder]

Sounds like inspired guesswork
Very close to halfway between the total numbers of FA2 built (52) and initial GR5 production (41)

In the case of the GR5, more were built later as different marks - probably the same will apply to the F-35

[glojo]

As per my post the Defence Minister has confirmed the first order fo4r 48 but has not given any further numbers for any subsequent orders.. This is a complete and utter NON news story :) Far be it for me to suggest our Minister might be mistaken regarding the replacement of the Typhoon. Could he have simply thought of an aircraft beginning with the letter 'T' and just got it wrong?

[Jackonicko]

Where exactly is this number 'confirmed' Glojo?

[glojo]

Hi Jackonicko,
My BAD :O:O:O:O:O

Many apologies and I got carried away with my wishful thinking..
a day before Britain receives the jet's first international delivery. Britain is to formally accept an F-35 test model at Lockheed's Fort Worth, Texas, production plant on Thursday. The Pentagon seized the occasion to voice strong support for the plane, which is over budget, behind schedule and a potential target for cuts by lawmakers. The delivery reflects "considerable strides" in the program, particularly in the past year, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told a Pentagon press conference alongside Philip Hammond, his British counterpart. "The F-35 represents, I believe, the future of tactical aviation for both of our armed services" and would help ensure "our dominance of the skies for years to come," he said. Hammond, Britain's secretary of state for defense, cited joint work on the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing model -- of which Britain plans to buy 48 -- as one of the "crucial keystones" of what he called Britain's most important defense relationship.:O:OMANY apologies for my misleading comment... Slap wrist jobbies

[hulahoop7]

BBC News - UK receives first F-35 stealth fighter jet from US (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18919388)

BBC are now quoting 48 as an initial commitment.

What does 48 mean in the context of the F35? With a production line open and ready to make up attrition down the line, surely the FEAR ratio of that 48 should be higher? Is this therefore already sufficient to meet requirements for the carrier strike role (12 usually, up to 36 in a crisis)?

The UK / RAF could return for A models at a later date.....

[Navaleye]

I have seen direct quote from the SoS or any official statement from the MoD mentioning an order for any F35s prior to the next SDSR.

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: U.K. To Order First Production F-35 for Training (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120719/DEFREG01/307190001/U-K-Order-First-Production-F-35-Training?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

LONDON — Britain is to order a fourth F-35B short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) fighter next year from builder Lockheed Martin. The aircraft will be the first production-standard F-35 destined for the training fleet, rather than the test and evaluation role being undertaken by the first three aircraft ordered by the British.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond made the order announcement during the handover of the first of the aircraft at a ceremony at the U.S. contractor’s Fort Worth plant in Texas on July 19. The initial three aircraft were purchased at a cost of nearly 300 million pounds ($469.2 million) for test and evaluation, but the fourth will be used to give front-line pilots their first taste of training on the F-35. The second evaluation aircraft will be delivered next month and the third is scheduled for handover in early 2013. The latest order will see the fourth aircraft delivered in the 2015-2016 time frame.

The British, the only full-scale international partner in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, become the first country outside the United States to take delivery of an aircraft. The fighter will be jointly operated by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Hammond recently said that although no final decision had been made, the RAF jets were likely to be based at Marham, Norfolk, starting in 2018. Flight trials from the Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth-class carrier will commence at about the same time.

The handover and new order follows a period of near farce when the British government managed two U-turns in quick succession on the variant of the F-35 it intended to operate. An initial, long-standing decision to go for the B STOVL variant was overturned in favor of the C conventional carrier version, only for the Conservative-led coalition government to change its mind again a few months later when it became apparent that the cost of modifying the aircraft carriers now being built would be prohibitive.

The British have declined to give any information on aircraft order numbers ahead of the next strategic defense and security review, scheduled for 2015.

[Baron 58P]

Oy vey, what price stealth now? :oh::oh::oh:

''Passive radar'' from CASSIDIAN remains invisible

Cassidian, the defence and security division of EADS, has developed what is known as “passive radar” that can locate even difficult-to-detect flying objects such as stealth aircraft and that itself is practically undetectable. In contrast to conventional radar, passive radar doesn’t emit any radiation, but instead analyses radiation reflections from other emitters, such as radio and television stations, to detect objects.

“The principle of passive radar has been known for a long time,” says Elmar Compans, Head of Sensors & Electronic Warfare at Cassidian. “However, we have now integrated the latest capabilities of digital receiver and signal processing technology to significantly enhance range and detection accuracy by monitoring various emitters at the same time.”

With its passive radar, Cassidian is focussing on the requirements of civil and military airspace control which until now could not or not sufficiently be met using active emitting radar. In civil application, passive radar makes cost-effective air traffic control possible without any additional emissions and without making demands on transmission frequencies in short supply. In military applications, the system enables large-area surveillance using networked receivers, while offering the decisive operational advantage that passive radar cannot be located by hostile forces. The particular characteristics of the omnipresent radio signals used for operation enable detection of even objects that are difficult to detect, such as stealth aircraft or stealth ships. A further advantage of the new technology is its increased detection capacity in areas of radar shadow such as mountainous terrain and its capability to locate extremely slow and low flying objects.

A demonstration system has already been delivered to the German Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement (BWB). Cassidian’s passive radar can be used for mobile deployment in a vehicle of the size of a commercial van and thus can be moved very quickly and with little logistical effort. After successful testing, including at Stuttgart Airport, the plan is to set up a production prototype system and to carry out evaluation programmes by both Cassidian and the customer by the end of the year.

[LowObservable]

Selex showed something of the same kind at Farnborough. It's not the ultimate anti-stealth radar, but it shows how detection technology is moving forward, driven by faster and cheaper signal processing. This makes a lot of detection and tracking systems practical that only existed in theory or the lab when the JSF stealth specs were written in 1995-98.

As well as passive radar, this general progress applies to track-before-detect, infra-red search and track (eliminating a lot of false-alarm problems) and ESM.

