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

[JSFfan]

actually, I will make another post, LO, why don't you go to SLD and read about USMC CONOPS and why your post has little to do with reality.

[Squirrel 41]

JSFfan,

I would politely suggest that LO, Engines, Not-a-Boffin and SSSETOWTF are amongst the best informed and most informative commentators on here - or anywhere else on JSF / UK CVF matters. So, whether you think LO is being a grammar nazi or not, you'd do well to listen to what he has to say.

I skimmed the BOLD ALIGATOR puff piece you linked to - as LO pointed out, it doesn't tell me why, when the USMC is facing a sophisticated IADS that needs stealth on day one / two / three whenever, and US interests are sufficiently compelling that despite the threat, the Marines are going to go in - that the US won't send one of 10 CVN battle groups with all of the associated capabilities offered by a big-deck carrier, which, as LO pointed out include

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.

To which one could also add organic C4ISTAR, including in effect an organic ACC. Oh, and COD to keep the jets flying - and no, V-22 is not a VTOL C-2.

S41

[JSFfan]

Engins knows what he is talking about, the other 2 names haven't stuck in my head yet, there is someone here that is on the f-35 team, it may be one of the other 2 names.
As for LO, he seems to put forward a simplistic CONOP of only 1 LHD with 6 f-35b. For a start MAGTF won't be going anywhere without AEGIS and other assests will be called in as needed for the mission. As you would know if you went to SLD and read about USMC CONOPS

[LowObservable]

Sure, you have Aegis. But without Hawkeye and CEC - which are key to cruise missile defense - Aegis still gives you as much warning time as anything else, which is distance to horizon divided by the speed of the threat, and in the case of a supersonic missile is uncomfortably small.

I know there are some people who argue that the F-35B will provide beyond-the-horizon warning to Aegis, but if they have explained how this is to be done as a practical matter, given the jet's endurance limits and its radar coverage angle, I have not seen it.

[WhiteOvies]

4mastacker - spotter mode on - yes the MOD has spotters in it and the Air Historial Branch so ZM135 has been tagged for a long time for Lightning II due to the link with the previous Lightning. After a long time of JCA/JSF debate over what we call it everyone is now to call it Lightning ('cos CAS says so).

Not sure why we're arguing about USMC conops as the UK will be developing our own, including an AEW capability (Crowsnest). Scenarios vary but remember that with the proliferation of modern SAMs it's best to have something that stands a chance against them. Will we ever need to go it alone without the US? Who knows, maybe not, but surely it's better to know that we can if we have to? Lkewise with the USMC: better to know you can go it alone without USN support than having to rely on it. Remember that Libya involved no USN CVN, just the USS Kearsage (LHD) and maybe a few F-35Bs could have been useful on Day 1.

The benefits of COD are well known but LHD has to make do with V22/CH53. With CVS we made do with Merlin and a Lynx. For big items we took spares with us, or loaded them at port calls, examples being Pegasus engines and Merlin gearboxes. The F-135 engine can be split into modules or you have spares built on board. You just have to plan round whatever constraints you have.

Fusion is being tested on F-35A, B and C as well as the Catbird at Ft Worth. Why is any positive news on F-35 'propaganda' but any negative news, however ill informed, worth hearing?

[WhiteOvies]

http://www.jsf.mil/video/misc/12-170%20UK%20Ceremony%20640WMV.wmv?fuseaction=home.VideoPlay&key=DC80FEC8-B7B9-40DD-BE53-CC7D78682946

Sorry - more propaganda from 2 of the UK pilots actually testing the F-35B and the UK Team Head in the US. ;)

[LowObservable]

WO - Not all F-35 good news is propaganda. There is reality there, and at least today it can be said that the program is not visibly slipping against the most recently adjusted flight-test schedule.

Neither would I say that ill-informed negative news is worth hearing, any more than ill-informed positive news.

On the other hand, much of what comes out of LockMart is "propaganda" because that's what public relations and advertising largely consists of. It's designed to influence the way that media and the public think about the JSF - which is what propaganda has been ever since it was invented.

http://storage.canalblog.com/37/31/340870/29370233.jpg

After all, LockMart's not going to issue a press release to say "Clearance for training flights delayed until 2013" or "Carrier trials slipped into 2014 after first roll-in tests", both of which have happened in the past few months. Eventually they have to admit it, usually because they're being poked and prodded by a journo or a GAO investigator, or because they're up before Congress.

[WhiteOvies]

LO,

All true, it just seems that many are quicker to paint the F-35 programme in a negative light than a positive light, even when significant progress is made. Any positive news is dismissed as 'spin' from LM, perhaps another case of good news not selling copies?

LM are a business, so you are right, they will not always be forthcoming about issues. But as a highly classified project, should they be upfront in baring all for possible adversaries to see? I don't see the Chinese telling the world about flight test issues with J-20 etc...

[LowObservable]

If the program's predicted acquisition (R&D and production) costs had not gone up by $40 million per day (base year, no added inflation) since they signed the development contract...

And if we were not sitting here in 2012, when they were supposed to have hit IOC with all three versions, with no declared IOC date at all...

And if they had an excuse, such as if the program had been hit by a major partner's threatened walkout (Typhoon) or by budget fluctuations (Rafale)..

Then I would feel frightfully sorry for them about the negative press. However...

I'm not saying that they should disclose sensitive or classified stuff. But delays of the kind I mentioned are neither, because outside a completely black program, they'll be obvious anyway.

And while they don't have to publish bad news, I will always remember Airbus saying, in effect (in 2006, I think), "We are really screwed up on A380 and will be late. We're not sure how much." Nobody quite knew how to handle it.

[Squirrel 41]

WO - I pulled it as it was a duplicate.

On the question of why the USMC ConOps is relevant to the UK, at one level WO is clearly right - the UK is going to do its own thing, and I'm sure that the RN will wring every last ounce of capability out of whatever (flawed) tools they get.

However, where the USMC ConOps are relevant is if they are sufficiently internally contradictory that when the US comes to make defence cuts post the 2013 Presidential Inauguration (something likely under either Romney or Obama, irrespective of what Romney is currently saying), then it makes it more likely that cancelling Dave-B can be credibly portrayed as something other than a cost driven decision.

And without CVF converted, the UK would have "issues".

Hence my interest in the USMC ConOps.

S41

[LowObservable]

S41 -

That's an important connection.

Right now, the F-35A on the one hand, and the B/C on the other, are in different situations.

The F-35A is the least expensive model and is the most badly needed, because the USAF ordered its last F-16s in 2001 and its last F-15Es in 1992. Terminating the A-model would not only annoy and embarrass US allies, but would quite likely cause the fall of some governments. Which would put the Pentagon leadership on Ms Clinton's :mad: list, and trust me, you do not want to be there.

The F-35C, however good it is, is not quite the same, because the USN is the only customer and has a modern fighter in production, with untapped improvement potential. The USN can wait.

So that's why the question of the strategic importance of the USMC F-35B to a joint-force campaign is critical. What does it do that you otherwise could not do? What does it do that would be harder and more expensive to do without it? And the answer has to be at a joint-force level - it's not just that it lands on an LHA/LHD or a 3000-foot strip.

What if the answer is "not much"? That the B is additive, not critical, and enables few unique options in likely scenarios?

Hypothesize that the B and C are either terminated or have their IOC kicked into the mid-2020s, under budgetary pressure.

The Pentagon saves a boatload of money over the next 10 years.

Large parts of the CV community utter a collective "w00t". The CV Navy can take the SH to the next level, and the CNO still has change to spend on ships and standoff weapons.

Boeing, GE and Raytheon are happy, and the US has another strong competitor on the international market and a healthier industry base.

The Marines are unhappy, but can actually stretch their sea-based Harrier fleet through the 2020s as long as they replace their Classic Hornets with the SH. And if we're talking about CAS and NTISR in support of an MEU doing a big NEO (noncombatant evacuation op) in war-torn Bongoland, that's all you need.

The JSF program can restructure around one flight-test program at EAFB, and standing up one service's squadrons at one set of bases.

LockMart still has the world's biggest fighter program. Not quite as big, nor as monopolistic, and the UltraBug might pick off a customer or two, but on the plus side it can only have a positive effect on the pace of the program, bringing closer the date at which it becomes a massive cash cow.

And what about the UK? Don't forget that Sean Stackley, the USN acquisition boss, warned the UK against switching back to the F-35B. So if the plug does get pulled on the B, the US will respond to the screams from Whitehall with "TS, dude, we warned you."

[Squirrel 41]

LO, thanks

It was interesting how little coverage Sean Stackley's comments got here - indeed, there seems to be a degree of hope* / wilful blindness* from Whitehall about the actual danger that Dave-B is in.

One thing always confused me: what does Dave-A offer that Dave-C doesn't do better? I was actually wondering if (a la F-110A) the USAF could actually just operate the F-35C with the internal GAU-22A and an UARRSI port. Would presumably save a pile of dosh, especially through life. Don't know - a genuine question - it's not as if F-35A is going to be heavily OCA tasked (and it should be fine in DCA).

S41

*Delete as appropriate

[LowObservable]

S41 - The quick answer is that the C, even without the gun, ammo feed &c, is 5,500 pounds heavier (OEW) than the A. I suspect that the main reason that it has better range is that it has fuel where the gun/ammo would go. But otherwise that's a big performance penalty.

Also, the big wing is not going to do wonders for the transonic acceleration.

[Squirrel 41]

LO - fair enough

Thanks for that. I had presumed that big wing provided the extra fuel, not the gun and ammo storage. My thinking was simply that if the performance hit wasn't that great, then the cost savings would be attractive for an all Dave-C fleet. Obviously not.

S41

[Engines]

Guys,

Perhaps I can help out here.

The main drivers for weight difference between the C and the A are the bigger wing, tail and fins (all weigh more) and the massive amounts of extra metal needed internally to handle cat and trap loads. Landing gear weight is more than twice the A's. C's greater internal fuel capacity comes mainly from the bigger wing, but LO is quite right to point out that losing the very large gun installation helps as well. (So does losing the USAF refuelling receptacle - that eats up lots of lovely fuel tank space).

The gun installation is interesting - the original 'A' design used a Mauser 27, but under pressure from US domestic manufacturers (and concerns over Mauser feed issues), LM went for a 25mm gatling. Nice gun, but larger, heavier, less effective and needs more ammunition per target.

So what does the A do that the C doesn't? Main attributes are higher sustained G, faster acceleration and higher speed. It's also a lot cheaper, but building lots more will always do that for you.

Hope this helps a bit,

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

[LowObservable]

Engines,

Agreed. The OEW difference is quite big, though, compared with Rafale (1360 lb, I think), even accounting for the fact that JSF is bigger overall. Wonder why?

Also, I remember being told by the program folks that the big reason for the gun switch was logistics costs, 27 mm being a completely new calibre for the US. And, at the time (2003) they were saying that they had lots of weight margin to play with...

[Engines]

LO,

Honestly, I'm not sure I believe the figures for Rafale - but the C delta weight is driven by extremely tough Navair rules for carrier structural design - perhaps they are more conservative than the French. I know that the T-45 weight delta over the Hawk was lost more than 1360 lb.

Yes, I remember those arguments over gun selection, but 27mm is a standardised NATO round and much more effective than the 25mm, especially when you have less rounds to fire. That should have been the driver.

In 03, you are quite right that LM weren't focussing on weight - a major error when designing a jet fighter, in my view. At the time, however, the biggest issue was internal volume, and the Gatling was a volume eating monster. Bottom line was that the US have used Gatlings for many years and didn't want to change. LM went with the flow, very understandably so. The choices surrounding guns are invariably emotive, and in my view this one was no exception.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[JSFfan]

"Not sure why we're arguing about USMC conops as the UK will be developing our own, including an AEW capability (Crowsnest). Scenarios vary but remember that with the proliferation of modern SAMs it's best to have something that stands a chance against them. Will we ever need to go it alone without the US? Who knows, maybe not, but surely it's better to know that we can if we have to? Lkewise with the USMC: better to know you can go it alone without USN support than having to rely on it. Remember that Libya involved no USN CVN, just the USS Kearsage (LHD) and maybe a few F-35Bs could have been useful on Day 1."

WhiteOvies, at this point of time USMC are the only ones putting forward a 5th gen CONOP for the F-35B and although the UK has 2 carriers with about 40 aircraft each when they fit out both, they would have a similar load to 4 wasps in air/sea control, 20 aircraft each. I think the UK acting on its own would have more in common with the USMC task force.

LO, perhaps if you read the whole sentence "For a start MAGTF won't be going anywhere without AEGIS and other assests will be called in as needed for the mission."
Wouldn't N/AF AWACS come under 'other assets'?

[LowObservable]

Engines -

What, the French telling porkies? Mon Dieu, c'est incroyable!

I don't know how comparable the numbers are, exactly. The C and M Rafales are pretty much identical in size and shape. Also, I know that commonality was pushed quite hard: the goal was to minimize the number of M-unique parts, partly by designing the carrier-related load-paths so that they affected as few parts as possible, but on the other hand they may have told the AF to accept a few extra kilos here and there in the interests of saving money.

(That was the original plan for JSF, too, but I think the execution went over the side in the Great SWAT War.)

JSFFan - AWACS is a great answer for Libya. How well it works anywhere else depends on the distance between the operational area and the nearest friendly base (the further it is, the more aircraft you need to cover 24 hours) and the ability to move AWACS, tankers, maintenance support, force protection &c into that base. It gets very nontrivial very quickly.

[Engines]

LO,

Yes, I've seen the figures as well, still a bit of a sceptic on French claims - but I might be doing them a mis-service. They are considerable engineers, and I have never underestimated them. I just have a problem balancing the requirements I know JSF had to meet with the stated Rafale load penalty. Might be comparing apples and oranges.

The basic problem is that carrier ops generate loads and load paths that just don't exist in land based designs - you have to put new and extra metal in to cope with them. Nose gear launch loads are a good example. In some cases, you are dealing with quite terrifically large hunks of metal to get the loads around the airframe.

You're being a little hard on LM and the SWAT effort, if I might suggest. There is still a lot of commonality between the variants, it's worth remembering that all three were overweight, not just the B - they all had considerable redesign, and the solutions were, as far as practicable, common. However, you are quite right that some commonality had to be sacrificed. However, it's still a considerable achievement to get CTOL, CV and STOVL aircraft out of one basic configuration.

My guess is that the focus on F-35 will now move to the avionics. Firstly, because they have some big challenges to overcome in software and mission system testing. They'll beat them, but it will be a challenge. Secondly, the focus will shift as people realise just what avionics this aircraft is carrying as a standard fit, and the capabilities it is bringing. Interesting times.

Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the business, whether in service or those working all hours to deliver the new kit

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

Interesting that LO claims above: "...Sean Stackley, the USN acquisition boss, warned the UK against switching back to the F-35B..."

Whereas this - I guess - is the article where there is no such warning from Stackley (only 'a defence source'):

"...“This letter could be a warning shot saying if you Brits go back to jump jet carriers then there might be no planes to fly off it,” said a defence source...."

Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164155/Aircraft-carrier-costs-will-be-half-what-you-think-US-tells-ministers.html)

[JSFfan]

Engines, the B is weight sensitve but when Burbage was in australia he said "The other two airplanes (f-35A &B) are not as sensitive to weight. We are actually probably several thousand pounds away from the first compromise of the performance requirements of those two airplanes"

LO, the acceleration doesn't sound too bad
"
““We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”
The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.

But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.
“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.
Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.
In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying."

I don't know if that is with degraded engine, like with other specs.
for what it's worth, it's said that the f-35A & C speed is 750 kn limited to m1.6 going by a chart sweetman posted so it's not slow either. FWIW a forum poster said that test pilot "Hog" Griffiths said the f-35A is supercuising at M 1.25

refer to my sentence again, "other assets will be called in as needed for the mission." now where is this non-defined hypothetical mission where the USN isn't going to send a carrier. I can't think where the USAF can't put awacs, can you?

[SteveDickson1955]

On F-35 acceleration

"But even with the limited flight envelope released to Eglin for training, Spohn says that some of the F-35's characteristics are already apparent. The jet's subsonic acceleration is excellent.
"I think it compares very favourably to the F-15C," Spohn says. "I would say the acceleration in a straight line is absolutely comparable to the F-15C equipped with [Pratt & Whitney F100]-220 engines that aircraft is a pretty spy performer, if you will, and it compared very well with that."


Note that this was said by Maj Jay Spohn, chief of standards and evaluation at the 33rd FW's operations group.



(Though I imagine that a certain desktop warrior/ journalist will proclaim it to be nothing more than propaganda.)

[kbrockman]

As far as weight differences go between landbased and carrier based models, there can be many reasons why they differ so much sometimes, one of the most succesfull models ever, the F4 phantom even gained weight ,+400lbs between B and C models when it was adapted for the USAF comming from a NAVY carrier based model.

The Rafale numbers are most likely acurate considering how much they have in common , also it doesn't need stronger wings to compensate for a wing folding mechanism, and keeps the dimensions of the landbased Rafale.
EADS and SAAB are probably not far of the mark when they claim that a navalized version of their fighters (EF,Gripen) will only have marginal weightgain.

USNAVY 1962-F4B , 27,897lbs OEW
USAF 1962-F4C , 28,276lbs OEW

[Squirrel 41]

Engines,

Many thanks - and most interesting on the 25mm / 27mm calibre issue. My musings on USAF using Dave-C was simply how much would they be giving away to have a single variant - and how much would that save over the programme life?

I presume it is possible (ie, "only engineering") to USAFify a minimum change Dave-C (ie, add the gun and UAARSI), though this wouldn't deal with

Main attributes are higher sustained G, faster acceleration and higher speed.

However, if the choice were more Dave-C (mod-1 - Dave-D?) versus fewer Dave-A for the same money, it would interesting to see where the tradeoff is.

Kind regards, as ever.

S41

[LowObservable]

JSFFan - First, I already responded to your question about AWACS.

You'd have to ask Mr Burbage about the meaning of some of those statements. As for weight margin, we know that the A has packed on 2700 lb of OEW compared to predictions at contract award, while the C has snarfed down enough Big Macs to gain almost 5000 lb. "Several thousand more" sounds like there were some big margins in there.

For instance, the B-man may mean that they still meet KPPs, but there's a lot of daylight between "threshold" and "desired".

"The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said."

Well, which? One of these things is not like the other. Particularly an F/A-18C just before the -402 engine came in.

"it's said that the f-35A & C speed is 750 kn limited to m1.6 going by a chart sweetman posted".

There's limits and there's limits. An aircraft could run like a scalded jackrabbit to 1.6 and then hit a structural or heat boundary beyond which they just did not decide to test. Or it could have a nasty forebody and inlet design that creates wave drag and doesn't give you good pressure recovery, so that the jet hits a wall of treacle above 1.2 and it can just about scrape 1.6 with a low-hours engine on a cold day before the gas runs out.

"FWIW a forum poster said that test pilot "Hog" Griffiths said the f-35A is supercuising at M 1.25"

An SR-71 went to Mach 4.2. Says that on the intertubez.

[JSFfan]

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 20/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb 4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0000%22)
Mr Burbage: Weight is most critical on the short take-off, vertical-landing jet. That is the one that has the toughest requirement for taking off from and landing on small ships. You saw in the movie that we did that, this year. We predict the weight on that airplane to grow at about three per cent throughout the rest of the test program and it could grow some more throughout its life if more capability that has substantial weight goes on the airplane. (per year shoudn't have been said as it conflicts with facts)
If you look at the STOVL jet and you look at our weight charts, which you are more than welcome to see, we have now gone two years without any weight increase on the STOVL jet, and that is while accommodating engineering changes to the doors, which we have replaced with heavier doors, and other changes that were made to the airplane. (Dr JENSEN: I will show you the chart. I am afraid it is a bit small, but you can see there is January 2010 and there is January 2012. Clearly there has been a weight increase.
Mr Burbage: This increase right here is a ground rule change, not unlike other ground rule changes—when the weight of the electro-optical targeting system was added in, it is just a step function increase. If I bring this down and I measure that point directly back, it goes back two years to intercept that curve there.)
We manage the weight very tightly on that airplane—for good reasons, because it needs to be.
The other two airplanes are not as sensitive to weight. We are actually probably several thousand pounds away from the first compromise of the performance requirements of those two airplanes. We do, however, manage the weight very tightly on all three airplanes. The metric that we look at is when the weight growth curve levels off, that means your design has stabilised. You are no longer making lots of changes to the design. All three airplanes are now in that level-off phase. The best one is the STOVL where you can go back and see that we have not increased any weight at all in a full two years.
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) So having reached that steady state, you are saying you are some thousands of pounds away from—
Mr Burbage: On the non-STOVL jets.
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) So the conventional take-off and landing—
Mr Burbage: The key performance requirements that are weight-dependent have large margins still ahead of them. On the STOVL the key performance parameters are much tighter to the weight, because it is more physics than aerodynamics.
Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them—'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement. For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today.

Mr Burbage: To the original set. Today, all the KPPs are green because that ground rule was changed to be common across all three airplanes on the range. But we have not taken back the margins that are being withheld to make sure those performance predictions are conservative. We are not going to have degraded engines. We basically measure our performance characteristics with a highly-degraded engine capability. Our actual flight test information coming back from the engine is better than nominal. These calculations are not done using actual airplane test data. They are done using an artificial penalty that gets paid back as the design matures.


LO. think again what SL 750kn means with internal fuel and weapons and what other planes are, as to what you are saying. your mighty su.35 is 755kn clean

[Heathrow Harry]

so a weight increase isn't a weight increase if it's a "a ground rule change"???

I hope that change includes more engine power because if not it'll be ground rule alright..................

[JSFfan]

It is an allowed known weight increase, as the hardware is installed to the path of the final weight.
With the eodas, it's now 32.353 and it's max final to be 32,719, although they want to get it about projected 32.577

refer quick look review page 48
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/274217/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf

[Willard Whyte]

so a weight increase isn't a weight increase if it's a "a ground rule change"???I tried telling my wife that my needing a trouser with waist size 36" compared to 32" twenty years ago was a ground rule change. After all, consuming many steaks and bottles of wine is merely installation of additional hardware.

That went well.

I've a notion my overall power output might be a little down too.

[JSFfan]

as long as you don't have a premature missile fire, it's all good ;)


LO, Well we have the name of the test pilot, so no doubt some interested journalist will ask the question at an interview.

"I completely agree that you can only trust the people working directly on the program to get the most unfiltered answers.

I had the chance to chat with "Hog" (461st FTS F-35 test pilot) a couple weeks ago and I specifically asked his opinion on some of the controversial topics surrounding the aircraft including:

4th gen Comparison (specifically maneuverability): said he is dual qualified in both the 35 and 16 and while it doesn't perform as well as a clean block 50 Viper, when you factor in internal vs external ordinance and fuel the F-35 will perform better in combat (you guys already know this). They won't know exactly how it'll fair in a dogfight until OT&E begins later this year but he said that the F-35 will definitely be up to par with all 4th gen fighters.

Helmet mounted display/JHMCS: was very confident in the system and said they had almost all the bugs worked out. Gives him incredible situational awareness and he can even see threats below him. Eventually they will have the helmet set up so the "bitching betty" will talk into it based on where the threat is in relation to him (similar to a 5.1 surround sound system).

Supercruise: It takes afterburner to get past supersonic, but once there he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay supersonic around Mach 1.25ish (you guys also know this, just reiterating).

Cost: very brief answer but said as the program continues to mature it will gradually decrease.

Datalink: Another very brief answer but his flight of 4 will know exactly what is going on around every flight member at all times. They can covertly share threat data between jets and they can even act as 2 independent 2-ship "hunter killer" groups (lead and 2 acting as shooters, 3 and 4 as controllers and even ECM).

IOC: Somewhere around 2017. Also said that individual squadrons will be able to deploy to a combat theater before the IOC date."

[LowObservable]

"until OT&E begins later this year"....

o rly?

BTW, the "interview" was popped on to f16.net by a pseudonymous newbie.

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/babydoc3/9337123/11965/original.png

[Heathrow Harry]

"Cost: very brief answer but said as the program continues to mature it will gradually decrease."

I think a) he means the forecast unit cost b) this man is a real optimist.......

[JSFfan]

that's a funny definition...seeing that I made no claim and said the source was a forum poster, preempted by 'for what it's worth'
I said
"FWIW a forum poster said that test pilot "Hog" Griffiths said the f-35A is supercuising at M 1.25 "
"LO, Well we have the name of the test pilot, so no doubt some interested journalist will ask the question at an interview."

[SpazSinbad]

F-35A Testing Moves Into High Speeds By DAVE MAJUMDAR : 13 June 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072&c=FEA&s=CVS

"...The F-35's ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry. "It flies fantastic," he said. Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it. The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain. "What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air." Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, formerly the Air Force intelligence chief and a veteran F-15 pilot, said having that kind of capability is a huge advantage. "I'm real happy to hear that in fact is the case, because speed gives you a variety of advantages," he said. "It allows you to employ your air-to-air missiles from a range much greater than otherwise would be the case."

Though the F-35's maximum speed is Mach 1.6, the F-35 test program will eventually push the jet a little beyond that limit to make sure operational pilots have a margin of safety, Griffiths said...."

[peter we]

that's a funny definition...seeing that I made no claim and said the source was a forum poster, preempted by 'for what it's worth'

Its worth nothing. The is Professional Pilots forum, many of the posters here are/were involved in the real world. You should respect that.

Linking to another forum as a reference is not acceptable on Wikipedia and its isn't on this forum or any other for that matter unless the source is verify-ably credible.

[LowObservable]

PW - The species trolliculus Australiensis is distinguished by its bellicose behavior and its ardent resistance to logic and the rules of argument.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Not to mention trolliculus Australiensis' natural and less developed enemy, querulous Vulgarus :hmm:

[LowObservable]

This is probably not a BFD but it is a PBD. Galrahn picks guest bloggers carefully, and he carries a remarkable amount of firepower in Navy circles.

Information Dissemination: Used Cars and F-35s (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/08/used-cars-and-f-35s.html)

[Heathrow Harry]

now that is an interesting link............... he didn't mention the B-52 - surely the greatest of all sequential upgrades to old airframes

two gems:-
Unlike the US Air Force, many value minded F-35 buyers find other aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/), Rafael (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/), used F-16s (http://www.f-16.net/), Su-30 (http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/), or the Saab JAS 39 Gripen (http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/), just to name a few, quite competitive alternatives. Early defectors would beat the crowd to get these alternatives early, while laggards either get stuck footing the bill, or get put on the waiting list.

But if the US Marine Corps gives up on the F-35B, the Royal Navy is royally screwed. If design changes in the Queen Elizabeth II carrier class have been finalized, closing the door on CATOBAR and committing them to STOVL (http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-and-military-aircraft/articles/the-f-35-decision-disastrous-implications-for-uk-a/), they have even fewer viable alternatives than the US Marine Corps. The Royal Navy has no other high performance, multirole or support aircraft to fall back upon and don’t have the luxury of a sister service providing deck space for
CATOBAR aircraft to make up for lost high end capabilities on their ships. Either the Royal Navy would be forced to undergo an outrageously expensive development program of a new aircraft by itself, or go back and convert the QE IIs back to handle CATOBAR aircraft and chose from the small palette of options in this class.

[orca]

The key of course being that the RN per se is not to receive a single F-35 and never has been. The aircraft will belong to AOC 1 Gp whose parent service, I suspect, wouldn't shed a single tear for the demise of the carrier strike capability.


Of course, there is no reason why anyone not versed in the UK's FW C2 would understand that jets procured against a maritime strike requirement would be Joint crewed but owned, commanded and controlled by an Air Force.

[Squirrel 41]

orca,

At this point, who owns the 48 Dave-Bs is the least of our concerns. Indeed, if there are to be only 48 Dave-Bs (B for Boat?) and c. 100 Dave-A (A for Air Force?) then you could even paint ROYAL NAVY on the side of each one and operate them from Yeovs.

The bigger point now is that there is clearly a debate in the US about whether the USMC actually needs the STOVL capabilities of Dave-B, and if so, at what price? It is interesting to me that the USMC is going to have at least 80 Dave-C http://defensetech.org/2011/03/14/navy-and-marine-corps-f-35-purchase-plan-revealed/, opening to door to an all Dave-C buy in the mid-2020s.

And as was pointed out earlier by HH's quote:

But if the US Marine Corps gives up on the F-35B, the Royal Navy is royally screwed. If design changes in the Queen Elizabeth II carrier class have been finalized, closing the door on CATOBAR and committing them to STOVL, they have even fewer viable alternatives than the US Marine Corps. The Royal Navy has no other high performance, multirole or support aircraft to fall back upon and don’t have the luxury of a sister service providing deck space for
CATOBAR aircraft to make up for lost high end capabilities on their ships. Either the Royal Navy would be forced to undergo an outrageously expensive development program of a new aircraft by itself, or go back and convert the QE IIs back to handle CATOBAR aircraft and chose from the small palette of options in this class.

Um, yep. And the odds on this happening are shortening.

S41

[Willard Whyte]

go back and convert the QE IIs back to handle CATOBAR aircraftIt could go on longer than the original:

Magic roundabout.- Opening titles. - YouTube

[orca]

Squirrel,

You miss my point. I was merely pointing out that there is a significant amount of ignorance surrounding the UK buy. 'The Royal Navy' left the jet game upon the 'cross decking' of the SHAR to 3 Gp if you ask me. But no-one did.;).

I have never hid my own opinion and it is very simple. We had an opportunity to buy the right aircraft with F-18E as a back up if it failed. We (IMHO) are now buying not only the wrong aircraft but there is no back up.

As to who owns it? Well, if it's cats and traps with all that entails I really can't see why anyone other than a navy would have anything to do with it. If it's the easy one then there's a strong argument for an air force owning the lot.

[peter we]

It is interesting to me that the USMC is going to have at least 80 Dave-C http://defensetech.org/2011/03/14/na...plan-revealed/, opening to door to an all Dave-C buy in the mid-2020s.

Not a debate, that link is from March 2011. There hasn't been much discussion of it since. Its does emphasis how the F-35C is the lowest volume buy, however.

[kbrockman]

According to this well known , but surprisingly well informed ,F35 critic, the F35 won't carry any ASRAAM (and it looks like no other rail launched missiles either) in its internal bay.

That'll put a serious dent in the plans of anyone (eg,UK)using the stealth advantages optimally

http://elpdefensenews.********.be/2012/08/uk-to-have-degraded-air-defense.html
Since the start of the UK signing on to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program years ago, it was briefed that one of the weapons to be cleared for internal carry by the end of systems development and demonstration (SDD) phase with UK jets was the ASRAAM AIM-132 air-to-air missile.

Now, according to a briefing by program officials earlier this year, it seems that the AIM-132 will only be cleared for outside carry--the non-stealth mode--by the end of SDD.

There have been other degraded affects with the AIM-132 and UK F-35. Back in 2008, program officials announced that it was just too much work to clear the AIM-132 for carry on internal air-to-ground hard-points. In each of the F-35's two internal weapon's bays you have one hard-point which can hold either an air-to-ground weapon or an air-to-air weapon. One door from each of the two bays can also hold an air-to-air missile. This gives the potential for the F-35 to carry 4 air-to-air missiles internally.

Originally the UK expected to have the ability to carry 4 AIM-132s internally; 2 for each weapons bay. With the 2008 announcement, that left the UK with 2 internal carry AIM-132s (hung on the internal part of one of the weapons bay doors) and the other two would be carried externally. In 2008 it was passed off that the external carry would be with low-observable hard-points to carry the missile but program officials have already stated that if you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy.

So from originally 4 internally carried ASRAAM's to 2 in 2008 and now down to 0.

[Thelma Viaduct]

I'd say that's bullah, clipped Meteor will also find it's way in there.

[JSFfan]

kbrockman (http://www.pprune.org/members/111172-kbrockman), Uk can have what they want to pay for, if they want to put asraams internal, they can. Nothing has changed.

LO, what a waste of time looking at the link you posted. I hope he's better at his trade, army logistics

[Just This Once...]

From Block 3 onwards ASRAAM (F-35B) and AIM-9X (A,B & C) will be cleared for release from stations 1 & 11 (outboard pylon).

Neither missile will be carried internally, nor are they candidates to do so.

[ORAC]

Ref weapons, see my post #1313 in June.

[glad rag]

You're link works too!

http://2.bp.blogsspot.com/-Q8k2d9RH7fY/T2ndxH3tOBI/AAAAAAAAAxk/_Sbb2Qqcj00/s400/F35+weapon+bay.jpghttp://www.f-16.net/attachments/figure03.jpg

tightest m-> fit I've seen, is that a CB panel under the insulated pipe? Weather shields?? Droppers only too as per article.....

http://www.f-16.net/modules/Gallery2/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=197451&g2_serialNumber=3

:cool:

[Snafu351]

Given that the UK armed forces are seemingly pared to the bone the argument that the UK can have what they pay for is a great one for ditching the F35 and obtaining other kit that will allow GB to operate as a sovereign nation at a level appropriate to our real size, importance and relevance.
Any purchase of F35's is going to be too small to have any real use unless it is alongside the Yanks, even then it is simply a political cloak for US foreign policy!

As for a certain "contributors" comments re those thoughts of a serving military officer i'm just in awe at the superb rebuttal and coherently argued counter points put forward...:rolleyes:

[orca]

There is a certain merit to what you say, although there is also a compelling argument that when F-35 hits the streets the nations of the free world will simply fall into two categories. Those that have it and those that don't.

From my limited participation in the project I think it is a capability step change that we have never seen and few appreciate. Nothing, including so called Gen 4.5, comes close.

As for the size and status of our country and an armed forces that seemed appropriate I couldn't agree more. That's why the fact that a small wind swept rock in the north atlantic got rid of its MPA, CVS and VSTOL aircraft still confuses me!

[Snafu351]

Couple of thoughts if i may; accepting that the F35 will bring a level of capability previously unseen does the long gestation have any bearing on it's effectiveness once it does eventually reach front line service, given the likelihood that the "opposition" will also not have stood still?
Secondly what does it actually mean if you are not a member of the F35 club?
Focusing on GB and being in complete agreement on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the reductions in capability you mention how does being a member of the "F35 club" yet possessing a militarily ineffective "force" of front line jets and no other capabilities that a small maritime nation might deem useful, actually benefit GB?