ESM is important in air-to-air - what's on a modern fighter is a different animal from the radar warning receivers of old, particularly with multi-platform networking, and has raised the bar hugely for low probability of intercept/detection. A radar spec that was LPI/LPD in 1985 (F-22 requirement) or 1995 (F-35) is not necessarily LPI/LPD today.

If anyone who uses radar for more than half a second immediately gets shot, the value of having a better RCS than your adversary is somewhat reduced.

[WhiteOvies]

Has anyone else noticed that TV and Radio stations are quite often taken out to prevent propaganda being broadcast by the other side? Denying comms networks to the enemy is good practice and has the useful side effect of significantly reducing the number of emitters that could be used for 'passive radar'. It's just another piece of the SEAD effort for Day 1 ops and doesn't mean we should just give up on stealth technologies as being outdated.

[Milo Minderbinder]

The problem is the number of emitters you would have to take out
Mobile phone masts
TV/Radio transmitters
Ham radio transmitters
Emergency services transmitters

Theoreticaly it would even be possible to monitor variation in the EM field associated with high voltage power cables - or even fluorescent street lamps.

Thats a heck of a lot to hit on day one
Better option would be to take out the power generation and distribution networks. But how many aircraft and missiles would that need? And would that be regarded as an attack on the civilian population under the terms of the geneva conventions?

[ColdCollation]

But how is this new, exactly? BAE and Roke Manor were talking about and demonstrating CELLDAR 10 years ago...

[Willard Whyte]

But how is this new, exactly? BAE and Roke Manor were talking about and demonstrating CELLDAR 10 years ago...

There's your answer, methinks.

[Heathrow Harry]

" The second evaluation aircraft will be delivered next month and the third is scheduled for handover in early 2013. The latest order will see the fourth aircraft delivered in the 2015-2016 time frame."

hmmm - one a year - that's what I call careful budgeting

[glad rag]

" The second evaluation aircraft will be delivered next month and the third is scheduled for handover in early 2013. The latest order will see the fourth aircraft delivered in the 2015-2016 time frame."

hmmm - one a year - that's what I call careful budgeting

If we actually had operating carriers waiting for their aircraft, would they be coming any quicker?? :hmm:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Good question glad rag. We could make a real sucess out of this, and operating STOVL aircraft this decade (pre F35) would give us the capability we need and allow the various skillsets to be exercised and developed. Also the switch back to F35B would appear coherent.

The arrival of the first F35 is of course good news, but there is still the issue of the mess we have got ourselves into, something expressed concern about earlier (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/471767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-71.html#post7295880). Surely this is a key issue that needs to be dealt with?

If we can send thousands of people to provide security for the Olympics, and tie up important assets for it, then we must be able to find the funding and people to do something to do with the total mess that this has become.

[ion_berkley]

Mobile phone masts
TV/Radio transmitters
Ham radio transmitters
Emergency services transmitters

In terms of usefulness for passive radar uses though, the (digital) TV signal would be by far the most superior. Ham and other low power, narrow band, non-continuous signals from ill defined or mobile locations, would be pretty useless for this.

[Milo Minderbinder]

agreed, but remember they all contribute to an overall known background blanket radiosignature, and the defenders will have that background pretty well mapped out, including the variations caused by the transient stuff. Remember it may be transient, but it will be consistently transient - ie either there or not, so it will still be possible to use it to find radiomagnetic distortions from the known range of possibilities.

[Ronald Reagan]

Latest regarding F-35 base in UK.

Marham all but confirmed as base for Lightning II - News - Eastern Daily Press (http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/marham_all_but_confirmed_as_base_for_lightning_ii_1_1452585)

[FB11]

Marham. Thank goodness. What a wise choice.

All that uncongested airspace in the SE and the wonderful training areas, ensuring that every precious minute of expensive and limited flying time is used to best effect.

Well done.

[glojo]

If we actually had operating carriers waiting for their aircraft, would they be coming any quicker?? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif Good point as no nation would have an aircraft carrier and not have any aircraft to operate from it or even.. them. I mean that would just be plane or plain stupid!!

No nation would EVER be so stupid!:ugh::ooh::8

I should imagine that if any nation were to be so silly as to find themselves in that type of idiotic position then I suppose they could always reclassify the type of vessel and perhaps call it a 'helicopter carrier' but no one would be that daft.

[orca]

So...should this turn out to be true...

In order to train for maritime strike, with our new maritime strike capability, all we had to do was select a base which offered a short hop over the ogsplosh to turn around and come back over the beach. With the caveat that it was a UK bit of sea and a UK beach.

Preferably this would have had loads of nice airspace...such as the bit north of Wick or the bit west of St Mawgan. It would also have had somewhere to put emitters, such as Wick, Loch Ewe, Aberporth or Oakhampton. It might even have had some ships to fly to and from. Based in the SwApps or in the traditional JMC/NW/JW areas perhaps.

Therefore in a two horse race between Yeovilton and Lossie we have settled on the donkey with a whisky habit. BZ all concerned.

I have probably missed something fundemental, such as they are getting rid of the airways over Stanta, or Wainfleet is coming back as a certified PGM range...or it doesn't matter where we base the thing because we can't afford to fly it and you'll only fly the sim anyway.

[glad rag]

Yes WEBF, but how many VOTES would be in that proposal then?

[Ronald Reagan]

Wasn't St Mawgan often mentioned as a good location for F-35? Sadly with its closure thats not possible anymore. Would there not be major noise issues with Yeovilton? with 3x Typhoon squadrons going to Lossiemouth it does not leave many other possible locations other than Marham. Coltishall and Cottesmore are both closed. As the GR4s are withdrawn from service Marham would make a great choice. Plus this way atleast the RAF retains 3x fast jet bases, 2 of which are in England.

[iRaven]

A reprieve for Leuchars? After all, it was a RNAS originally!