[Ronald Reagan]

If only we had never bought Typhoon, maybe could have kept the older legacy aircraft longer (F-3, GR4, Jaguar, SHAR), bought an MPA such as P-8 or surplus P-3s and then had enough money to buy more F-35s and sooner! We could have been an all F-35 force with F-35C for the Navy and F-35A for the RAF. Instead of wasting a fortune on the disaster that is the Eurofighter programme.

[glad rag]

sarcasm scanner zero returns :eek:

[Heathrow Harry]

"enough money to buy more F-35s and sooner! We could have been an all F-35 force with F-35C for the Navy and F-35A for the RAF. Instead of wasting a fortune on the disaster that is the Euro-fighter programme"

God forbid that anyone would suggest the Euro-fighter programme was a great success but it has actually delivered an aircraft into service

More money would not expedite delivery of the F-35 which is looking more and more like a dead duck as every year (not day, week, month...) passes

[orca]

Snafu,

The answer to your question is (as we all know) that any system's capability against a threat will suffer due to long gestation as that threat either develops or changes completely. Somewhere in this thread or a similar one someone posed the question as to the F-35s stealth and in what part of the spectrum it was stealthy. i.e. one sensor may not see it but another possibly could.

The other thing to consider is that requirements change as well as threats. If you buy a machine for a full-up state-on-state scrap that never happens you will 'waste' a lot of money and end up with a system that isn't as good at other stuff as legacy systems. Thinking COIN specifically. However, defence as always been about insurance policies, so you might not want to be without the full-up capability.

In answer to your question about what happens to the non-players...well, if you don't make the grade which is usually given in some form of theatre specific orders, you don't play. An example might be that if a GW1 scenario (or any for that matter - but you get the point) was moved to the 2020 timescale the ACC could well direct that only LO platforms would go north of the border. So a country that doesn't buy F-35 (or F-22 I suppose) might not even make the ATO.

[JSFfan]

the F-35 which is looking more and more like a dead duck as every year (not day, week, month...) passes

you might be right, an announcement showing the f-35B being gutted
F-35B First Aerial Weapons Release - YouTube

[LowObservable]

Absolutely! At 400 knots, you push a half-ton mass off the ejector rack and it keeps going down! Awesome!

BTW, am I being hypercritical, or does it look like either (a) there was a lot of turbulence or (b) the FCS computers had one too many last night? Seems to be wandering in pitch a bit, but I'll leave that discussion for the pilots.

[JSFfan]

I understand Sweetman has this one for his screen saver
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/120808_O_GR159_001.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

For LO: Probably 'bumpy' at this speed/altitude on a summer day... Also the photographer chase aircraft is never going to be perfectly synchronised in formation.

F-35 completes first airborne weapons separation 08 August 2012

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5091

"...BF-3, a short take-off and vertical landing F-35 variant, released an inert 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) separation weapon over water in an Atlantic test range while traveling at 400 knots at an altitude of 4,200 feet...."

[glad rag]

http://images.ezrich.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/orig/SWNKpAoKCswAAGhdSaw1388/4.jpeg?et=AA2ziimxzQXgZ%2CI%2ChzDmMg&nmid=0

:cool:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...I think it is a capability step change that we have never seen and few appreciate. Nothing, including so called Gen 4.5, comes close.

:D

One of the smartest posts I've seen in these forums for a long, LONG time!

[Navaleye]

Glad,

Yes but all unguided I suspect once LGB would be more effective than all of those.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Absolutely! At 400 knots, you push a half-ton mass off the ejector rack and it keeps going down! Awesome!

Yep, in hindsight I guess a low level ingress followed by a 6.5g pullup, an inverted release at 3000ft, and a 5g 120 degree pullaway would have been much more appropriate for the VERY FIRST weapons clearance drop from the aircraft... :hmm:

Interesting that it had an AMRAAM shape inboard and two AIM-9Xs outboard for this first drop too...

[glad rag]

Glad,

Yes but all unguided I suspect once LGB would be more effective than all of those.

Meh, I meant the two engines and a tailhook that works...whoosh....

[SteveDickson1955]

Absolutely! At 400 knots, you push a half-ton mass off the ejector rack and it keeps going down! Awesome!

BTW, am I being hypercriticalHypercritical? I would have thought 'childish' was a more appropriate term...

[Snafu351]

"So a country that doesn't buy F-35 (or F-22 I suppose) might not even make the ATO. "

Orca, why is this a necessarily a bad thing?

Speciifically what do GB lose from not taking part in one of the US's little foreign policy adventures?

Would having the funds to truly be able to defend and protect our own interests and borders not be a preferable situation than being able to say we can play with the big boys (when they need a political cloak) yet can only field a military that is essentially a very small component part of the US forces and cannot defend Britain in a meaningful way at all.
If that is what you are advocating GB should simply apply to be the 50whatever it is state or dis-arm!

[LowObservable]

One flight test event happens on schedule (well, at least the schedule promulgated six months ago) and the fans go wild.

Orca - There are still not going to be a whole lot of LO platforms in 2020, depending on when JSF makes IOC. If only they can go north of the border we have a problem. Indeed, the whole USAF F-16 upgrade (AESA and much improved EW) is intended to keep those aircraft relevant beyond 2025.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the editoral of Janes Fighting Ships 2012-2013, edited by Commodore Stephen Saunders:

Order; counter-order: disorder! The ink was hardly dry on the US/UK Statement of Intent on Carrier Cooperation and Maritime Power Projection, signed by Secretaries Panetta and Hammond on 5 January 2012, when the UK Government decided to revert to the original plan to procure the F-35B STOVL (Short Take Off/Vertical Landing) variant of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II rather than to persevere with the decision of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review to procure the F-35C instead. The bilateral carrier accord was signed on the basis that one of the Queen Elizabeth class would be equipped with catapults and arrestor gear to operate the F-35C, and that the Royal Navy would benefit from assistance and training from the US Navy to regenerate the necessary skills. Not only does the decision to reinstate the F-35B run contrary to the rationale that underpinned the switch to F-35C, the ability to inter-operate with American and French allies, it also places the UK Government in the uncomfortable situation of being restricted to one aircraft solution. There is no alternative STOVL aircraft and, although the F-35B programme survived recent US budget cuts, concerns about the aircraft, and in particular, rising costs continue to be aired. An alternative option for the UK, apparently not considered, would have been to stick with 'cats and traps' but to abandon the F-35 in favour of the F-18 Super Hornet, a less advanced but well proven aircraft. Nevertheless, the Royal Navy will be quietly pleased that as plans gather pace for troops in Afghanistan to revert to a supporting role, the requirement for a future carrier-strike capability endures. In addition, the option of operating both carriers, rather than one, remains on the table for review in the 2015 SDSR. For this reason, the F-35B decision is probably right, despite suspicions of poor analysis and an embarrassing volte-face.

Perhaps MOD can think outside the box? We need to consider getting some sort of V/STOL jet on the deck of Lusty/QE this decade - something which could be easily achieved. Some suggestions and comments (such as those here from an earlier thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131)) may be of interest and worth looking at again.

BTW I have been away and missed the last few pages of this thread, but from a quick look at a magazine whilst passing through a newsagent I gather that the USMC is intending to operate the AV8B until 2025-2030, and that of the 72 Harriers the UK sold to the US, 16 are still intact and meant to be flown as such.

Now that the future is STOVL, STOVL aircraft already exist in service today, and we have ships capable of STOVL operations. We just need someone to join the dots, and make it all coherent. It could so easily be a success story, but you need politicians to bite the bullet and accept that things are currently messed up.

[Courtney Mil]

:ugh: We haven't had a 'bring back the Harrier' spot for ages.

[Bengo]

It is complete nonsense to suggest that we need or will gain anything from a VSTOL a/c to work-up the flight deck of QE before F35B arrives. To scrounge a few Harriers from the USMC would simply allow us to waste (non-existent) money and time re-creating a wheel that our political masters no longer want, especially when it is not clear that when they eventually get it they will even want the new wheel ordered by the previous lot but one or two.

The initial work up of the roof of the Invincibles and Hermes with SHAR was at least as much hindered by the ARK/F4/Bucc mindset as it was helped. The space and support arrangements were different, the FW aircraft and its capabilities were different and the best ways of doing anything were, frequently, different. It all went on evolving for a long time too. The same will occur with QE but even more so because all the aircraft will be different.

If and when QE enters service, then will be time enough to do the integration trials, operational trials and work up that go with any aircraft type being operated from a ship for the first time. As ever these will need to be thought through and done carefully. We should have the advantage that those who remember how we used to do it will be either long gone, or too senior to get involved in the detail. The how to do it sheet will be clean and the 1SL of the day will be able to remind the Minister of the day that we have not done this for many years and don't want to kill people/ lose aircraft/ waste Defence money by rushing the re-learning.

N

[skydiver69]

Can anyone answer some questions from a layman?

Does anyone know if a purchase of 48 F35B will provide enough aircraft to allow for the use of even one carrier at its maximum surge capacity of 34. I assume some aircraft will be permanently required for an OCU whilst others will be in maintenance at one time or another.

How long will Ocean last and are the new carriers likely to be used to fulfill her role once she has gone? If both carriers go into service are they ever likely to be available at the same time e.g. to use one with FW and the other with rotary or even a mixture on both, or will one always be in refit whilst the other is operational. If the latter is the case and Ocean isn't replaced where will we put our helicopters if we ever need to put 34 F35b on the one operational carrier?

[Tourist]

That's right Bengo, thank god all the people who have done something similar before will have gone.


That will make it a lot easier.:rolleyes:

[Courtney Mil]

SkyDiver,

Good questions indeed. I wouldn't even attempt an answer here (if I did, my wind-up would be spotted to quickly - it's too obvious). But I'm looking forward to some fun with the answers when thay come. :cool:

[Bastardeux]

Skydiver, asking questions like that is only going to lead to despair and thoughts of what could have been...it's best just not to think about it. Just know this, by the time they are both finished, they are likely to have cost us around £4 billion each - or more - which means they now both seem destined to end up being more expensive than the USS George Bush...which is nuclear...and armoured...and has a far bigger air wing capacity...and has 4 catapults...and is fast...and has a very good defensive suite, but it's all okay because it's secured the long term future of an uncompetitive shipyard in Glasgow :ok:

[ColdCollation]

You'd have to be the Greatest Chancellor of All Time to have managed something so cack-handed... :sad:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Getting the very basics right might be an issue!

When I wrote:

Now that the future is STOVL, STOVL aircraft already exist in service today, and we have ships capable of STOVL operations. We just need someone to join the dots, and make it all coherent. It could so easily be a success story, but you need politicians to bite the bullet and accept that things are currently messed up.

It was a reflection that some argued that we needed to forget STOVL skills as the future was CTOL, concentrate on CTOL, but this might mean losing much whole ship experience. Now we have our people on exchange learning CTOL skills, but a STOVL future! We also have an opportunity to regain the whole ship skills, have an easier transition to F35B, make the task of increasing RN jet jock numbers easier (UK based aircraft to fly), and have an immediate return in terms of UK and coalition capabilities. These issues were of course talked about at length on the post SDSR Harrier thread. I included a link to my initial post (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131) there not for some sort of weird ego trip, but because it attempted to highlight some of the issues, including both skills needed for the future a current capabilities, along with possible solutions. There are of course better written posts that also discuss similar issues.

I was trying to be logical - with thoughts of a coherent path, not unlike that suggested by Rear Admiral Parry (http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=17928).

Therefore, for practical, presentational and tactical reasons, the RN urgently needs to develop a vision and two operational concepts – one for the period covered by the carrier and naval air 'holiday' and another for when the carrier(s) enter(s) service, with a recognisable migration path linking the two. They particularly need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the carrier programme, as well as outlining a more sophisticated, innovative and agile approach to force generation, procurement and skills development. It would typically need to include operationalised modular and adaptive solutions, the retention of long-lead, but surplus, platforms, smart regeneration programmes and more intelligent use of reserves, especially those who have already acquired advanced skills and experience during previous regular service.

Bengo I do not understand your logic:

It is complete nonsense to suggest that we need or will gain anything from a VSTOL a/c to work-up the flight deck of QE before F35B arrives. To scrounge a few Harriers from the USMC would simply allow us to waste (non-existent) money and time re-creating a wheel that our political masters no longer want, especially when it is not clear that when they eventually get it they will even want the new wheel ordered by the previous lot but one or two.

So having that capability now would show the politicians how valuable it is, don't you think? With a Memorandum of Understanding for support it could be cost effective. Considering the trouble the USN was going to in order to help us prepare for a CTOL future, a few AV8Bs and a MOU might not been seen as that much of an additional ask, and would have an immediate return.

The capability (and skills) lost was high on the First Sea Lord's priorities when he spoke to the Defence Committee (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110511/DEFSECT03/105110307/Loss-of-Carrier-Strike-Capability-Top-Concern-of-Royal-Navy-Chief):

Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.

The initial work up of the roof of the Invincibles and Hermes with SHAR was at least as much hindered by the ARK/F4/Bucc mindset as it was helped. The space and support arrangements were different, the FW aircraft and its capabilities were different and the best ways of doing anything were, frequently, different. It all went on evolving for a long time too. The same will occur with QE but even more so because all the aircraft will be different.

So every time new aircraft come into service we should get rid of people with experience? Surely when war came in 1982, and Hermes and Invincible were toppers with both jets and helicopters, it was the old hands with experience of larger, busier flight decks and airspace that came into their own? Are basic things like moving jets around the deck at sea not similar regardless of aircraft type? Also, what of those whose involvement is likely to be unaffected by aircraft type, such as the OOW and bridge team or various others?

Surely it would be easier for the first UK F-35B Pilots to transition from Harrier than from Hornet? If there are no UK F35B Pilots for the trials what then? Use USMC ones? They are probably ex AV8B...

If and when QE enters service, then will be time enough to do the integration trials, operational trials and work up that go with any aircraft type being operated from a ship for the first time. As ever these will need to be thought through and done carefully. We should have the advantage that those who remember how we used to do it will be either long gone, or too senior to get involved in the detail. The how to do it sheet will be clean and the 1SL of the day will be able to remind the Minister of the day that we have not done this for many years and don't want to kill people/ lose aircraft/ waste Defence money by rushing the re-learning.

If the people who know how to it are long gone, how will trials be done? If what you say is true, then when the future appeared to be CTOL/F35C did we send Pilots and others stateside to learn to fly the Hornet and learn about CTOL operations? After all, the UK will not operate Hornets or a Nimitz class CVN...

As for killing people - I suspect the Officer mentioned here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8799280/Royal-Navy-sackings-will-lose-aircraft-carriers-skills-forever.html) would disagree with you:

Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.

Likewise the multiple others who wrote/spoke of the need to ramp up fixed wing flying, with more jets embarked at sea for longer periods, in the run up to CVF. They were saying this long before SDSR.

Nope. I still don't understand your logic. Surely its hard to learn anything if you have forgotten the basics?

[Courtney Mil]

WebFoot,

All good stuff, excellent points and well made. But what exactly are you proposing? Is this another 'bring back the Harrier' rant, which won't happen even if you really, really want it, or can you offer something new to suit the current climate?

So having that capability now would show the politicians how valuable it is, don't you think?

They know what it did. But they cancelled it with the intention of replacing it with something new. If they can get away with it, they will cut the new thing back as far as they can. They will not do another massive U-turn and lease/buy back the Harriers they already sold to the Americans.

Accept it. They have defined a path for the future of Naval Aviation and the best we can all hope for is that it doesn't get watered down too much. Certainly don't expect an expansion of the plan. You know what I mean. Don't you?

Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer. :cool:

Good luck with the campaign,

Courtney

[peter we]

"which means they now both seem destined to end up being more expensive than the USS George Bush..."

Yet less than half the price of USS Gerald R. Ford which is comparable as its being built today, not in ancient history.

Naval Air: Carrier Costs Climbing Considerably (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20120229.aspx)

$15billion ... so far

[Milo Minderbinder]

presumably when they build the "USS Jimmy Carter" it'll cost peanuts?

[GreenKnight121]

How long will Ocean last and are the new carriers likely to be used to fulfill her role once she has gone?


Last I heard Ocean was to go after QE commissions and just before POW commissions... QE replaces Lusty and POW replaces Ocean.

Whether both will ever sail at the same time? That all depends on future budgets, international situation, British government, etc.



Supposedly, they were designed with use as LPH in mind... whether that was quietly neglected like the "space & weight reserved for catapults & arresting gear" part of the design was is anyone's guess.

[Willard Whyte]

presumably when they build the "USS Jimmy Carter" it'll cost peanuts?

Probably the wittiest post on pprune, ever.

[Bastardeux]

Yet less than half the price of USS Gerald R. Ford which is comparable as its being built today, not in ancient history.

Well if 2009 is ancient history to you, then our carriers are already decrepit relics of ancient history. And in any case, how does that change the fact that it's faster, heavily armoured, well defended and can launch the whole spectrum of aircraft with an unlimited range; compared to our un-armoured, poorly defended, slow, range limited, empty flight decks?

Yes the Ford is being built today, but that's where the similarities end, and at £6 billion per ship (ex. development costs) I'd rather buy one of those and use the saved money for a full compliment of aircraft than the 2 hulls and 12 jets we're getting at the moment.

[ORAC]

I'd rather buy one of those and use the saved money for a full compliment of aircraft than the 2 hulls and 12 jets we're getting at the moment. Except they need 5-6000 men to man (Ship's company of 3,200 + air wing 2,480), which the RN doesn't and won't have and can't afford.

[Ronald Reagan]

So its more or less a waste of time bothering! We are still spending a large ammount of money in the scheme of things to end up with two boats we cannot use against anyone who has a half decent air force or navy!!! It will be a VERY costly nothing we end up with!!!

[Bastardeux]

RR,

Pretty good summary. If you're not going to do it properly, don't do it at all.

[FODPlod]

...I'd rather buy one of those [nuclear-powered George Bush manned by over 5,000 personnel - $6.2 bn contract awarded Jan 2001] and use the saved money for a full compliment (sic) of aircraft than the 2 hulls and 12 jets we're getting at the moment.

What saved money?

...to end up with two boats we cannot use against anyone who has a half decent air force or navy!!!

Good job we are ending up with two ships at least one of which will be able operate a surged group of 36 or so 5th Generation JSF, then. Incidentally, which "half decent" air force or navy do you have in mind that could beat such a combination?

[Ronald Reagan]

Well AEW will be limited to a helo, the aircraft cannot be tanked by anything embarked so the carrier is going to have to be close to the enemy due to limited range of the F-35B, you will need considerable surface vessals to protect the carrier itself.

Your point on the surge is a good one, but if carrier is already deployed to somewhere in the Pacific and has only around 12 jets on her as will be routine, will take a while to get the other F-35s to her.

I would say most major players in the world would easily get beyond 12x F-35s and a carrier with minimal surface escorts, if carrying a full air wing she does bring far more to the table. But my concerns also relate to to the comments of lack of armour and them not having the sophisticated defence systems required.

They are not going to be as good as an American carrier or the French carrier and I would be surprised if we had enough surface ships in the fleet to act as escorts!!!!

I could still see both being cancelled or sold before entering service, would be a shame at this late stage though as so much has already been spent on them!

If we really wanted a nice cheap/small carrier force might aswell have retained SHAR/GR9 with the Invincible class. But instead we will spend a lot of money to end up with something which is rather limited!!!!

[Bastardeux]

$6 billion = £4 billion

Seeing as QE class are to cost £4 billion each, both classes cost about the same except one is going to be far, far more capable than the other

hence 1 George Bush would be a saving of 4 billion over 2 QEs


Good job we are ending up with two ships at least one of which will be able operate a surged group of 36 or so 5th Generation JSF, then. Incidentally, which "half decent" air force or navy do you have in mind that could beat such a combination?

And you think a buy of 50 jets will be able to surge 36 to a combat zone?? I will be impressed if we are able to surge half that number. If 50 is the actual proposed buy, then at least 14 are going to be tied down by the OEU/OCU, which leaves probably around 15 - 20 for the front line, which means an even smaller [email protected] I don't forsee a situation where we are ever going to deploy our entire front line F35 force all at once. Neither do I see the marines coming anywhere close to buying the number that they intended, so I wouldn't count on them making up the shortfall.

Up against such a sparsely defended ship, I would say there are a lot of countries that could get a good lick at blowing a few holes in the side of it...seeing as it doesn't have any armour and is going to be relying on rotary AEW. And even if they don't actually pose a threat in reality, their strength on paper may well be too much of a risk to deploy it close enough for the Bs to make any meaningful contribution to the fight.

Seeing as the government are now talking about further cuts to some departments, I wouldn't count on a post-2015 surge in defence spending to help us out a bit.

[FODPlod]

Bastardeaux - Do you ever read the anti-CVF tripe you write?

For example, how much extra do you think it would cost to crew a nuclear-powered carrier manned by c.5,500 over a 40+ year period? Moreover, as a single ship couldn't provide continuous availability, we'd still need two of them.

[Bastardeux]

Do you ever read the Anti-CVF tripe you write?

Is that a deployment of your emergency banter?

For example, how much extra do you think it would cost to crew a nuclear-powered carrier manned by c.5,500 over a 40+ year period? Moreover, as a single ship couldn't provide continuous availability, we'd still need two of them.

How much is it going to cost us to refuel this behemoth every few hundred yards, with the price of oil increasing exponentially? How much is it going to cost us to develop a bespoke future AEW capability? How much is it going to cost us to retrofit catapults and arresting gear in the future? How much is it going to cost us to service the B instead of the C? How much is it going to cost us to deploy A330s to support the carrier's combat air ops? How much if we want to increase its air defence capability? Obviously I don't have the answers to these questions but there seems to be an awful lot of hidden costs, which may not make the difference in total outlays as much of a gulf as you think; if those totals only mean 25 billion difference over their lifetimes, I would take the extra 500 million a year.

The main thrust of my argument was more to make a point that we are getting excessively poor value for money here, and the point still stands that the newest American carrier into service will cost about the same to buy, but I know which one I'd rather be on in a war zone.

[Bastardeux]

And the continuous availability question didn't seem that important when we were opting for 1 conventional carrier...the French seem to manage just fine.

[glad rag]

And you can add this to the list of own goals.......

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/494209-raaf-go-growler.html

[FODPlod]

And the continuous availability question didn't seem that important when we were opting for 1 conventional carrier...the French seem to manage just fine.

1. Who opted for only one carrier? Certainly not the Royal Navy.

2. Are you saying the French haven't experienced problems with carrier availability? You can't have read much about CdeG's operational record.

I'm still trying to work out whether you're trying to be ironic or simply generating nonsense to confuse the issue. Either way, there doesn't seem much point in further discussion.

[Tourist]

Ronald Reagan


"But my concerns also relate to to the comments of lack of armour "


This phrase alone shows that you are totally, utterly clueless in the realm of naval warfare.

[FODPlod]

Tourist: Ah, "clueless". That's a possibility I hadn't considered seriously enough w.r.t. Bastardeux. Thank you.

[Ronald Reagan]

Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. However the point is valid, would the UK carriers be able to defend themselves aswell from an attack by enemy air or naval forces as an American Carrier Battle Group or even the French carrier?

Lets say an attack by around 20 to 30x SU-30s or any other combat aircraft?

The fact we are going for F-35 would indicate a desire to be able to take on sophisticated enemies, but will there be enough jets and will the ship be able to defend itself well enough. If we are only going to be up against primitive threats do we even need F-35?!

I feel strongly an island nation which depends on maritime trade needs a stronger navy more than any other service. BUT are these carriers value for money, are they right for the UK and will they be of real use or are they a costly gimic!!! I have never been convinced by the arguments for F-35B rather than going for conventional take off and landing aircraft either.

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, happy days. In the Cold War I used to dream of a raid strength 20-30. Not sure what I'd have done with them all, of course!

I wonder if that's a realistic raid today. I suppose someone could raise a lot aof assets if they really wanted to go against a capital ship. I don't suppose David was planning on that.

I look forward to opinions on that one.

Courtney

[Bastardeux]

FODPlod,

You don't seem to be putting forward any coherent argument; you are simply rubbishing my point, without any evidence, that our carriers will both end up costing around the same amount as the last of the Nimitz class. Which is true.
And how is asking legitimate questions that are going to have to be answered sooner or later, generating nonsense? Surely it is ignorance of the answers to long term questions such as this, which led us to such an erratic and unproductive procurement programme.

It doesn't take a financial audit to recognise that these aircraft carriers are going to be extremely poor value for money; if it was a private company that was procuring it, it would have been cancelled years ago.

[orca]

Ronald,

Interesting question. So to frame the answer we need to understand who has 20-30 Su-30s and can put them in the sky in a coordinated fashion along with a surpic asset. We also need to know how good their weapons are and whether or not a Type 45 might be able to fend them off.

Ah, you say, but what if the Type 45 isn't there? To which I say, how could that be? And we get back to the basic understanding that a Su-30 vs QE grudge match is not very probable.

I have also tried to raise the point before but why do we always go for the worst case when it comes to carriers but 'broadly representative' when it comes to anything else. Why is it 20 SU-30s against a carrier but no thread about 5 F-22s or 6 PAK-FAs against 2 Typhoon for example?

I think I made the point before in this thread, but until I can be convinced that the RAF (which apparently isn't that bad an air force as air forces go)could even scratch - no wait a minute - find* - a QE class guarded by 2 Type 45 then I tend to pay little attention to the school of thought that they are vulnerable.

* = no MPA for a small island nation is easily the single worst decision ever, although allowing cameras at private parties in Vegas comes close.

I will take criticism from any ASuW/ TASMO (whatever we're calling it this week - haven't got AJP 3.3.3 to hand!) types. I count myself as one incidentally.;)

Bastardeux.

You have a point. They cost a lot. They don't cost anywhere near as much as other programmes (or bank bail outs) which we conveniently forget about when it comes to having a go at carriers. But there we go. I think however that they are flexible, they will be useful, they will allow us to project power. IMHO we have let ourselves down badly by reverting to F-35B and I do sometimes wonder if they are worth bothering with now, but on balance I think they are.

As for the other debates. I think F-18E/F closely mirror F-35 capabilities. AV-8B does not. MarStrike is MarStrike - so whilst our chaps might be wasting their time gaining hands and feet skills the rest is valid. That being said the aircrew are, as ever, a very small part of this. I think 'flight deck minded' maintainers and yellow shirts could be bred in either the CVN or LPH environment, but it will be an uphill struggle to provide a safe and assured platform either way.

[peter we]

that our carriers will both end up costing around the same amount as the last of the Nimitz class. Which is true.

Yet they are much cheaper than a US carrier being built TODAY. Do you understand the concept of compound interest ? Something paid for a decade ago is cheap simply because of inflation never mind having a different design.

How much is it going to cost us to refuel this behemoth every few hundred yards, with the price of oil increasing exponentially?

Running costs of Nuclear is more than oil. The CdG also has had availability problems due to its nuclear propulsion.

[GreenKnight121]

Actually, a new reactor design, automated weapons-handling/transfer equipment, and other similar features has reduced the ship's crew on the Ford class to ~1,900 vs ~3,000 for the Nimitz class... for a total of 4,660.

So just the ship's crew on Ford is just about the total crew+airwing complement of CVF. Ah, well.

[Heathrow Harry]

"How much is it going to cost us to refuel this behemoth every few hundred yards, with the price of oil increasing exponentially?"

well actually it isn't................... it goes up and down - like the Carrier


http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_oau_8c93a5dc1b778e56964b4ac6bc9864bb

[Ronald Reagan]

As oil begins to run out though the cost will start to increase big time.
I wonder when thats really going to begin to happen and take effect.

[Bastardeux]

Peter We,

The compound interest rate averages around 2.3% for the time difference. so the difference in price is likely only to be a few hundred million.

And I never tried to suggest that oil is more expensive than nuclear.

You're missing my point anyway, my point was never "we should have bought the USS George Bush", I'm pointing out that once again, the mod has spent the family silverware and is ending up with a very much diminished capability. Rather like the decision to go with Typhoon over the Strike Eagle.

HH

Fair point.

[Bastardeux]

P.s.

the cost of building them with 2 (not 4) cats and and arrestor gear was estimated to push the price up by another 2 billion no? So £6 billion for a 2 cat ship? so $9.6 billion for a 2 cat ship...?

[Not_a_boffin]

The cost of the cat n trap conversion quoted has always been suspect, because it (allegedly) includes a whole raft of things (eg AAR capability) that are add-ons to the wider capability. There is an element of comparing apples with clothes pegs here. Whether all LOD should be included in costing can be argued either way. However - two things are clear :

1. We are paying more than we should have done for the two ships. This is largely due to the incredibly incompetent way that MG and production contract decisions were used as a political football by the last lot and by inter-service rivalries. Nevertheless, the money is "spent", we are buying them and they are coming along nicely.

2. Because they are big ships with (very) large margins, they will not suffer the sort of limitations that CVS did. Over a fifty year life capabilities can be added - particularly when capability is largely vested in aircraft. Some may be surprised to learn that initial buys of aircraft can be added to over the years, although I'll admit that that's now the exception rather than rule. Still, C17 numbers have doubled from the original "interim strategic airlifter" plan, Wokka numbers have also increased - it can be done.

Arguing about what this will eventually look like now is a bit like trying to decide whether your six-month old nipper is going to be a Nobel prize winner or a regular contributor to the Jeremy Kyle show.

[Heathrow Harry]

"As oil begins to run out though the cost will start to increase big time"


if shale oil takes off the way shale gas has in the States prices will come down big time - US gas prices are at very low levels now

[Backwards PLT]

I kind of agree with Bastardeux in that we are paying an awful lot for something nowhere near a Nimitz type capability. Where I disagree is that I think we should spend more to get that capability (not Nimitz, but it would be nice if it was close).

Anyone who thinks we could operate 36 F-35 off it, except in a "best-effort, national survival shut everything else down" case is, IMO, slightly optimistic. You could probably get the aircraft and crews from the OCU and various staff jobs and fly the aircraft out there (probably at different standards of kit etc) but how are you going to change all the stores? Even if the QE was alongside in Portsmouth it would be a huge job (workspace configurations, correct crew etc) then she would have to get to this ultra important mission at a TG speed of, say 15 kts. So we need a "best effort....." that it is OK if we don't turn up to for a month.

Last, but of course most importantly, is logistics! This is the conventional v nuclear point - price is nearly irrelevant if you need to spend a large proportion of your time not fighting but resupplying. Especially if you are doing a HIC, 36 F-35 type of thing. Luckily the RN has supply ships in service or funded to adequately support QE. Oh wait, no we don't. :(

I'm not really trying to have a go at the RN, except perhaps for some v senior types who have allowed the decline. I think the RN needs some serious investment to bring it up to a reasonable capability.

We need to be realistic a stop thinking of the QE class in Nimitz terms. It will be a large, multi-role, flexible ship that will be able to do a massive range of things pretty well (PPP, disaster relief, LitM....). It just won't be great at anything and certainly not Carrier Strike if you think in US terms.


no MPA for a small island nation is easily the single worst decision ever, although allowing cameras at private parties in Vegas comes close.

I wholeheartedly endorse this statement.

[GeeRam]

Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer.

If only :ok:

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu189/willtatejr/HMS%20Ark%20Royal%201973%2078/ArkRoyal-2-1.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Well, you wouldn't want that lot coming at you with bad intent, Even today.

Nice one, GeeRam. :ok:

[Ronald Reagan]

What amazing aircraft, if only they still looked this good!!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

They know what it did. But they cancelled it with the intention of replacing it with something new. If they can get away with it, they will cut the new thing back as far as they can. They will not do another massive U-turn and lease/buy back the Harriers they already sold to the Americans.

Surely the move from F35C back to F35B was the major U-turn? Well, the Government seem to have survived that. Leasing a few AV8Bs (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-50.html#post6592988), and operating them Illustrious/QE instead of just sending people to learn CTOL skills would just be changing the implementation of policy?

Accept it. They have defined a path for the future of Naval Aviation and the best we can all hope for is that it doesn't get watered down too much. Certainly don't expect an expansion of the plan. You know what I mean. Don't you?

How relevant is it now? Sending people stateside to fly Hornet, and others to do CTOL work, when the future is STOVL? Also if the post SDSR plan was so good, how come they were concerns about the retention of skills which led to other proposals (all mentioned elsewhere on the same thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html) - as were the issues. See the posts by Bismark and Not_a_boffin that are on the first page or the following ones). Some of the proposals had backing of senior people - including the First Sea Lord!

As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).

ICBM - unfortunately, while your point re CV ops might be true, I'd put a fair bit of money that the guys who've done exchange tours have not done time in CATCC, Wings / Little F (Air & mini-boss in USN), handlers office or the squadron engineering and logs posts.

While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.

As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!

Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer..

Can they fly from Lusty/QE? Will they provide a capability now? Will they prepare our people for a STOVL future?

Recently there was a story in Pompey Evening News about a proposal to build a couple of extra Patrol Vessels (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/business/local-business/new-ships-could-save-jobs-in-portsmouth-1-4108809). Apart from the industrial skills issue, would this not be a tacit admission that ship numbers have been cut too far? A U-turn even?

However, OPVs are not really suitable for counter piracy or counter narcotics work, despite what the member for Portsmouth North thinks. It would not be money well spent. Restoring the STOVL capability would - a squadron of leased Harriers would not only help us prepare for the future, but also have an immediate effect in terms of national capabilities and possible UK contributions to coalition operations. The more limited proposals, or even embarking foreign Harriers, would help make the path to CVF easier, and more coherent?

What would the cost of a single F35B crash on deck be? Seen in those terms, it might seem like a sensible precaution to try to prevent it.

[Justanopinion]

How relevant is it now? Sending people stateside to fly Hornet, and others to do CTOL work, when the future is STOVL?