[Ronald Reagan]

With the upcoming Scottish referendum it would be insane to risk having 2 of our 3 remaining fast jet bases north of the border.
IF the Scots go it alone we should close Lossiemouth :ok: If they remain part of the UK then Lossiemouth should remain open.
I guess an independant Scottish Flying Core would be something like that of Ireland, they could maybe station it at Lossiemouth!!!

[Ronald Reagan]

Or maybe the future RNAS Marham!!!;)

[Milo Minderbinder]

No noise issues at Yeovilton
When the Phantoms left they received numerous complaints about the lack of noise. Same I believe when the Sea Harriers left. Surely the F-35 is quieter than either of those?
You've got to remember that not so long ago that was one of the busiest bits of air in the UK, and the locals were well used to the local Sea Harriers, Canberras and Hunters, along with lots of low level stuff including Vulcans and F-111s.
Yeovils an aircraft town with Westland and Yeovilton and the various subcontractors all providing work. Anyone who complains would soon be told where to go

[ICBM]

Marham is a good choice in comparison to others that are available and viable. It is a short hop to the east coast range complex which runs pretty much from Norfolk to Leuchars. It is a well-established base which will be close to the USAF F-35As out of RAF Lakenheath affording a close-knit daily training relationship with a common platform. Since much of F-35's threat training will be simulated on the avionics the relevance of needing emitters at Loch Ewe, Cape Wrath and such like is not persuasive and the issue of congested airspace to the south of Norfolk can be worked around - go North.

Would St Mawgan/Yeovilton/Lossiemouth be better? From an airspace perspective probably yes, but then you'd have to transit a fair way to work with USAF F-35As and for the southern options, Typhoon (or they'd have to transit to you). Bearing in mind that the RAF's F-35s WILL be the natural replacement for Tornado GR4, it makes absolute sense to preserve RAF Marham given the lack of significant counter arguments and constituency politics concerning local jobs.

I guess we await the formal basing decision in the meantime.

[Ronald Reagan]

Also Marham has hardened aircraft shelters. I would hope we would wish to keep these very costly aircraft in them when not deployed on the carriers. The shelters at Lossiemouth will likely be taken up by the Typhoons.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Yeovilton or Culdrose would give easy access to the thursday wars. The F-35 will have to be involved in those for training - it makes no sense to trail them across country

[Courtney Mil]

Once upon a time the King looked into where he might keep his new stallions. I turned out that they could be very noisy after they'd been fed their oats. One of his knights knew of a place in Scotland where the local serfs would accept 20 groats each to have their windows triple glazed at minimum cost to the coffers. And so it was that the town of Lossie would be the site of the new King's stables.

[orca]

ICBM,

If I may I would argue that the fact the F-35 will replace GR4 actually nullifies any argument that the two need to exist in different airfields. Afew years of squeeze is irrelevant for a fifty year capability.

Am I right that Marham is the site for some GR4 depth activity? In which case let the GR4 die there, then close the base. (If I am wrong please disregard).

I have to disagree about the East coast ranges. Holbeach and Donna offer little to F-35. In all honesty neither do the 323s and 613s. What F-35 needs is a short sea transit followed by meaningful training overland. Not the 'charge up the north sea through the 323s and pickle somewhere north of Newcastle'. That might be meaningful for the (single and a bit role) Typhoon, not our new striker.

We have big MDAs west of Cornwall and north of Lossie - we just hardly ever use them. (Unless we've lost them as a result - I am not UK based at the moment so can't check)

I think Marham is a silly idea, but that is just my opinion and I am more than aware that none of us is paid to agree with the next chap.

Have a good weekend, fly safely.

[ICBM]

Orca,

Can't talk to Marham and the servicing that goes on there sorry. If any Tonka mates are on here that can clarify, maybe your point will be validated. I can, however, speak to the others you present:

Holbeach and Donna are completely irrelevant to F-35 ops. The aircraft will not carry any weapons that would offer any training advantage to dropping in these letterbox-size range complexes. The 323 complex and those further north are segregated restricted airspace to allow tactical training without worrying about avoiding civil traffic. They are of sufficient dimension to allow F-35 to carry out tactical manoeuvres and, therefore, are adequate for 'most' day-to-day training in most of the roles. You raise a valid point about overland training - this will, of course, be required in some but not all training missions. With a 450nm combat radius there are few parts of the UK mainland that could not be reached on any given sortie. Add in air-air refuelling and you've got considerable opportunity to swing between the multitude of F-35 mission roles it is designed to perform. Again, there are arguably many better placed airfields but we either don't own them any more, won't own them in the near future (congratulations British Army :D:D) or they require an additional cost to get them to the standard necessary to operate such a complicated jet.

Lossie was the other viable alternative out of around 3 or 4 - factors such as the noise footprint of STOVL made it attractive. We changed variant, the noise issue went away and then we decided to put Typhoon at Lossie so Marham/Lakenheath have become the focus. I don't see anything changing from that now.

Fly safe

[Navaleye]

Not sure what use HAS are given what happened in both Gulf Wars.

[Ronald Reagan]

I know they are not totally safe but having your aircraft one or two per hardened shelter has got to be safer than having 12 or so in a hanger made of sheets of tin. Especially when said aircraft are very costly and we only have a few of them.

[orca]

ICBM,

My thoughts are that over water training is all well and good for A-A but not much else. I am sure that the counter point is that one can pickle off a PW4 over water and let it fend for itself much as you could overland.

I have spent many happy hours in the 323s and 613s (the ones off Leuchars...hazy memory) and got a lot out of it as an AD chap. As a mud I thought it a complete waste of my time to be honest.

You are completely right about the ability to go to places and use AAR. I just remember seeing the sums for use of the aeroplane when I was involved more intimately involved in the project and thinking that someone had left transit time out of the equation. In short a mountain and Mohammed situation.