Completely relevant. I have been fortunate enough to fly both the Harrier and the Super Hornet and what you gain in the technology experience of the Super Hornet more than balances the lack of VSTOL experience. The Super Hornet , even the legacy Hornet, is in my opinion a better lead in to JSF (for the pure multi role capabilities it brings) than the Harrier (and I love the Harrier!). By all accounts VSTOL in F35 B is going to be so straightforward anyone can do it.

[GreenKnight121]

Besides, the RN can always ask the US to assign the exchange pilots & deck crew (yes, they are sending RN deck crew to the US) to USMC AV-8B squadrons & LHDs instead of USN Hornet squadrons & CVNs.

[Courtney Mil]

WEBF,

Re my "Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer."

Did you really think that was a serious proposal. My point was that we are (arguably) moving forward to a new generation of naval aircraft and we have canned all the old stuff. It would be as irrelevant to consider bringing the ones broken up last century as those we gave away this decade.

As for the U-turn, I was refering to giving the Hars to the Americans and then leasing them back. The fact that the Government has already u-turned once on the 35C, makes them even less likely to do so again (ie. back to the C or asking for the discarded jets back). I can imagine Miliband relishing another u-turn in PMQs.

No matter how good an idea it is, WEBF, it's unlikely to happen in this climate.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

GK121

Yes, a few deck crew and others are going on exchange, but nowhere near the number involved in day to day carrier operations. Lots of people need skills and experience for things to be efficient and safe, as some senior bods have noted (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8799280/Royal-Navy-sackings-will-lose-aircraft-carriers-skills-forever.html).

Why else do you think the RN leadership supported the Reservist/Harrier idea?

Courtney

Are you on a low irony diet? Yes, I saw the joke in your mention of Phantoms and Buccaneers.

I have a low opinion of politicians - and think that most of our current malaise is down to politicians. My view is that since we are now preparing for a different future, and that the world have changed post SDSR, I do not think it unreasonable to changes policies, and cannot see why the Government would not want to sell it as a success. Of course,one could argue that if they got the AV8B+ , then it would be a different aircraft, and tat they were replacing the old with something better (with radar/AMRAAM/cannon).

Plus, if Ministers are willing to consider building new OPVs (despite their limited utility) then ..... who knows?

I had a discussion about this privately with a serving Royal Navy. Actually we were talking about some of the comments and suggestions in my initial post (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131) on the Harrier thread - including some of the more outlandish ones. We both agreed that some things are too difficult, or too expensive in wartime, although in a crisis things change (remember the improvisation in 1982).

Of course it is too late then. We can all think of examples were MOD tried to save money - only to lose many lives. Lack of armoured vehicles in Iraq, no explosion suppressing foam in the fuel tanks of the Hercules the list goes on.

Perhaps the best example is Falklands task group's lack of Airborne Early Warning. Several years before the 1982 conflict, some had proposed converting some ASW Sea Kings by removing the sonar and ASW gear and fitting a version of the Thorn-EMI (as it was then) radar to provide at least a basic AEW capability. At least one Officer of Flag rank supported the idea. Nothing was done - the idea was judged too costly, too difficult, and not needed as our forces would never operate outside the NATO theatre.

Then war came. The Argentines took advantage of our lack of AEW, and flew low. The lack of AEW reduced the effectiveness of the use of the Sea Harrier. When HMS Sheffield got hit by the Exocet it was accepted that if the task force had AEW then it would not have happened. Within hours, an urgent project started to produce the SKW, and came to fruition in about three months. By then the war was over.

Organic AEW would have stopped the loss of Sheffield, likewise the Exocet attack against the Atlantic Conveyor. Not losing the Chinooks and Wessex aboard her would have meant that the Welsh Guards did not have to be transported about RFAs Sir Tristam and Sir Galahad. I have heard a comment (from an RAF Officer with an AWACS/ISTAR background) that organic AEW would have prevented all the ship losses. So why did it take the loss of a ship and twenty lives to make the politicians act?

This decade we seem to be planning on not facing any enemy, yet our politicians cannot resist speaking loudly (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18170328), even though they have thrown away much of the stick.

[glojo]

I can think of any number of 'things' that might have saved the Sheffield but basically the Sheffield could EASILY have looked after herself on that specific occasion and perhaps a better example might have been the Coventry, Atlantic Conveyor or any other ship, but it is history, it is over.

What I do not understand is the reasoning behind ordering these 60000 ton carriers WITHOUT cats and traps? That to me is the most basic, of basic crazy decisions and yet it has been glossed over. If Mr Boffin can tells us if EMALS was on the horizon when these carriers were authorised but these ships are far bigger than any carrier we have ever had and yet there is still a risk that they might carry on with our current status of having an aircraft carrier sailing the seven seas without any aircraft and incapable of accepting any operational British military fast jets.

Having said that I am still not convinced these carriers will ever join the fleet.

Whilst I am in wittering mode a quick question.. I am already bored of all this American election news but.... If President Obama were to be re-elected then could he make some 'controversial' decisions as he cannot stand for a third term.

From what I have read, I understand that trillions of dollars have to be saved from the US Defence budget and the F35B might be an easy target?? The US Marines have political muscle but will that intimidate this President and would he be able to cancel this version of their latest aircraft?

[Bengo]

Glojo,

It's not really Obama's decision- the Pentagon (Obama) can ask Congress to change Defense funding to cancel/delay/suspend the F35B. It's then up to Congress. They often disagree with the Pentagon- V22, SR 71 and F136 engine are past examples where Congress funded something the Pentagon wasn't ( at the time) keen on.

It boils down to pork-barrel politics and how much political influence the USMC (and UK) can deploy in that process. The USMC have big clout, and if LM are smart they have done as Bell-Boeing did with the V22 and make lots of F35B peculiar components in lots of different states, thus assuring the support of senators in those states.

Nonetheless the fiscal cliff approaches and Congress has either to re-visit US spending and borrowing, or find and approve some serious spending cuts.

N

[Not_a_boffin]

From inception on CVF/QEC there was always a presumption in favour of STOVL operations, based on the early concepts for a STOVL Strike Fighter or SSF. Even when the programme was Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA), this was still the preferred option as it was in the comfort zone and many of the "operability vs sea state" and cost of training arguments seemed compelling. The early assumptions were also that STOVL ships would be significantly smaller and therefore much cheaper.

However, risk to a STOVL programme was always acknowledged and so CTOL and STOBAR (even ASTOBAR) ops were looked at, with what was EF2000 and FA18E.

Round about 2000/2001 it became clear that given the proposed sortie rate and deck parking requirements, there would actually eb little difference in size between STOVL and CTOL options (the STOBAR ones were larger) and so the "adaptable" carrier idea was born to try and balance the risk to the aircraft programme.

It is also important to understand what is meant by "adaptable". It is not (and never has been) the equivalent of Fit To Receive or Fitted For But Not With. It was simply arranging the flightdeck and gallery deck areas such that area and volume for two cats and an angled deck were available and that sufficient weight margin was available to accommodate these systems.

The arresting element is fairly straightforward. Mk7 Mod 4 is a relative self-contained simple system, no major dramas there. The real issue was always about the cats and unfortunately the timing was simply all wrong. EMALS was always the preferred option, but was so immature at the time that it added a lot of risk. Using steam was also risky in terms of through-life cost and people, so you ended up with two different factors militating against CTOL, whatever the "benefits" of the operating mode.

It was only when the payload and cancellation risks of F35B got really serious taht people really started taking the CTOL option seriously IMO.

[Courtney Mil]

Are you on a low irony diet?

Nice one, WEBF. :ok: Just making sure. And just to be clear, it's not your ideas that I question, it is absolutely the likelihood of the politicians doing something that makes good military sense.

Glojo,

I share your concerns about these. And the carriers really should have come with EMALS etc.

Courtney

[Bismark]

It just won't be great at anything and certainly not Carrier Strike if you think in US terms.

If you think in US terms none of our armed forces (exempt SF) can do much - not least the RAF. As a nation the UK does what it can afford to and as much niche capability to support the US effort. The US are extremely supportive of our decision to provide a CVF capability, albeit at UK levels of effort.

The much bigger debate in my mind is whether the RAF are really behind supporting the generation of the embarked capability for the UK or just p*** around squabbling about who flies the aircraft and how much time should be spent at sea?

[glojo]

Thank you to both Bengo and Not_A_Boffin for those answers and as a follow-up to N_A_B were they at any stage considering steam catapults and if so I dread to think of the costs regarding any modifications.

I'm sure we all get rose tinted glasses as age overtakes us and I take aboard comments about adverse sea conditions affecting flying but the joy of a carrier is it is mobile and can attempt to move away from predicted bad weather. In other words see it coming and move to a more suitable location and make use of carrier borne tanking capability to make up for any extra distance. Yes STOVL can probably operate in rougher sea states, but when it gets rough, it can get rough and there can be no flying of any type but there would probably be no flying anyway??

I understand what you are saying about this 'early concept' but was it ever fully explained that this option was going to rule out any decent AEW capability and definitely no tanking. From the outside looking in it looks like we were never going to use these carriers to their full potential and surely even at that early stage of planning the government must have been told the only future aircraft for these ships would be the F35B or NOTHING and nothing is a possibility.

Not_A_Boffin
Are you surprised at the costs for those American super carriers compared to our ships?

The French are building TWO Mistral class warships for Russia and allegedly selling them for $1.7 billion (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110617/164684636.html). Yes these ships are approximately a third of the size but they are still large warships and I wonder how much this French ship builder would have charged to fit the cats and traps..

I find it hard to accept the costings but the deal is done, the turns have been made and we are steaming up the creek with some very shaky paddles.

Thanks again for the constructive replies :ok::ok:

John

[Not_a_boffin]

In no particular order.....

Steam cats might actually have been less intrusive than EMALS in some respects, although not in terms of feedwater, condensers etc. It was always going to be op costs and manning that militated against steam.

The seakeeping issue is valid in that (particularly for smaller ships) STOVL aircraft can recover where ship motions are higher. There are limits associated with glidepath, clearance above the rounddown and motion at the touchdown point for CTOL recoveries. For STOVL, the criteria are less onerous - ie you can get aboard with higher ship motions. The rub is that the sea states where these higher motions occur add somewhere between 5 and 10% tops to your overall operability in the North Atlantic and much lower percentages elsewhere. However, as some pointed out, most DL training would be in the SWAPPS so ship motion would have an effect.

Tankers were never considered for STOVL. "Apparently" they are of no use whatsoever to STOVL aircraft. While you can see some sense in that in terms of max recovery weight and bringback (ie there's no point in having more fuel if you can't recover with it), there is a different argument that suggests that a relatively short-legged aircraft might benefit from having Texaco available either post launch or where there is a crowded pattern.

As far as CVN78 is concerned $12Bn doesn't surprise me at all. It's nuclear and therefore has a number of associated safety & survivability measures and the US are far from cutting-edge in their shipbuilding practices. If you compare the level of outfit in a CVN77 block when erected in the building dock compared to QEC, QEC is streets ahead. The reason this is important is that work done aboard ship when the hull is complete usually takes at least 4 times as many manhours as doing it in the sheds (pre-outfitting).

Mistral is a different kettle of fish. You could not fit an angled deck or cats to that ship, it's design and stability margins would preclude it.

The French have already built three, so much of the "overhead", production of design information, CNC tapes, work packages etc has already been done. Hence the relatively low cost. I would also suspect an element of subsidy to keep DCN / STX St Nazaire with a workload as well.

If you're suggesting that the French would have offered a better deal to fit EMALS etc to QEC, don't even go there. Aside from probably being precluded by ITAR, their cost would be equal or higher than doing it in Rosyth. As noted earlier, the quoted UK "cost" includes all sorts of LOD/Capability funding lines that are nothing to do with the actual fit aboard the ship. The costs of the UK QEC programme are everything to do with political indecision, interservice bickering and very little to do with the size and configuration of the ship.

I repeat my earlier statement. They are being built, they appear to be coming along nicely and capabilities can be added to over time. The sheer size of them will make them much more useful than a CVS-sized ship could ever have been. If there is one flaw, it is in having the aircraft procurement controlled by an organisation that is more concerned with it's own interests, hence the current manoeuvring for a split buy of F35A and F35B, perpetuating an inability to deploy from sea-based platforms, rather than maximising commonality and economies of scale.

Again - arguing about what this capability will eventually look like now is a bit like trying to decide whether your six-month old nipper is going to be a Nobel prize winner or a regular contributor to the Jeremy Kyle show.

[LowObservable]

As for the B and the election, I am detecting another uptick in Marine activity, with a lot of PR aimed at the first planned operating locations, and the Commandant muttering about starting training before the AF/Navy team has conducted its planned review at Eglin. (Until the Corps can start to train at Eglin, it's stuck on its plans to start moving people and jets to the operating bases.)

[glojo]

Hi Mr Boffin,
As usual MANY thanks and I am guessing I have the same opinion as you regarding our Rana esculenta eating friends. Very much tongue in cheek.



Totally accept refuelling was never considered for the STOVL carrier and 100% agree with your thoughts on this issue.

My thoughts are that it is not beyond the realms of impossibility for potential enemies to fake an attack on our operational carriers, get the aircraft in the air and simply stand off as these things cannot tank and have a limited endurance.. Still I guess the powers that be have already considered that with the 'B'

I am glad to hear the build is going well and hopefully it will survive post 2015

Totally agree with LowObservable and we are going to see lots of powerful lobbying regarding this aircraft. I wonder just how thick the ice is that it might have to land on? Or should that be walk on?

[Courtney Mil]

Or skate on. That normally means thin ice.

We need this capability badly. We can only hope.

[peter we]

"My thoughts are that it is not beyond the realms of impossibility for potential enemies to fake an attack on our operational carriers, get the aircraft in the air and simply stand off as these things cannot tank and have a limited endurance.."

The USN carriers seem to have survived for decades with aircraft of even more limited endurance. In fact they haven't lost one, since 1945.

[dermedicus]

Peter, how many conflicts have they been involved in against comparable forces with the realistic ability to launch air, ship or submarine attacks against them? Particularly in the era of the super carrier?

[orca]

dermedicus,

Maybe you have a point. Given the number of countries able to actually threaten an aircraft carrier is so low that not even the USA has bumped into one in the last 67 years, perhaps we should conclude that the risk isn't as high as some suggest.

I go back to a point I have tried to make before. Why is it that the carrier detractors always pick worst case scenarios to show how vulnerable carriers are...but never do the same for any other system?

If Typhoon was a carrier the recent flight of a Chinese Gen 5 fighter would have us all baying for an immediate cancellation of the project. If Challenger was a carrier we wouldn't have built it because the A-10 existed. If Lossie, Marham or Brize were carriers we'd mothball the lot because of the TLAM threat...you get the point.;)

[ORAC]

If Typhoon was a carrier the recent flight of a Chinese Gen 5 fighter would have us all baying for an immediate cancellation of the project Where have you been for the last 20 years? People have been baying for the project to be cancelled ever since the Wall came down - "a Cold War Relic" was amongst the kinder terms. The RAF purchase was severly curtailed and even Tranche 3 is limited - and even then only to replace airframes switched to fill the Saudi order.

If the carrier programme was handled the same way the QE and POW would be sold to India et al and a 3rd, smaller, single CVH would be ordered to keep the shipyards busy.... :ouch:

[Courtney Mil]

I like the way you make the point, Orca. To me, those are arguments for making the new carriers more capable, not less. Cats, traps, Super Hornets/F-35C, AEW, tankers, jammers, etc.

Your last sentence, ORAC, rings true too, but that would be all about money rather than threats/requirements.

[glojo]

The USN carriers seem to have survived for decades with aircraft of even more limited endurance. In fact they haven't lost one, since 1945. Totally agree and from the air I would not fancy trying to 'spoil their day' but I wonder if these American Air Wings have tanking capabilities :oh: along with state of the art AEW support? :ok: What will the British carriers have to maintain defensive air cover when they are out of range of land based support?

I am not convinced we can play this big boy's game, to have the best, we have to pay for the best. If we cannot afford top players, can we play in the premiership and if so for how long?

[Not_a_boffin]

Assuming an RW AEW capability (Crowsnest) emerges, QEC will have at least equivalent to CVS + SHAR + SKW in terms of air defence capability, but with the ability to embark many more cabs for both AD and strike. F35 is also longer-legged than SHAR and with limited supercruise to supersonic capability (good for intercept).

[Squirrel 41]

All,

I had an interesting chat with some thinktankers in town last week about the future of the US defence budget and the impact of sequestration. It was largely agreed that Dave-B is in serious trouble post election (unless Romney wins, in which case the spending cuts will allegedly fall elsewhere... allegedly), leaving the USMC with Dave-C, and the RN largely stuffed.

This led me to think about Dave-B, and was wondering what it would take - a la F-110A Spectre - for the US forces to standardise on Dave-C, with, presumably the USAF jets getting a UAARSI in the back. What would the difference in performance be, and (crucially) would it save any money?

S41

[GreenKnight121]

F-35C has a slower roll rate and other performance compromises that make it a noticeably worse air-air fighter than F-35A.

With many NATO nations relying on F-35A to be their sole fighter, that is a very important issue.


F-35C is significantly more expensive than F-35A... and no amount of production-number-shifting can cure that.
This is because of the differing materials and so on used in the carrier version.

[ORAC]

If sequestration bites and the F-35B is cut, I would expect the Navy to take the opportunity to ditch the F-35C at the same time and standardise on the FA-18E/F/G until the X-47 and other lojng range UAVs can fill the attack role.

With China being the threat and with the range of shore based defenses the F-35C looks increasingly inadequate for the role.

That would leave the F-35A for the USAF and other partners - and the RN to ponder........

[Bengo]

If the F35B dies then the RN will not get to ponder very long. Ministers will have a stark choice:
Spend a load of extra unbudgeted money on CTOL conversion and the associated enablers or,
Complete and sell both carriers.

Add in some inter-service politics (if only because the F35C/F18 bring much greater costs for the RAF to develop and maintain a naval air capability) and Treasury pressure to delete the carriers from the Defence Budget and I know which option I would bet on.

N

[LowObservable]

Correct - if the F-35B dies, the F-35C no longer has its flank protected by the Marines and will follow it in short order.

If the Navy could dump the B and C, CV combat capability would improve in the short-to-medium term. Before the B/C would have reached IOC (with full capability, not the Marines' interim capability), the navy could:
- replace lots more classic Hornets with Supers
- start taking delivery of Ultra Bugs with conformal tanks, engine improvements &c
- accelerate the Next Generation Jammer.

And all of this with money to spare.

The Marines would get Supers to replace their F/A-18s (those aircraft, not the Harriers, are first in line to be replaced).

GK121 is right about the C. The big wing is there for CV-compatible approach speed, OEW is massively greater than the A, and the main reason it has greater range is that the gun is replaced by more internal fuel.

[alfred_the_great]

And I would look forward to USA PLC repaying money to UK PLC for the money invested as a tier 1 partner and then chopping the output we want. Or, of course, we could take 2 of those shiny EMALs at low to no-cost as recompense.....

[Not_a_boffin]

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

[peter we]

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

[Milo Minderbinder]

Off the wall idea, but would a buy of just "B"s work?

Would give all three services commonality, enable the Navy to partly scale down its carrier build program by using older smaller ships as "auxiliary" carriers (for want of a better word), and would enable the USAF to integrate into the Marine's expeditionary strategy

How would that affect the costings?

[GreenKnight121]

The F-35B is only rated for 7G maneuvers, while F-35A is rated for 9G (F-35C 7.5G).

This is because the need to hold down airframe weight to preserve vertical landing characteristics produces a lighter but weaker airframe.

Other than the max G-rating, maneuverability is virtually identical between -A & -B... but again there is the lack of an internal gun for -B.

Cost is still a major difference... the more costly materials used in the airframe to bring down weight, added to the costs of the lift fan & its gearbox as well as the airflow doors, would keep that cost differential no matter what the production numbers.

[peter we]

added to the costs

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

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

[ORAC]

The fact that the British alone are buying the B will ensure the US doesn't cancel it. http://www.vistax64.com/images/smilies/roflmao2.gif http://www.vistax64.com/images/smilies/roflmao2.gif http://www.vistax64.com/images/smilies/roflmao2.gif

[BEagle]

The fact that the British alone are buying the B will ensure the US doesn't cancel it.

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

[kbrockman]

All is good in JSF land
More problems raised at Pentagon F-35 fighter review - World Updates | The Star Online (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/9/11/worldupdates/2012-09-11T035621Z_1_BRE88A048_RTROPTT_0_UK-LOCKHEED-FIGHTER&sec=Worldupdates)
Officials did not approve a comprehensive plan for operational testing of the F-35 program as had been expected.

The Pentagon's Defence Acquisition Board huddled for more than four hours on Friday evening in a meeting described by one participant as "very painful" given ongoing challenges facing the high-tech F-35 helmet that is integral to the craft's weapons systems, and other aspects of the huge program.
Operational test plan rejected because of ongoing issues, one of them the helmet which, I'm sure I recall this correctly, was as good as solved.
Now they're talking as if the alternate BAe helmet is going to be a more permanent alternative.

[GeeRam]

The USMC, Navy and probably up to 10 other nations will need the B to operate sea air.

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

Who?

USMC's order plus UK's x 48 and the Italians order of 22 and that's it for the B.



And I liked this reply, so have another.......

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


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

[GreenKnight121]

Except for being on the edge of bankruptcy, Spain had said that they would eventually buy F-35B when its AV-8B+s run out of flight hours. Of course, at the current rate that is sometime in the 2030s.


Australia could buy some... except their government has said they are not going to, period.


Then there is India... oh wait, they have said their next carrier will have catapults so that Rafale can be bought for the Navy as well as having won the Air Force competition.

Brazil has a carrier... but whether they buy Rafale or Gripen for their Air Force they have said will stay with catapult-launched aircraft for Sao Paulo & its replacement.


So who else were you referring to, peter we... adding in the Italian Navy that's only 5 possibles after the USMC & RN... you need lots more to get to your USMC, RN, and "10 more".

[Ronald Reagan]

I read a report recently that Spain may retire its carrier and not replace it.
Considering their financial situation a real possibility. Looking at Italy I wonder what will happen there aswell!

[Not_a_boffin]

Don't confuse the Principe d'Asturias, built in the mid-80s, with King Juan Carlos, built in the last five years. Both STOVL ships.

Ditto the Italians with Giuseppe Garibaldi (mid-80s) and Cavour (last couple of years).

Doesn't invalidate the possibility, but wishful thinking won't make it so.....

[GreenKnight121]

PdA was designed as an aircraft carrier, specifically for helos and Harriers. Its elevators are too small for F-35B.

JCI is designed as an "air-capable LHD", and was specifically designed to operate F-35Bs... but as a secondary role while PdA is in refit, not as a primary mission.

I do expect Spain to at least place PdA in reserve (officially temporarily, but actually permanently), and to defer (if not cancel) her planned post-2020 replacement carrier. JCI will be used as a "multi-purpose vessel", probably with 4-6 Harriers embarked. A small purchase of ~20 F-35B is still possible IF the economy allows post-2018.



Giuseppe Garibaldi was designed as an aircraft carrier, specifically for helos and Harriers. Its elevators are too small for F-35B.

Cavour is designed as a "amphibious-assault-capable aircraft carrier", with operation of F-35Bs as a primary role.

GG is planned to be replaced by a second aviation-centric vessel, but this is likely to be deferred for at least 5 years beyond the current schedule. I do expect her to be eventually replaced with a second F-35 capable ship as currently approved.

The currently-approved plan is for 3 ships to replace the 3 San Marcos class amphibs AND GG: 2 mid-sized helo-only LHDs (20,000-ton 190 meters (623 ft.)) with a F-35B-capable LHA variant (using the same hull, but without a well dock) to replace GG.

I would rather the LHA be a second Cavour.

[Not_a_boffin]

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

[WE Branch Fanatic]

If the carrier programme was handled the same way the QE and POW would be sold to India et al and a 3rd, smaller, single CVH would be ordered to keep the shipyards busy....

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

peter we

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

Except for being on the edge of bankruptcy, Spain had said that they would eventually buy F-35B when its AV-8B+s run out of flight hours. Of course, at the current rate that is sometime in the 2030s.

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

Recently, Navy News reports (https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/5735) that whilst the decommissioned HMS Ark Royal is to be towed away as scrap, Ministers have expressed an interest in preserving HMS Illustrious when she leaves service. This strikes me as very unusual - since when have they been interesting in preserving ship before (except those in extended readiness).

So are Ministers trying to deflect criticism, or soften us up for Illustrious being put in extended readiness or having her service extended (which may require a refit)? Or other policy changes?

My view is that not having a major gap between Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth would be a good way of preserving the legacy? This may mean either extending the service life of the former, or speeding up work on the latter (her original in service date was 2014 - and remember that Illustrious was rushed into service a year early in 1982 so that she could replace Invincible in the South Atlantic post conflict).

Additionally, changing policy so that we do not have an entire decade of no naval fixed wing flying, with no carrier capability and no jets embarked on RN decks to give experience to the entire ship's company (particularly as the future of RN fixed wing aviation is STOVL - ie F-35B), would do a lot to secure the legacy of the "Harrier carriers". Perhaps see my post here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131) - from the Decision to axe Harrier is "Bonkers" thread.

To be honest, I really do not know what to make of defence policy these days. The politicians both try to make loud noises regarding Syria (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=20382) and Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/defence-and-security-blog/2012/jan/24/iran-sanctions-david-cameron), and pretend that the world has not changed since SDSR. Indeed, Illustrious is deploying to somewhere hot soon (http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/261784/-Royal--French-Navy--deploy-common-carrier-amphib-group)...

Then there is the issue of the forthcoming (when?) announcement on the future of the Reserve forces. For example, the Royal Naval Reserve is having is numbers increased by 50%, but nobody is certain what for? Fewer RN and RFA ships means less ships needing force protection, logistic support, communications, etc. So what will these people do?

How are we meant to recruit them without knowing what it is we are recruiting them for? The FR20 paper recommended an enlarged RNR Air Branch, and there has been (tri-service) talk of Reservists taking over capabilities that are not in use right now but that need to be maintained, but how do part timers make up for the loss of ships and aircraft that have been sold or scrapped?

PS Why all this bickering over carrier aircraft more commonly one or two engines?

[mike-wsm]

particularly as the future of RN fixed wing aviation is STOVL - ie F-35B

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

[MSOCS]

mike-wsm,

Disagree - lacking in range, lacking in engines, lacking in weapons, lacking in stealth

Lacking in range - yeah, see where you're going with this one. However, the old argument that without HNS and AAR even the the F-35A is lacking in range; define in what context please.

Lacking in engines - it has one. F-16 has one; so did GR7/9; Mirage F1/2000 has one etc etc. Compared to the B-52 most other aircraft are 'lacking in engines'. Did you mean to say it is underpowered? At risk of crashing if that one engine fails and there isn't another to save the day? Again, define your context please so we can all understand your point.

Lacking in weapons - numbers of weapons that it can carry internally, externally, or what? Size of weapons is an issue as we well know but is it a lack of cleared weapon types you refer to? Context...

Lacking in stealth - oh really?! I disagree but, again, define (if you can on a public forum) why you make that statement so that we can all better understand.

[peter we]

Yet its exceeds the aircraft it replaces or are offered as alternatives.

[mike-wsm]

F/A-18 E/F/G - two engines

[GreenKnight121]

WE Branch Fanatic, HMS Ark Royal HAS been sold.

The MOD confirms that the Turkish firm Leyal Ship Recycling has bought her for for £2.9m. She is to be towed early next year to the same facility in Izmail, Turkey where Invincible is currently being dismantled by the same company!

MoD confirms Ark Royal to be scrapped - Defence - Portsmouth News (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/mod-confirms-ark-royal-to-be-scrapped-1-4244563)



A couple of years ago, on another discussion board, a Turkish poster said that Turkey was planning to build 2 carriers to operate F-35Bs. Most of us pooh-poo'd him, but considering the Chinese track record with ex-Soviet/Russian carriers... :eek:

Could this be the secret plan of those cunning Turks?

[GreenKnight121]

AV-8/Sea Harrier: 1 engine.
A-7 Corsair: 1 engine.
F-8 Crusader: 1 engine.
A-4 Skyhawk: 1 engine.
F11F Tiger: 1 engine.
FJ Fury (navalized F-86): 1 engine.
F9F Panther/Cougar: 1 engine.


Shall I continue? There are more jets on that list just for the USN, much less other nations.

Single-engine has never been, and is not now, a disqualifier for naval aircraft.

[TBM-Legend]

More SINGLE engine types:
T-45 Goshawk
TV-2 Seastar
Etendard
Super Etendard
Sea Hawk
Sea Venom
Scimitar
Demon
Pirate
and...
F4D Skyray
Attacker
Alize
and many single engine choppers

[BUCC09]

and...this offering. From Lockheed.:E

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy258/BUCC09/seastar2.jpg

[jindabyne]

----and,

Buccaneer (the yardstick!)
Scimitar (note to TBM)
F-18
Rafale
Phantom
Sea Vixen
Prowler
etc etc

[ORAC]

The Bucc is nice, but the Vigilante is purtier..... ;)

PyIOyQniNe0

[Not_a_boffin]

The Bucc is beautiful

The Viggie is Purty

But nothing says aircraft porn like :

http://2.bp.********.com/-pjgCS5uzopg/Tg326jbIKdI/AAAAAAAACFE/0pKUIXpyH2o/s1600/F-14_Tomcat4.jpg

[glad rag]

But how many of the above listed single engined aircraft cost $80,000,000 [and rising] ?

[ORAC]

Single engined? Don't forget the...

L8HMPMYL19E

[mike-wsm]

Thanks for the lists of "single-engined" carrier aircraft, though if jindabyne's aircraft were flying with only one engine fitted some would represent an extreme triumph of accountancy over airworthiness.

The F-35B is a naval variant of the land-based F-35, which in turn is a stripped-down F-22.

It has a smaller weapons bay, which means either fewer weapons or some weapons must be carried externally, compromising stealth.

If operated from a stripped down carrier without catapult and arrestor gear, it has to land vertically, at reduced weight, so it has to dump excess fuel and expensive weaponry in the sea.

If the one engine fails or suffers combat damage, plane and pilot both have to be dumped in the sea. Anyone remember the loss rate of the F-104, and that in peacetime?

It has less fuel so the unstealthy carrier has to get closer in to the combat zone.

[Finnpog]

Was the Starfighter loss rate down to failures of it's engine, or was it to do with the postage stamp wing area combined with it's handling characteristics and the tactics employed flying it?



I have also struggled with the 'limited range' arguments. If what is quoted is for internal fuel and weapons only, then that is for maximum (should that be minimum?) stealth mode?

Is it's range on internal fuel and weaps better or worse than a Tonka, F-18 or a Tiffy each with internal weapons & fuel?

If you then need to hang tanks on it to give it the legs, will it have worse or better EM / IR visiblity than any of the above?

Storm Shadow would have to be carried externally in any case where it was being deployed in complimentary tactics to TLAM for longer range strike missions.

Unless I have missed something, the F-35 is the only new game in town - so I guess that it (in which ever Letter variant) and a 'drone' (tee hee) will become the replacements for the two RAF FJs this side of the next 25 to 30 years ( based on recent artist impression to full combat ready examples); unless we go for those decrepit legacy designs of the Super (Ultra) Hornet or the Strike // Silent Eagle or something with a more Russian flavour to it.

Now for something comletely off the wall - a pity that the USMC didn't haggle for marinised A-10s :E

[Not_a_boffin]

The F-35B is a naval variant of the land-based F-35, which in turn is a stripped-down F-22.

Form an orderly queue..........

[cornish-stormrider]

Can't we just buy an old Nimitz class set of plans and hoop one together with a new radio?

Oh, sorry, I thought this was the bull**** future of naval aviation thread, one that I, like a lot here, actually know 3/5th of the root of F**K ALL about...

we're having - Dave B.... This week - when the plan changes we will have whatever numptyballs and his team of chimps that we let rule over us lets us have.

I am off to the bookies to put cash down on us not seeing either carrier or Dave in actual working service.

it wont't be a big bet mind, but at the moment the odds are in my favour.

[mike-wsm]

Yes, agreed. The smart money is on a 'squadron' of three second-hand F-18 flying from a shore base. :cool:

[Romulus]

The F-35B is a naval variant of the land-based F-35, which in turn is a stripped-down F-22.

The F-22 being an updated variant of those Spitfires used in Dr Who that fought the daleks in space...

[Not_a_boffin]

Romulus

Check post 1678 unless you're being desperately ironic old chap.

[Romulus]

NAB - was just joining the queue! :)

[kiwi grey]

So, if Romney does get elected, and does keep this pre-election promise (yes, getting to the 'fairly remote' territory, here! ;)), surely they'll have to be "F-22C", with new radar, new distributed-aperture IRST, whole new embedded computing solution, &c., to bring them up to mid-2010's technology.
And if that's happening, surely the F-35 is dead, they could never afford both programmes. The USN buys lotsa FA-18E/F/G & "H/I/J" Superbug upgrades, the USAF buys lotsa F-16 "Block 70", so they're happy.
If they made the F-22C available to Israel, Japan and Australia, they'll be happy too.

The only people really dropped in it are the USMC and UK, both of whom have 'bet the farm' on the F-35B. :{

[orca]

But the USMC haven't, have they? They're C customers as well. So whilst it might leave their 11 or so amphibs with no FW (whilst the helo mafia got all the deck space it wants for V-22 et al) They would still be in the FW game.

[Squirrel 41]

And as has been pointed out several times, the USMC ConOps requiring the -B are so improbable as to be absurd, meaning that it's an easy thing to cut as it will have virtually no impact on real-world (rather than theoretical) US combat capability. RN? Not so much....

S41

[TBM-Legend]

Why do you think the USMC is not getting the Bravo model?
From recent Flight magazine:

The US Marine Corps will stand up its first operational Lockheed Martin F-35B squadron this November if everything goes according to plan, a senior service official says. Prior to that, the USMC hopes to formally start training new F-35B pilots in October at Eglin AFB, Florida.