It remains, despite your valid points, my opinion that our Maritime Strike fighter would be better off based somewhere that made sense to train for its core task. Lossie made perfect sense, Mawgan or Yeovilton made perfect sense. I see no added value in Marham, just transit up and down the North Sea to somewhere useful.

[Easy Street]

Lossie never made sense from a noise point of view. The noise in 'downtown' Lossiemouth during a GR4 takeoff on rwy 23 is deafening - because the town isn't very far away at all. By contrast Marham is actually in the middle of nowhere! Only the married patch gets any significant, long-lasting noise.

As for airspace, well the Marham GR4 wing seem to have coped alright with the training areas available. I seem to recall they did a pretty good job last year! For CAS training there are regular exercises at Sculthorpe, Stanta and Muckleburgh - all no more than 5 minutes' flying time away, and beyond that Salisbury Plain, Otterburn, etc are all in easy range with approx 1hr on task. The TMA over Stanta starts at FL205 so is not a factor (ignore the FL50 on the LFC, it's a long-standing "error" caused by AIDU oversimplifying the depiction of controlled airspace - look at the ERC instead, which is very clear).

Low flying isn't within the F35 CONOPS. If they did want to do it, from Marham a 25-minute transit opens up the Borders (including Spadeadam), the Lakes, Wales or the southwest. Usually at least one of those will be OK weather-wise. Transit time is rarely wasted when your primary weapons are delivered at medium level - 2 or 3 delivery profiles can be practised in each direction. However from Yeovs or Culdrose the northern options would be seriously fuel-limited.

If seeing the ground is the aim of the game for medium-level weapons training, then the British weather dictates that East is generally where you want to be! However, most of the time, operations in the oversea MDAs will be the staple diet. 'Pretend' GPS bombs and cruise missiles might just as well be aimed at the sea as anywhere else. Oil platforms provide nice objects to track with the targeting pod when that is required. If it's air-to-air combat you're after then basing near Coningsby, Lakenheath, Leeming, Leeuwarden, Volkel and Kleine Brogel gives you a huge range of potential opponents to take on in D323.

As regards "embarkation" sorties or Thursday wars - the FOST areas are only 20-25 minutes' flying time from Marham. Not practical from Lossie.

The decision between the 2 really is a no-brainer, before you even start to examine the potential logistic benefits from basing 15 miles away from the USAFE F-35 wing.

[orca]

All good points mate.

I personally found Stanta incredibly annoying to operate in....mainly because I believed the chart and the FL50 restriction (serious point - I have no reason to doubt you but if given the choice between a AIDU product and 'some bloke off t'internet'....I'll go with the chart!), but also because of the comms required to operate in the Lakenheath approach lane. I never really achieved much at Muckleburgh either really.

Best CAS I did in the UK was ivo Lampeter...but that did require the brown jobs actually going somewhere different - which may or may not be practical for formation work ups. So maybe we are stuck with SPTA etc. (Which was always a pain because you only ever got one of the three 'chunks' and had class A stuff north and east from memory, and low level was tricky.)

Your points on sensor use and medium level deliveries are all valid.

Don't know why we're discussing this really - hardly up to us is it?

[ORAC]

The decision between the 2 really is a no-brainer, before you even start to examine the potential logistic benefits from basing 15 miles away from the USAFE F-35 wing. And when did the DoD make any announcement regarding deploying the F-35 to the UK?

With F-35 total numbers expected to dwindle; the pressure to reduce the number of total F-35 bases (from the 40s down to the 30s); and the US focus switching to China and the Pacific, I doubt the present F-15 wing will be replaced for many years - and is more likely not to be replaced when it is retired.

[glad rag]

Marhams such a great base even the local pub shut down, NO facilities, off base, within "reasonable" distance [and even then "reasonable/facilities :\?] yeah great place to stuff our final manned air asset!! :E

[glojo]

Marhams such a great base even the local pub shut down, NO facilities, off base, within "reasonable" distance [and even then "reasonable/facilities http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif?] yeah great place to stuff our final manned air asset!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifI feel your pain, even Khandhar has a Burger King, Pizza Hut, Subway sandwich shop, three cafes, lots of shops, Creamery, sunglasses outlet etc etc etc. It's a hard life you folks have to endure :O ;) (BANTER)

[Widger]

One might like to consider what the runway is made of first, with the likely destruction to be brought on by RVLs. Yeovilton of course is 7500 lovely feet of Concrete on 27 and concrete on 22 as well. Marham's main is Asphalt as are both Lossiemouth's

[Not_a_boffin]

You would hope the basing team had taken that into account wouldn't you. Not holding breath however.....

[PostMeHappy]

Anyone who actually thinks the basing team will have any say whatsoever in the final decision does not know how the MoD works...they will be ordered to make the data 'fit' to justify our Airships plans as 'value for money'

[Not_a_boffin]

Really? You mean continue with a single-type station, thereby maintaining the number of operational RAF stations and a "staish" post? Who'da thunk it....

[Milo Minderbinder]

"Yeovilton of course is 7500 lovely feet of Concrete on 27 and concrete on 22 as well"
Does Yeovilton still have the dummy ships deck / ski ramp?

[Easy Street]

Since Lossie was the original selection for F35B I would say that a concrete runway surface is unlikely to be on the "essential" list!

All current or ex-Tornado bases (Marham, Lossie, Coningsby, Leuchars, Leeming) have about 700ft of concrete at each runway end because of the amount of fuel vented during engine run-up - would this be enough to do RVL training in without needing to resurface the whole runway?

[Courtney Mil]

I feel your pain, even Khandhar has a Burger King, Pizza Hut, Subway sandwich shop, three cafes, lots of shops, Creamery, sunglasses outlet etc etc etc. It's a hard life you folks have to endure

Perfect answer, Sir. :ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

has anyone thought of the noise issue ........... ;)

[WhiteOvies]

Milo,
CVS Dummy Deck is at RNAS Culdrose as part of the RN School of Flight Deck Operations. The ramp at Yeovilton was taken out some time ago but the company that built the ramp at Pax River are from Stockport so it should be straightforward to build another one wherever it's needed.

ZM135 arrives at Eglin:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/-51191--.html#ixzz21XnwWDBv (http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/-51191--.html#ixzz21XnwWDBv)

[Engines]

Gents,

It's interesting to see how many people automatically accept that F-35 RVLs and asphalt can't go together.

The F-35 propulsion system has been tested against a variety of surfaces, and there are definite issues with vertical landings (or vertical take offs) on asphalt. However, I'd place a reasonable bet that RVLs (or STOs) would not present a problem. The aircraft is moving forward at good lick, and the aft nozzle is not pointing directly at the ground for any serious period of time.

I very much agree that fast jet basing decisions have become intensely political - both 'grown up' politics (local economy, MPs, etc) and the RAF's own agenda to keep stations open. I've always been surprised how little scrutiny their 'basing rules', which limit numbers of aircraft at bases to amazingly low levels, have received. In truth, they are driven by a desire to maintain station command jobs and higher.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[orca]

I was actually part of a basing team for F-35B once. I think I got the job because my 'one up' realised I was a little bored.

I remember the meetings being led by a RAF Sqn Ldr...a GR4 back seater I think who had clearly put a simply vast amount of work into getting the jet to Lossie.

There were options upon options and a huge amount of documentation supporting them.

I assume all this work has been torn up for bog roll?

[LowObservable]

Engines,

Coupla issues.

One is that the facts you present (that I don't dispute) are nonconsonant with the statements of LockMart and the US Marketing Corps that the '35B landing footprint is no different from that of the Harrier.

The other is that RVL on land is not really a big deal. Why so? Because I can't operate out of less than 3000 feet because I need Herks.

But then the problem is that the only thing that powered-lift brings to the party, with the F-35B versus (say) an A-10 or a Gripen, is the ability to land on non-arrest decks...

I know there's arguments about what a Gripen can do out of 800 m, but I would bet it can haul 3000 pounds of der Bangenstoff 400-some miles.

[Engines]

LO,

Happy to respond.

Don't know who the US Marketing Corps are, unless you mean the USMC. The footprint of the F-35B is obviously different from the Harrier - it's a two poster not a four poster lift system. However, in terms of noise and jet blast (both items that I was intimately involved in) the F-35B does not present any significantly worse issues than the Harrier. There's more blast, but not much, and more noise. The issues with the latter are driven as much by new health and safety regulations as the level of noise itself.

The Harrier was never very good on asphalt, and I can attest to the fact that even moderate application of throttle with nozzles down below 50 degrees could cause problems- we damaged a runway at Bermuda recovering a downbird that way.

RVL on land is a big deal for the USMC because of their concept of ops for the jet. You need Herks, they don't. In my view, (I know not yours) RVL and STO are two attributes of a powered lift aircraft that can be used for military effect, if required. Ops in the Stan were an example of the benefits of being able to use a short runway.

Comparing A-10 and Gripen is really apples and pears. Basic physics tell you that if you don't have powered lift and want to get off a short strip, you need either very big wings, or big wings with fancy lift devices, plus lots and lots of thrust. Fast jet combat aircraft like Gripen, loaded up to anywhere near the max, need lots of runway. Loaded up to lots less, they need less. A-10 has more wing so needs less runway. I don't have the sums to hand for either, but in the end it's a pure numbers game. How short are your runways, how much do you want to get into the air?

Of course, if you are buying the jets to go to ships (as the Uk is doing) this is all a non-argument. STOVL gets you to sea without cats and traps, which the UK has said it can't afford. Until someone invents the anti-gravity paint, powered lift it is.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[ORAC]

Basic physics tell you that if you don't have powered lift and want to get off a short strip, you need either very big wings, or big wings with fancy lift devices, plus lots and lots of thrust. :E:E

wDstVGAmI74

STOVL gets you to sea without cats and traps :E:E

71Jkg6Rc-eA

[Heathrow Harry]

wasn't one of the issues with the P1154 the (perceived) problem of support on land?

That's why they were looking at the AW 690 or the (unbelievable) P.17D with 70 ( yes seventy) RB108 engines

[LowObservable]

Engines,

Thanks! But if the USMC doesn't intend to use Herks for support (1) why are they always talking about 3000 foot runways and (2) what do they intend to use?

At least one of their major austere-base ops (I think it was OIF) was supported by a fleet of 8000 gal semi-trailer tankers, but I don't see that as a brilliant solution today, with hybrid warfare and all that. And a CH-53K can carry two F-35B-loads of fuel 110 miles...

[Squirrel 41]

LO / Engines

I remain at a loss to explain the USMC Conops in any credible way. As far as I can see, F-35B Stealthy Supersonic STOVL is required against:

- Double digit equipped IADS
- Direct support ashore of a MEU/MAGTAF
- Resupply by V-22 / CH-53K
- Can't be bothered to send a CVN

Not sure which scenarios this come under (other than "wildly improbable").

Can anyone enlighten me? :confused:

S41

[LowObservable]

S 41,

Oddly enough, I asked exactly the same question of the Commandant of the USMC a few months ago. I also pointed out that the F-35B-only force had no electronic attack or AEW support.

He closed to about three feet distance and, very firmly, gave me the standard pitch on the wonders of F-35B, but did not answer the question.

[High_Expect]

Dear Sea Lords

What is the combat range of the F-35B or C for that matter?

Carrier strike turns out isn't the be all and end all after all - who'd have thought!!!

http://m.gizmodo.com/5928295/chinas-df+21d-missile-is-a-one+shot-aircraft-carrier-killer?utm_source=Gizmodo+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2944e4f756-UA-142218-3&utm_medium=email

[Squirrel 41]

LO,

Oddly enough, I asked exactly the same question of the Commandant of the USMC a few months ago. I also pointed out that the F-35B-only force had no electronic attack or AEW support.