"VMFA-121 will now be the first squadron to stand-up in Yuma, [Arizona]," the senior official says. "They will stand down as an F/A-18D squadron in July once they return from deployment to Japan."

[orca]

For what it's worth I personally think the USMC will (as it has done to date) fight tooth and nail for the F-35B. They already have some, as has been pointed out.

The USMC also has a strong political lobby, so it will undoubtedly have its case heard.

However, it is worth noting that for some reason the misconception exists that the USMC is a VSTOL force transitioning to STOVL F-35. This is somewhere between misleading and fundementally incorrect. I am prepared to stand corrected but I believe the USMC has circa 200 Hornets and circa 110 Harriers. It is taking delivery of 80 F35Cs I believe.

I know that the spectre of being left to fend for oneself in the Pacific is still writ large in the USMC psyche and have a feeling that the F-35B is probably born out of it. But so long as one model survives the USMC will have a FW capability. Not a bad position to be in really.

[WhiteOvies]

Cut any one variant and the other 2 become unaffordable to partner nations. It's a downward spiral as Governments concerned about costs amid economic worries pull the plug (Canada, Italy etc). Fewer orders of A's puts the price up further and the spiral continues.

It's all 3 variants or nothing. Nothing would prob bancrupt LM as their other military platforms drop off, unless T-50 becomes T-38 replacement. Massive job losses politically unacceptable so I see all 3 surviving but with delays to full capability.

UK sucks up the costs long term.

[glojo]

Has anyone heard what plan 'B' will bee ;);) if the 'B' is not to be??

I would like to think our 'Illustrious' leaders have an alternative plan other than a reclassification of type. STOVL becomes and extremely expensive, impractical assault type ship as per the Illustrious which I note was parked outside our front door a few days ago. How embarrassing is it to have aircraft carriers sailing the high seas without aircraft, how much money is being wasted on having that thing trying to perform a role it was never designed for.

[Not_a_boffin]

Glojo

"That thing" - Lusty - is working up ready to assume the role of duty LPH when Ocean goes into upkeep very shortly. That includes provision of a ready multi-spot deck deck to allow various FAA squadrons to maintain deck currency. I hardly classify that as a "waste of money". I'm sure you remember that when designed her primary role was operation of helicopters rather than f/w, so I'm somewhat at a loss at the phrase "never designed for", though I will concede troop accom, assault routes etc are far from ideal.

As for "plan B", I would hazard a guess that it's a binary option. Either :

a) Bite the bullet and implement CTOL conversion (noting that we have now missed our place in the queue for ship sets of EMALS/EAR)

b) Bite the other bullet, abandon naval f/w ops (and therefore any notion of power projection ops), sell the ships - assuming a buyer can be found, which is a big assumption.

Neither of these are particularly difficult to work out. What is a bit difficult to fathom is the almost gleeful anticipation of some on here (not you btw) of the B being cancelled. As should be well known, I personally would have preferred the C option for the UK, but it ain't going to happen unless B gets canned and then only if the money can be found. There are a number of folk however, who appear to be hoping for a B cancellation, largely so an "I told you so" T-shirt can be worn on the CVF/F35 as a whole, rather than any sensible formulation of defence policy / capability.

[glojo]

Hi NAB,
I agree our through deck cruiser has been reclassified and is now a half hearted LPH!! I say half hearted as the other LPH is the so called real article although I believe it was built on the cheap and conforms more to a merchant ship type build specification as opposed to a warship?? (question) A polite question which I believe you are well qualified to answer :ok:

By not carrying a full air wing has the Illustrious got comparable accommodation for its military 'cargo'

It is easy to call an aircraft carrier an LPH but our genuine 'Landing Platform Helicopter' also carries four Mk 5B LCVP's, 40 vehicles that support the embarked parts of 3Cdo brigade, plus of course the ramp that allows these vehicles to embark and disembark.

How ironic that the through deck cruiser was a half hearted attempt at being a proper aircraft carrier :O:O:uhoh:

And now we are seeing it rebadged as a second HMS Ocean or LPH except it lacks the ability to carry landing craft, lacks the ability to have the roll on, roll off feature.

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii527/glojoh/HMS_Ocean_IFOS2005_cropped.jpg
http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii527/glojoh/HMSIllustrious_JGS4284.jpg


Does sticking a badge on the funnel make it a genuine replacement for the Ocean?

Apologies for the tongue in cheek sarcasm regarding the role of the through deck cruiser and I would appreciate your observations regarding the build methods of Ocean compared to the build of a warship.. (I have only read books regarding claims about merchant ship build standards)

[Not_a_boffin]

I wouldn't get over excited about the Ro-Ro capability if I were you. Yes there's a ramp and a ramp support pontoon which allows it to interface with LCVP5 and LCU.

Trouble is, the VP's are usually kitted out with Arctic shelters, which makes it difficult to use them for vehicle offload, which pretty much means you need a Bay or LPD (with LCU or Mexe) with you in order to move any significant number of vehicles by surface. Although the ramp is nominally rated for Viking, that capability isn't used often, which pretty much limits it to Pinzgauers and TUMs (Landy's to the rest of us). The ramp is a bit on the fragile side as well, as Royal found out when he b8ggered it good and proper about three years ago.

Ocean can obviously deploy troops in surface lift, but that's pretty much it in terms of a differentiator.

As far as build quality goes, Ocean is a bucket of bolts IMO. However, she is the only major warship we have that is designed and built to "commercial standards" - Lloyds Rules and Regulations for Ships to be precise. These should not be confused with Lloyds Rules & Regulations for Naval Ships which is what LPD, QEC and T45 are built and maintained to.

[dermedicus]

The patriot in me, despite my current location, would love to see HMS QE steaming the high seas, catapulting state of the art fighters into the skies to demonstrate British Sea Power and military might. The realist in me asks, to what end would this be?

There are a number of folk however, who appear to be hoping for a B cancellation, largely so an "I told you so" T-shirt can be worn on the CVF/F35 as a whole, rather than any sensible formulation of defence policy / capability.

Despite the quote, this is not directed at Not_a_boffin directly, rather it is a reflection on the sentence re: defence policy. It all depends upon how one sees our defence requirement. Personally, I believe that our policy should indeed be defence rather than offence, and to that end my take would be that aircraft carriers and the argument of power projection is not relevant to the defence of the UK. Equally, the argument about our interests overseas is no longer relevant and sensible defence policy may be to accept that the Empire days are gone, that even if the Royal Navy has two large carriers with aeroplanes launched by whatever means, the days of steaming around the world sorting out bother, be that the Straits of Hormuz or somewhere in the South China Sea are over and that our attention and budget would be better served concentrating on our immediate region. Afghanistan should be the last British Military venture into the Middle East and the sooner our troops of any service are removed from there, the better. Enough good, brave service personnel have died already in a conflict I personally do not believe they should ever have been involved.

Sensible defence policy may also include not blowing the budget on short-range stealth aircraft when, as many have already here observed, there is little chance of stealthing the carrier, or the tanker - unless that tanker is the same shape as the recipient aircraft.

Sensible defence policy may be to ensure the services have sufficient means to defend the UK only. A strong Royal Navy to operate in the Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel and north towards Scandanavia and Iceland. To do this does not necessarily require an expensive carrier. A strong Royal Air Force with sufficient numbers of fighters, not all of which need to be stealthy, to maintain the defence of the UK plus some maritime patrol capability. A strong, flexible Army able to operate within our region if required, but with home defence as the primary goal.

I believe this would be doable in a budget that was spared the cost of the current military deployments, the carriers and the F35.

[Bengo]

Dermedicus,


The trouble with the 'Defend UK' in the Western approaches and North Sea argument is to define where UK's interests really start. Not considering where outside UK local waters we might need power projection for political purposes is short sighted. I am not suggesting that we need that capability to do another Iraq or 'stan but much of our energy (gas as well as oil) currently comes through the Strait of Hormuz; Somali pirates affect our imports and exports and there might yet be oil in the South Alantic. There are other examples where we are dependent on free passage on the seas. We need the ability to ensure those things continue, regardless of the attitude of others, if we are to keep the lights on and people at work. Whether the current and projected RN are what we need to do that I rather doubt, but 1SL can only work with what the politicians will give and hope that there is an opportunity to re-shape things later.

I see that you are in Oz. Some years back an academic called Dibb "persuaded" the Government (Bob Hawke as PM with Kim Beasley at Defence I think) that what the Strine people needed was a capability to defend Oz (in Oz' water/land/airspace) and that meant a more numerous but small-ship brown-water navy with more widely spread bases (as well as more widely spread Air Force bases). Dibb failed to consider all of Australias strategic interests and as a result of the rearguard action by those who better understood them Oz still doesn't have a small ship brown water navy (or a more numerous one).

N

[dermedicus]

Fair points Bengo, but the question has to be how much can we realistically afford to do in terms of safeguarding our interests in distant parts of the world and what resources do we require to do that? I am not sure that aircraft carriers are part of that, but others take a different view.

On the subject of Australia, they are in the process of making their military more 'amphibious', with the acquisition of two large LPHs (both bigger than their last carrier) and preparing, I believe, one regiment at least for an amphibious, marine like role. I am not sure where they plan to use them, as invading Indonesia would be a tall order and I am not sure there is the will to start colonising South Pacific Islands. I am also not aware of them proposing to acquire and operate any F35Bs off of these ships.

[Romulus]

Fair points Bengo, but the question has to be how much can we realistically afford to do in terms of safeguarding our interests in distant parts of the world and what resources do we require to do that? I am not sure that aircraft carriers are part of that, but others take a different view.

On the subject of Australia, they are in the process of making their military more 'amphibious', with the acquisition of two large LPHs (both bigger than their last carrier) and preparing, I believe, one regiment at least for an amphibious, marine like role. I am not sure where they plan to use them, as invading Indonesia would be a tall order and I am not sure there is the will to start colonising South Pacific Islands. I am also not aware of them proposing to acquire and operate any F35Bs off of these ships.

The Canberra class "Landing Helicopter Dock" (LHD) is a recognition that Australian activities are most likely to be regional support type roles in which the LHD will undertake a base of operations type functions in relatively low intensity environments. I suspect they wouldn't last overly long in a major conflict. They are designed to operate rotary wing types, not fixed wing.

Canberra Class - Royal Australian Navy (http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class)

Overall, they're just a mobile base to make things like the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands easier to achieve.

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): The New Sheriff Ain't Happy (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a16281529-8b87-4942-8aca-099f3abaf493)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

S41

An American gentleman once pointed out that (in his view) the United States uses AV-8B equipped amphibious ships in a similar fashion to the way it used its smaller carriers (eg the Essex class) during the Cold War (and they can embark up to twenty Harriers to act as a light (sic) carrier). In other words, it gives the US an option short of sending a CVN, and of course more ships with a fixed wing capability is useful. As such, it offers Washington a degree of political dexterity. Consider the deployment of USS Kearsarge during operations in Libya last year.

Additionally, the reason the USMC wanted the Harrier back in the 70s was that it provided them with firepower only a short flying time from the shore, making up for the loss of the six inch and eight inch gun cruisers that provided naval gunfire support during the Cold War conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

Both arguments seem sound to me, and relevant today to a future of (relatively) small scale, littoral engagements.

Not so long ago one of the aviation magazines had a feature about the STOVL strike force. Apart from noting that the USMC intends to be able to run the AV-8B until 2025 or beyond (partly due to the spares source from the UK GR9s), and that sixteen of the UK Harriers are being kept intact, it made the point that they are very useful, and busy. I wonder what their views are on the UK's decision to axe Harrier, and to throw away our carrier capability?

I wonder what they make of the F-35B being dropped in favour of the F-35C, then chosen again, without (thus far) a rethink of the planning to develop the skillsets needed for future. Given the real possibility of conflicts this decade, what will they think of having to provide air cover for UK forces?

Another US gentleman suggested that part of the reason for the switch back to F-35B might be political, whilst I do not believe that to be the case, does it not strengthen to Marines' hands? In which case maybe they could help us out, embarking Harriers aboard Illustrious/QE, perhaps even lending us a few aircraft, as I suggested here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-50.html#post6592988).

If we assume that F-35B survives, and that HM Government will not change its mind again, then these are the issues that need to be thought about, as do operations that might take place in the (very) near future. These were the points I tried to make in post 1664 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-84.html#post741119), but my words were misinterpreted and provoked a single engine vs two engine top trumps session. Yet the issues of future skills and current (ie this decade) capabilities remain.

Perhaps dithering politicians who will not commit to a decision and join the dots up are the problem, as cornish-stormrider suggests. :ugh:

[Squirrel 41]

WEBF:

There's all the difference in the world between "useful if you already have it" and "would spend money on it instead of [X]". This is the heart of the Dave-B vs Harrier debate for the USMC - of course you'll use Harriers that are available here and now, and that includes some cheap one picked up off the Brits.

However, looking forwards, you may not decide that it is the most sensible method of spending said cash to procure STOVL JSFs to replace STOVL Harriers - especially with a sizeable budget crunch coming in 2013.

On the Pentagon's budget crunch, (c. $54bn p.a. if sequestration isn't sorted), it's worth remembering that this is the same as the *entire* UK defence budget, give or take. Once you start talking these sorts of numbers, retaining the uber-expensive Dave-B for some pretty unlikely scenarios becomes much less attractive/likely. Especially when the programme is still reportedly (http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/17/f_35s_biggest_problems_software_and_bad_relationships) "challenging" :ooh:

It's for this suite of reasons that I think we'll have Dave-B cancelled, and revert to either F-18E/G or F-35C as the RN/RAF new all weather strike platform - with the mix being largely cost driven. At about £100m a piece, JSF is going to be a rather rare bird in UK colours, I fear.

S41

[hval]

Flight Global has some additional comments from Bogdan here (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/senior-f-35-official-warns-on-software-breakdowns-relationship-crisis-376590/).

They include: -

"The future of the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme is at risk over software concerns and a breakdown in the relationships between the contractor and the government"

"There is no more money and no more time "

"If we don't get ALIS right, we are not flying aircraft."

The article is worth a read.

More at Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-slams-lockheed-over-f-35-2012-9) & elsewhere. It includes this little gem.... "he Pentagon also needed to stop making changes to the program, calling such moves destabilizing to an already complex program.".

[hval]

With China and its products, and Russia and their products we could soon be encircled (figuratively) by these nations, their allies and to nations that China and Russia sell their products to?

The aircraft may not be as technically advanced as the F35 is supposed to be, nor the F22, but they won't be that far away. They will have more up time than the overly complicated Western products. They will be cheaper, and there will be brazillions of them compared to the USA's 3 F%'s and the UK's 1 F35, but no carrier. The rate development of the F35 is being developed at perhaps the West will end up chasing after Russia and China who could have their aircraft in use before us.

If it is true that we will not be able to afford sufficient aircraft to defend ourselves, perhaps we should be looking elsewhere. What about investing massively in UAV technology? If we are able to advance the technology sufficiently perhaps we would reduce the advantage that Russia and China will shortly have? Not that UAV's can operate independently, as yet.

The above may be slightly tongue in cheek, but I do think that there is much truth in what I have written.

[mike-wsm]

My most humble apologies to WEBFan for inadvertently starting the engine top trumps session. My comments were based very much on my preference for the known, flying, dependable F/A-18. But they would be, I worked on that program, and a jolly good one it was too.

I have a trivia question which I hope can be answered without diverting the discusion. Of course I know that the 'J' in JSF stands for 'Committee', always a bad letter in US program parlance, but where the heck does 'Dave' come from? I've tried googling but everyone points back to pprune and says it originated here.

A less trivial question, after Dave-B is cancelled, what plans are there for the nice shiny new carriers? Nobody else is going to want them. Prison ships? Satellite launch pads?

[hval]

mike-wsm,

The F18 has turned in to a nice, effective aircraft/ tool.

Those carriers could be modified to be missile launch platforms possibly. What a waste. The amount of work that would be required would be incredible and much technology on them binned.

Or, they could become floating museum/ cruise ships

Or sold to the mega wealthy (Abramovich) as their personal yacht.

[Squirrel 41]

Mike wsm

A less trivial question, after Dave-B is cancelled, what plans are there for the nice shiny new carriers? Nobody else is going to want them. Prison ships? Satellite launch pads?

If this happens, then the chances are that (after massive intake of breath at MoD, much sniggering elsewhere in Whitehall, and huge "I told you so" here on Pprune) the money will be found to convert PoW to CTOL and, if the RN are lucky, convert QE II at her first major refit.

As for the jets? Heart says Dave-C, but head is more equivocal given that the cost is off the scale.

S41

[orgASMic]

I have a trivia question which I hope can be answered without diverting the discusion. Of course I know that the 'J' in JSF stands for 'Committee', always a bad letter in US program parlance, but where the heck does 'Dave' come from? I've tried googling but everyone points back to pprune and says it originated here.

mike-wsm - the name 'Dave' for JSF comes from this thread of 2006: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/226765-name-jsf.html
It was first suggested by Just This Once (along with Colin) and it stuck in the absence of a real name at the time.

[Just This Once...]

Didn't think I would get the blame although reading the 2006 thread shows that Zoom won first prize with Lightning, but overreached himself by showing that he could also count to 3.