He closed to about three feet distance and, very firmly, gave me the standard pitch on the wonders of F-35B, but did not answer the question.

Sounds like M-I-D territory, that...!

However, since the bloke can't answer that question (sensibly, as there is no good answer) this is why I'm more than a little concerned that Dave-B is an easy and profitable chop in January, esp. if sequestration comes through. The USMC can always fly Dave-C off the CVN (as they do now with Hornet) and hey presto, you've saved a bazillion dollars with very little impact on the force package. I've often thought that the USMC decision to have some Dave-Cs earlier in the year was the harbinger of such a switch.

And if we have that, then I guess we'll have to convert the QEs to cats 'n' traps after all... they'd be rather silly LPHs...

S41

[JSFfan]

Come on guys, you can't make-up your own facts, google f-35 EA

"Delivery of the first flight-representative electronic warfare system for F-35 maintains our track record of being on time, on cost, and under weight after 66 months of F-35 system design and development," said Dan Gobel, Joint Strike Fighter electronic warfare vice president for BAE Systems."

the USMC will also have an off-board jammer pod, there is talk of putting it on the f-35, but I question whether it's a good idea to have it emitting as an easily detected jammer
"...Another shift in communications jamming is taking place in the U.S. Marine Corps. Late last month the service was on the verge of deploying its ALQ-231(V)1 Intrepid Tiger II electronic attack pod, an in-house development to equip Harriers with a communications-jamming capability. The technology is supposed to be an even more effective communications jammer than the USQ-113 operational on the service's EA-6B.
Further developments are already underway, and upgrades to the current system will incorporate an electronic surveillance capability. Furthermore, Intrepid Tiger II Version 2 will be a two-pod configuration that will be carried on the RQ-9 Shadow UAV. The system will have 100% of the same software and 85% of the same hardware as the Harrier model, to reduce cost.

So far, the price tag for eight pods has been around $8 million. The Marines also have adopted an unusual development approach, acting as an integrator and working on an open-systems design where hardware components can easily be replaced when more capable or reliable ones become available. The work has been done at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Div., Point Mugu, Calif.

Integration on the F-35 is also being considered. Intrepid Tiger II and its follow-ons should give the Marines long-term electronic attack capabilities even after the EA-6B is retired in 2019...."

The pod has several modes. In one, the pilot can operate a set program but—more critical—in networked mode, troops on the ground can selectively jam particular bands. Unlike some of the broadband jamming now taking place, Intrepid Tiger II is to provide a precision electronic strike capability, says Lt. Col. Jason Schuette, head of the EW branch at the Marine Corps' Combat Development and Integration Command.

[orca]

High Expect,

Sorry I don't understand...someone has a weapon that'll sink a carrier. So what? There have been submarine launched torpedos around for a while that are probably up to the job.

There are also systems called SAMs. But we buy aeroplanes.

There are rifles and knives, but we train infantrymen.

There are far more weapons capable of knocking out airfields...but we're fine with that idea.

Anyway, you get the gist.

If your point is that against that adversary or that technology one had better have a cunning anti-satellite plan up your sleeve, then I concur. But that could be as simple as TLAM-ing the control shack...or sailing under a cloud. If your point is 'someone has found a way to sink a carrier so let's hang up our boots'...we disagree.

[Heathrow Harry]

when you only have multi-billion dollar carriers you start to worry about putting them in harms way - eventually they become so valuable they are so far back they can't do what they were designed for

The original purpose (way back in the late 50's) of the modern US carrier group was to be able to launch N-bomb equipped strikes against the evil empire - since then they have morphed into general force enhancement, showing the flag etc

The danger is of course that when they are involved in a hot war we discover that anyone can sink one - then we're in the position the USN & RN were in in 1941-42 when aircraft made battleships redundant - up s*** creek

[hulahoop7]

Of course the PLAN are so concerned about this game changing capability that they have spent decades desperately attempting to buy, build, deploy a carrier.

[4mastacker]

...........
ZM135 arrives at Eglin:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/-51191--.html#ixzz21XnwWDBv (http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/-51191--.html#ixzz21XnwWDBv)>>Spotter mode -ON<<

Is someone in the MoD department that allocates airframe serial numbers being a bit nostalgic about a previous aircraft called Lightning? Wasn't XM135 one of the first production EE Lightnings and also a bit famous for some other exploit? ;)

>>Spotter mode - OFF<<

[LowObservable]

JSF Fan:

Neither a passive ESM system nor a tactical comms jammer meet any reasonable definition of "electronic attack".

As far as is known (and I am pretty sure that this is the case) the only active RF jamming/attack capability on the F-35 is inherent in the radar. This is X-band only and effective only against targets in the 120 degree forward sector.

[Milo Minderbinder]

4mastacker

this may be what you were thinking of: Taffy Holdens own story of his inadvertent flight

http://driverchris.********.co.uk/2011/02/lightning-xm135-inadvertent-flight.html


change the asterisks to "blog spot" without the space

[High_Expect]

Heathrow Harry that was more along my line of thought! The effect is magnified when you also only have one "boat".

[JSFfan]

LO
Ok, so you accept that the f-35B has electronic attack, although it's not up to your standard.
You must have a good source because I can't find out much on the net about the f-35's multiple RF sensor arrays and how it all works

@Squirrel 41 (http://www.pprune.org/members/101074-squirrel-41) the interviews with USMC pilots at www.sldinfo.com will give you the USMC CONOPS
this seems to be the USMC EW CONOPS

http://www.paxriverroost.org/MAGTF_EW__May_10.ppt.pdf

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=concept%20of%20operations%20for%20marine%20air-ground%20task%20force%20electronic%20warfare&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CF0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quantico.usmc.mil%2Fdownload.aspx%3FPat h%3D.%2FUploads%2FFiles%2FCDI_CONOPS%2520for%2520MAGTF%2520E W%252014%2520June%25202011%2520w%2520signature%2520page.pdf&ei=_5gRUJWjEYWjiQf50oHoCg&usg=AFQjCNFZNdnnCw98VK0hDDyJlGIWWfRWdg

Concept of Operations for Marine Air-Ground Task Force Electronic Warfare
4.2.1 Aviation EW.

From an aviation perspective the threats and the MAGTF‘s ability

to respond to them can be described by four basic categories:

Surface-to-Air, Air-to-Surface, Air-to-Air, and Surface-to-

Surface. In all cases the MAGTF EW airborne family of systems

must take into account an adversary‘s ability to affect our kill

chain with EW techniques. The need for advanced counter

technologies for these systems is of paramount importance for

MAGTF operations.

(1)
Surface-to-Air: In the 2016 – 2020 timeframe, the MAGTF can

expect to encounter advanced networked digital based systems,

and legacy platforms employed by state and non-state players.

Both current and future systems will be leveraged to address the

conventional information used by integrated air defense system

IADS nodes consisting of early warning, ground control intercept

(GCI), and target acquisition (TA) radars, as well as adversary

communications. This capability will mainly reside in manned

CONOPS for MAGTF EWsystems such as EA-6B ICAP III. To the greatest extent possible

any future EA-6B development and follow on Group 4 UAS

development should be tailored to EWBM capabilities including

the ability to act as a node in the EWBM network. It should be

noted that the F-35B will play a role in EW and EWBM; however,

it alone will not replace ICAP III EMS coverage. As procurement

of UAS platforms with interchangeable software programmable

payloads increases and the EA-6B continues to sundown, this

mission set will migrate away from the EA-6B to a future Group 4

UAS and F-35B. UAS platforms will afford the MAGTF commander

both sufficiency and persistence in his AOR, while the F-35B

will provide TACAIR a majority of its ability for deep strike

and to degrade and deny the Surface-to-Air threat.

[Squirrel 41]

JSFfan,

Sorry, not sure I understand. Under what circumstances do you Need supersonic STOVL stealth strike fighter? It's not clear to me that the USMC needs anything more than an updated AV-8B II+, because any time a MEU will go in somewhere that has the odd SA-20/SA-17/SA-22/SA-24 IADS with evolved FLANKER / J-20s, controlled by KJ-200 AWACS, then I think it's pretty likely that the USN will send a CVN (or three).

And if you don't face something as complex as that, then a Harrier would be fine.

S41

[LowObservable]

JSFFan - You'll find a lot of funny stuff on SLDInfo, but not an answer to S41's question.

And no, I don't rate highly an EA capability that works only in one band and only if you're flying towards the hostile emitter. Eventually you are going to lose the burn-through-range race and get shot.

[LowObservable]

This is a tremendous accomplishment in flight control... or possibly a recipe for deep-fried electrohydraulic actuator... or maybe both. "Flaps" have never been so aptly named.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlqRo3oBYZ8&feature=player_embedded

[SpazSinbad]

Exclusive - U.S., Lockheed reach deal on Israeli F-35s
By Andrea Shalal-Esa | Reuters 26 July 2012

Exclusive - U.S., Lockheed reach deal on Israeli F-35s - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-lockheed-reach-deal-israeli-f-35s-194340517--sector.html)

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon has reached an agreement with Lockheed Martin Corp on a $450 million (286.7 million pounds) program to enhance electronic warfare equipment on the F-35 fighter jet, and integrate Israeli-unique systems beginning in 2016, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.

The deal, to be finalized in coming weeks, marks a big step forward for Israel's $2.75 billion agreement to buy 19 F-35 jets, which was signed in October 2010 and includes options for up to 75 of the radar-evading fighters....

...Agreement on development of the new Israeli version of the F-35 will allow Israel to install its own radio and datalink systems, as well as other equipment, on the jets it is buying.

But the deal also covers enhancements to the airplane's electronic warfare capabilities that will benefit the United States, Israel and the other nine countries that either have already ordered fighter planes, or plan to in coming years...."

[SteveDickson1955]

What's wrong with SLDinfo? Personally I think it has some excellent and highly interesting reports and interviews regarding the F-35 on there. Unlike for example the so-called reporting from the likes of Bill Sweetman who I notice tends to take a snide and somewhat childish tone toward anything F-35. ( I seem to remember him writing an angry email to SLDinfo once that ended rather embarrassingly for him..)

SLD Forum: Debating the Future (http://www.sldforum.com/2011/09/message-to-the-readers-of-the-forum-from-the-editor/)

[orca]

Heathrow, High Expect,

I understand your point that a carrier is at risk, just fundementally disagree that it is a game changer.

The reason people develop weapons to counter capabilities is because they view them as potent and threatening...that's why no SAM was ever designed with the F3 in mind.;). (Calm down chaps.) My point? The Chinese know how useful a CVN can be...even if some within the RAf and UK press don't.

What we (may) (supposedly) have is a country with a (potential) (unproven) chance at constructing a kill chain that results in you being denied a capability. Does that mean that from the get go your capability is null and void? No, absolutely not.

The Typhoon (as far as I am aware) has no great LO or EW string to it's bow. Are we saying it can't fight anyone with access to SA2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 20? Are we extrapolating and saying that because everyone's got SAMs and we can deploy less than twenty Typhoons we shouldn't even bother pitching up? No. And rightly so.

This has happened since the dawn of time. Since one side showed up with Goliath and the other brought David to the fight. Weapons and weapon systems have strengths and weakness. There's always a counter, and usually a counter to the counter. (Oh and weapons hardly ever work as advertised these days...only today I saw another advert claiming the Typhoon was multi role and 'nothing comes close'!)

Carriers have had their dawn, and will have their dusk. But not yet. For now they are a flexible and potent piece of sovereign territory. That can be found by few, targeted by fewer, and that answer to no one.

[SpazSinbad]

LONG VIDEO - appears to be about one hour duration - on VIMEO is 177Mb .MP4 and yep SLDinfo cannot SPel.

F-35 Pilots and the F-35: A Discussion at Farnbourgh Air Show 2012
by SldInfo.com 26 July 2012

F-35 Pilots and the F-35: A Discussion at Farnbourgh Air Show 2012 on Vimeo

"An overview of the F-35 program from the standpoint of the pilots in the program is provided in the videotape of the session at the Air Show on July 10, 2011

As readers of Second Line of Defense know, we have spent considerable time with F-35 test pilots and F-22 pilots.

We have as well interviewed Colonel Arthur Tomassetti who was one of the panelists.

He is the vice commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing, Air Education and Training Command, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. The 33rd Fighter Wing serves as the home to the Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Training Center, providing pilot and maintenance training for nine international partners.

In the video, the pilots discuss the aircraft and its performance. It is fifth generation in more ways than its stealth characteristics; as we observed aboard the USS Wasp a F-18 pilot in landing the B stated that “this is the easiest aircraft to fly I have ever been in.”"
____________________

Sound not available on computer in use but I believe these are good 'quotes from the video'. YMMV.
"A couple of things from the Q&A section:
1. Ship trials included a few VL --> takeoff --> go around --> VL w/o refuel.
2. Hehe... first question from China News Agency was... Do you have a comment on the J-20? I kid you not.
3. Blk 2A more stable than 1B which was more stable than 1A.
4. SRVL and Ski Jump takeoffs this year. SRVL let's them recover about 2-3k lb more and approach 35kts faster. Ski Jump allows for larger loads and saves 150ft of deck run."

[Finningley Boy]

Evidently it's been reported in Janes Defence Weekly that "M.O.D. sources" have revealed details of long term planning for UK operational Fighter/Attack squadrons. While no set figure has been agreed regarding F35s, it would seem that with the F35B entry into service, the R.A.F. will get an additional two Typhoon squadrons. From 2030, the expectation is that a number of F35As, or whatever development there of, which is available at the time, will over the following decade replace the Typhoon. By 2040, the R.A.F. will be flying F35B and F35A.

However, nothing will be agreed in terms of the eventual number of F35s of either version until SDSR 2015.

FB:)

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks, FB. Here is what is available online.

UK slashes F-35B numbers but might look to split buy with F-35As By Robert Hewson 7/27/2012

UK slashes F-35B numbers but might look to split buy with F-35As (http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065969970)

"UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has signalled a major revision to the UK's plan for procuring the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with a sizeable cut in the expected number of F-35B short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft purchased and the possible acquisition of a second variant: the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A.

In remarks on 19 July in the United States, Hammond said the UK would order 48 F-35Bs to equip the UK's future carrier strike force. He added that a follow-on F-35 buy would be set out in a future Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), with the aim of replacing the Eurofighter Typhoon in UK service.

Hammond was in the US to attend the handover of the UK's first F-35B (BK-1) at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed his comments, telling IHS Jane's : "The defence secretary said that initially the UK would buy 48 jets for the aircraft carriers and announce at a later date what the final numbers would be. We will not finalise our decisions on the F-35 programme until SDSR in 2015."

[LowObservable]

SteveDickson1955 - Something about "never getting a second chance to make a first impression" comes to mind.

[SteveDickson1955]

Wow, I didn't think you'd take the bait that easily Bill. But at least you've now confirmed without a shredd of doubt who you are. Thanks for playing.

[JSFfan]

Squirrel 41 (http://www.pprune.org/members/101074-squirrel-41), the 'need' will be apparent if you go and read some interviews with harrier pilots over at SLD, it's obvious that you haven't googled - sld interview harrier pilot - yet or you would have found this for a start.

Shaping the Strike Force for Bold Alligator 2012: The Perspective of 2nd MAW | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-strike-force-for-bold-alligator-2012-the-perspective-of-2nd-maw/)

The F-35 Pilot | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-pilot/)

LO, it's strange that you find the interviews at SLD 'funny', I guess you aren't use to reading 1st hand accounts from the forces and prefer pamphlets and journalist's agendas

[LowObservable]

"It's obvious that you haven't googled - sld interview harrier pilot - yet or you would have found this for a start."

But it does not answer the question. What's the scenario where you need the F-35B's stealth - which is what has cost billions and will continue to do so - but don't send the CVN with its support capabilities?

Answer that, please, because the Commandant did not.

And whatever are you talking about with "pamphlets and journalist's [sic] agendas"?

By the way, I'm not being a punctuation Nazi for the hell of it. I do wonder, though, how people who haven't hacked third-grade English feel qualified to dump over other people on complex issues of technology and operations.

And to be specific about SLDInfo: They consistently retail pro-JSF propaganda, with no balance whatsoever. And they push ideas like the "Z-axis" (essentially, fused and netted avionics) without acknowledging that these attributes are not unique to the JSF, and are completely untested on the JSF platform.

[JSFfan]

LO, as long as I can understand what is written, I don't get too upset with grammar, but it annoys me when someone suffers a delusion of competency and tries to correct something that is already correct. The agenda is owned by the journalist, hence the apostrophe S.

EDIT, it's not worth making another post on it, but on reflection, 'the' was needed. If this is you 'not being a punctuation Nazi for the hell of it' I would love to see you in full flight.


A lot of support is off-board the CVN and these capabilities are transferable to a LHD type platform. So I don't understand what you mean, could you expand it please.

EDIT, LO, you still haven't expanded sufficently, a USMC MAGTF has a lot more than that going with it.

[LowObservable]

CVN support?

AEW, without which the best equipped naval force has very little warning against a low-flying aircraft or missile threat. Broadband EA. Refueling to extend range and time-on-station. And more than six jets per deck, before you start offloading transport helicopters from the LHA/LHD.

Arguments that the F-35 will act as an AWACS or SIGINT platform fall down on the persistence issue.

(And since we're not writing in Latin here, if you leave out the article, it's plural. Nice try.)