I don't work in the programme anymore. :E

[peter we]

If this happens, then the chances are that (after massive intake of breath at MoD, much sniggering elsewhere in Whitehall, and huge "I told you so" here on PPRuNe) the money will be found to convert PoW to CTOL and, if the RN are lucky, convert QE II at her first major refit.

Er, no.

Its already been shown that we cannot afford the conversion. If the B is canceled, the carriers will be sold off, cheap, and the fantasy requirement for them forgotten. If we can survive with helicopters for years, then the argument to spend billions we don't have, on a dubious capability will be lost.

The general publics reaction to losing the carriers will be .. meh.

[orca]

As would be the response to the cancellation of any MoD procurement project. Because on top of not really understanding what the systems or capabilities actually do; most if not all only make the press when they are being lampooned for being late, over budget and mapped against a threat that either no longer exists or has itself upgraded in the three decades available.

[WhiteOvies]

Just this Once, think my Boss (an RAF Sqn Ldr) when I worked in the Pegasus EA, may have beat you to it by about 5 minutes. ;-) Amazed that it stuck! It came from a comment about how everyone knows a Dave...

[Just This Once...]

Thanks for that as it didn't think it was my fault!

[ORAC]

F35 Program Continues to Struggle with Software. (http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/military/f35-program-continues-to-struggle-with-software)

[ORAC]

Defense News: British Navy May Face 4-Year Gap in Airborne Early Warning Capability (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120923/DEFREG01/309230003/British-Navy-May-Face-4-Year-Gap-Airborne-Early-Warning-Capability?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

LONDON — The Royal Navy could be facing as much as a four-year gap in its airborne early warning capability after the current fleet of Sea King Mk7 helicopters is taken out of service in 2016, said sources familiar with the plan. It could be 2020 before the Merlin helicopters earmarked to take over the airborne surveillance and control role in a project known as Crowsnest are operational, the sources said.

The move leaves the Royal Navy with a yawning gap in its maritime surveillance capabilities during the second half of this decade following the axing of the Nimrod MRA4 patrol aircraft as part of the cost-cutting strategic defense review of 2010.

The radar-equipped Merlins will have a key role providing organic protection for the Royal Navy’s new F-35-equipped aircraft carrier force, scheduled to be operational around 2020.

Concerns over a capability gap developing between introduction of the airborne early warning radar-equipped Merlins and the demise of the Sea Kings were voiced in a parliamentary defense committee report Sept. 19, looking at the future of U.K. maritime surveillance. “There is the potential for other capability gaps to occur, such as when the Sea King airborne surveillance and control helicopter is withdrawn in 2016 to be replaced by the Project Crowsnest operating from the Merlin Mk2,” the report said.

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman declined to comment on the in-service date.

In a statement released with the report, James Arbuthnot, the committee chairman, said the “risk is likely to worsen in the medium term as further maritime surveillance capabilities are withdrawn or not yet filled.”

For some time now, Sea King airborne surveillance and control helicopters have been successfully deployed in Afghanistan supporting NATO ground forces.

Crowsnest has been in limbo for months while the MoD sorted out wider funding shortfalls. The program could start to move ahead by the end of the year, with the MoD possibly announcing the start of what is expected to be a lengthy project assessment phase.

The MoD spokeswoman said Crowsnest is “approved as part of the core equipment program, with an assessment phase to start in due course.” She said a contractor for Crowsnest has not been selected.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Mickey Mouse.

[glojo]

I would like to say I am surprised regarding the AEW delay but I have been like an old fashioned record that has become stuck on one particular track... How many times do we read of a predicted capability being introduced into service by a particular date and more to the point, how often does this happen? As soon as the conventional carrier option was binned I stated we only have this helicopter for our AEW capability and the replacement was still at the development stage.

I am in the corner that is not holding its breath regarding any of the programs regarding our Fleet Air Arm and a fast fixed wing capability.

Will we get a replacement for the Sea King by 2016?

Will we get the F-35B?

Will both new carriers ever join the fleet and become operational ships that will operate fast jets?

One out of three is a possibility, but what odds on a full house? ;)

Most days I receive updates predicting doom and gloom for the 'B' variant but I note that the aircraft is still being developed and faults being rectified. We are where we regarding this aircraft and surely we NEED this thing to be successful?

[mike-wsm]

As a very minimum we should get five or six Hornets flying this year to train aircrew and ground crew. Simulated landings, wave-offs and arrestor wire misses could be simulated on a suitably marked runway. Take-off disorientation would need some easy way of applying the required acceleration. There are several possible methods and I would suggest JATO (RATO) as the simplest.

Then we would have a nucleus of trained personnel with serviceable aircraft that can fly missions either from land or from friendly carriers.

Yes, of course this is CTOL. Nobody seriously expects Dave-B to appear in any usable quantities, do they?

[althenick]

http://dc623.4shared.com/img/vo69URyE/s3/0.850820654477028/MASC-Merlin-v2-Flying02-07-HiR.jpg

A nice image that depict the use of a former RAF HC2


More Here
Teams Vie To Provide C2 Helos for UK Carrier – DefenseNews.com - Breaking Defense News (http://blogs.defensenews.com/farnborough/2010/07/21/teams-vie-to-provide-c2-helos-for-uk-carrier/)


Interesting Point
he two potential bidders for the project, known as Crow’s Nest, are proposing radically different solutions.

The Thales/AgustaWestland team is offering to use the existing Searchwater 2000 radar and Cerberus mission control system from the Sea King in what it calls a “low-cost, low-risk” solution to provide the airborne surveillance and control capability for the new Queen Elizabeth carriers when the first of two warships enter service in 2016.

The Sea Kings were recently upgraded with improved radar and other capabilities and the system is now being used overland as part of the surveillance operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Thales-supplied Searchwater would be palletized, allowing rapid role-on roll-off to increase the role flexibility of the machine. The radar is deployed through the rear ramp of the Merlin.

Lockheed declined to discuss the details of its potential proposal.

How difficult can this be?

Do the MoD
- Take and Existing Airframe which is being handed over to the RN, Decommish a Bagger and hand to AW for Palatisation with a Merlin That would no doubt require some mods and, for a Trifling cost, the RN gets a Platform that is flexible in role and already has a support system in place.

or

- Do they buy into the LM Proposal.

As an ex MoD employee who managed to successfully avoid the required Suppression of free thinking course which is prerequisite before going into management I would hope the AW Solution would win.
...However we are talking about the MoD :ugh:

Or Maybe

Could this be a way of bringing the Merlin HC transfer (or apparent lack of it) into the public eye without an inter-service bitching sesh? :hmm:

[Heathrow Harry]

Crowsnest is being strecthed out because they can do it - no -one is really sure whenthe carriers will arrive and when they do when they'll start operating aircraft so why spend cash now? Once you kick the programme off it will just build and build and build

Remember that in 1982 the Sea King version was designed, built and in service in a few months - there really is no need to spend more than a year on it - unless of course you have to keep a lot of people busy setting up "Project gates", Evaluation Sub-committees, trainign schemes and the usual bs

[Not_a_boffin]

More likely Merlin HM1 frames that are not part of the current CSP. From memory there are something like 40/41 of the original 44 frame buy still on the MAR.

Won't allow "Role-on, roll-off"(???) whatever that is, but I doubt that is as "simple" as being portrayed.

[Just This Once...]

althenick: - do they buy into the LM Proposal.

What do you have against the LM APG81 proposal?

Having worked with APG81 on the F-35 programme I can assure you that it is incredible bit of kit and given the money other users are throwing at this podded option it is not without wider support.

Should the F-35 grace a UK boat it may be helpful to share a common radar...

Looks neat on the side of an RN Merlin too.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv0u8qYUmB1qlcxqlo1_500.jpg

[althenick]

Just...
Sorry - In a time warp, when I saw this

Lockheed declined to discuss the details of its potential proposal.

I thought they had nothing to show.

[ORAC]

About the F-22, but relevant for the F-35 and perhaps reflecting the discussions taking place considering sequestration and how to save money.

Time: Adventures in Babbleland: Technological Bloat
(http://nation.time.com/2012/10/02/adventures-in-babbleland-technological-bloat/)

AW&ST Editorial: Pentagon Should Investigate Fighter Options Beyond The F-35 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p58-500608.xml)

[hval]

Orac,

The AW&ST Editorial article follows a theme I have seen over the past two years from analysts re the F22.

Personally I think that it is good to see that people are actually questioning the validity of aircraft such as the F35, the F22 and the Typhoon.

Whilst admirable in concept, to design, produce and operate the best aircraft it becomes untenable due to a number of reasosn. These reasons being namely: -

when one can not afford to have sufficient aircraft to defend ones self
When operational costs are prohibitive causing loss in training and effectiveness of pilots
Over complexity of systems causing huge maintenance costs
Over complexity of systems causing high rates of down times, and incidents caused that are extremely dificult to analyse
Leading edge designs that take so long to develop that they are out of date and no longer meet requirements due to changes in doctrine, plus developments by potential agressors
Over complex designs that just do not work
Unrealistic expectations raised and requested in tender process
Personally I love new shiny things that have more flashing lights and a big "wow" factor. Realistically I actually prefer evolution to revolution. Why didn't the USA take a good airframe, such as the F15 and see what could be done with that, even down to a rethink of how good it couild be made from a maintenance point of view such as the F15SE Silent Eagle.

Hval

[Not_a_boffin]

One might counter-argue that it is actually "evolutionary" upgrades and successive designs since the late 60s/early 70s that has contributed to some degree to the length of time and cost to develop the F22/Typhoon/F35 etc.

The 50s to mid-60s could probably be termed revolutionary when you look at the number and range of different airframe / wing / engine technologies that were designed and built over a relatively short period. F106 through F111 to F15 was what, 20 years tops? Last time I looked it's 20+ years since the Strike Eagle entered service.

What changed? McNamara - definitely. Oil crash in 73? Fall of the Wall and disappearance of a near-term threat?

Probably all of the above. But the intriguing thing is "cost"which is what drives the "unaffordable" perception. Every single western aircraft since the F18 has had a contract requirement to try and drive out maintenance manhours. The use of sims has resulted in a dramatic reduction in flying hours, so you'd think that somewhere these savings would accrue. It ain't the military industrial complex keeping it either, because there's a whole lot less of it in employment terms - something else not often recognised.

Cherchez la bunce!

[hval]

Not_a_Boffin,

Valid points. What has changed is: -

1/ Cost per unit. In the old days each unit was cheap in comparison to unit costs now.

2/ Less dosh floating around these days. Makes high unit costs more unaffordable

3/ Those revolutionary days of the 40's, 50's & 60's were during times of conflict and cold wars

4/ Those revolutionary days were when big changes could be made relatively cheaply. Now a days a 1% improvement in ability costs millions, if not billions. A bit like six sigma. Trying to get that last 0.00044% of improvement when all the easy issues have been resolved

Until the next totally revolutionary item comes along (like the jet engine, or wings, or computers) development is going to be costly.

Being able to afford one two missile carrying aircraft, a pilot who is allowed to fly five hours a decade is no use when it is so technologically advanced it only works five percent of the time, and the pilot can't fly it due to a lack of training and the pilot is outnumbered 1,000 to 1.

Bit like having carriers we can't properly fit out and an inability to afford the correct aviation fit plus a lack of finances to even run the whole thing.

[Courtney Mil]

hval,

I have been following your recent arguments and I have to agree with your take on things. I tried to make some of those points earlier in the thread, but didn't manage to pull all the points together as well as you have. Well said.

[Not_a_boffin]

Hval

I think your point 4 is the clincher. However, doesn't that argument and

"Until the next totally revolutionary item comes along (like the jet engine, or wings, or computers) development is going to be costly"

suggest that revolution is exactly what is needed? Because incremental development over extended periods usually results in the loss of ability to revolutionise.

Not that I'm suggesting that LO was necessarily the right revolution to follow, or to the exclusion of other performance factors, mind. That's what DDG 1000 led to and it's b8llocks.

[hval]

Courtney,

Thank you for your kind words.


Not_a_Boffin,

It is a paradox as to how to revolutionise defence solutions.

I am going to use Apple as a an example of solution provision. Up until Apple released the iPhone all other mobile telephone producers had come to an understanding that improvements in technology would be held back, releasing one or two improvements a year. In this way they could maximise their profits. Apple came along and released a "revolutionary" mobile telephone. Except it wasn't; revolutionary that is. Apple made use of technology already used, but packaged it in such a way that they produced an item that was miles better than their competitors. So, not a revolution, just look at what's available and get Steve Jobs to manage the design and development programme.

Another example is streamer technology that is used by Seismic companies. The military could learn an awful lot from the civvies at a relatively cheap price and produce an awfully brilliant towed array.

Solutions might include the use of universities (with no Chinese in attendance) to be provided with funding (low level), to make use of the mad nutter inventors that the UK is so good at producing and, stealing ideas from the Chinese (who steal them from the US).

Sorry for not continuing, time for Egyptian PT.

Oh yes; I forgot.

We don't need to revolutionise. Leave that to others. The Soviets had the right idea. Numbers matter. What they didn't have was the training. Training matters very much. Steal ideas from others once the technology is proven. a 96% solution is better than a 99% solution when you have the numbers, the skills and something that works.

[Bastardeux]

hval,

The iPhone is perhaps the best analogy I've seen about the F35! Well played, sir!

And I completely agree with your viewpoint. The handful of F35s that we'll have sold ourselves down the river for, will be so few in number that we won't be able to do all that much with them, particularly if they end up with an F22-like servicability record. Perhaps the worst part of the whole scenario, is that the other services are also sacrificing capabilities to keep ourselves in this programme.

[ColdCollation]

... a point which has also been made over on ARRSE, Bastardeux: if you have so few in number that the loss of only one or two causes real problems, then you don't have a capability.

I can't help thinking that F-35 remains an attempt to knock on the front door when you can use the side door or even the window.

[ORAC]

If you fight like the Americans you go in at medium level and need stealth, EW etc and large packages.

Conversely, if 15 years ago you'd asked a GR1 Sqn how they'd plan a similar attack they'd send in a pair at 50ft on a moonless night with, ideally, stacked clouds above.

Stealth isn't the only way to hide.

[ColdCollation]

... and if you asked friend of mine who was involved in the Tornado test programme, he say send in singeltons and not pairs.

Alternatively, you could just equip a nice, shiny (and more plentiful) fleet of F/A-18Es and Gs with stand-off weapons and not have to worry so much about sending MANNED aircraft into harm's way.

[t43562]

It is not normally my place to venture any opinions but at least on this one I think I can do it safely. I worked for Nokia and for them the game was about engineering to cost and producing very large numbers of very cheaply built phones in huge variety with nice profit margins. Each model was aimed at a particular price point and "type" of person. They were built with the latest "cheap" technology rather than the latest "powerful" tech.

Then someone built a phone that was *much* more expensive to build, e.g. had the latest 600mhz processor which was unheard of, and they had *only one model to fit everyone* and it didn't actually do much more or was inferior in some technical areas (no 3G support, multitasking) but the horsepower and expensive bits enabled them to make it easy to use ....

Hence it's not the analogy that I think one wants to support a point about numbers or cheapness.

[LowObservable]

That's what DDG 1000 led to and it's b8llocks.

Don't hold back, Mr Boffin, tell us how you really feel.

The fact is that requirements tend to compound themselves. If I want a fast car that is fun to drive I can buy an MX-5 Miata. If I want to haul the kids to practice, a GM SUV will do fine. If I want something that does both it's a Porsche Cayenne.

In the same way, fighters have historically become more expensive as you add a new requirement without taking away any of the old ones, production rates have fallen accordingly, and the corresponding collapse in force size has been mitigated by keeping jets in service longer. This has been a trend since the 1950s.

However, at the same time, the aerospace industry has changed. In the 1950s, aerospace led in almost every technology it used (materials, propulsion, electronics) and by aerospace one meant military aerospace, because commercial aircraft were, even then, a sideline. Hence the "weapon system" approach in which every component was specially developed and managed to schedule.

The question is whether that's appropriate today, or whether developing a weapon system should be a matter of harvesting the best technology from commercial aerospace and other industries, and developing only what you have to from the ground up.

That will help, but the fact still remains that adding stealth, STOVL, and integrated LPI sensors to a basic F-16 replacement was going to lead to a heavier and more costly airplane. JSF was an attempt to prevent that happening through high-rate production magic and new structures and subsystems, and so far it has not worked.

[hval]

t43562,

I was obviously not clear enough in what I wrote reference the iPhone. What you wrote actually agrees with what I wrote. Nokia, Motorola et al. were taking the mickey in their marketing strategy. Apple came along and utilised components that were available on the market at the time. Apple did not develop anything, other than the operating system, the integration of the components and how the iPhone looked.

This was easy for Apple as they did not have to try too hard to produce a posh phone which did a lot more and put it on the market. I don't think you can say that Apple have made a mistake. After all where are Nokia now? Where is Motorola? Where is Blackberry? For a company that were never in the mobile phone market to wipe the floor with every other mobile phone manufacturer says a lot.

Compare that to the F35; or all three F35's. Leading edge technology to a large extent. How many years late is it? How much over budget is it? Will it actually ever work as was originally specified (white wall wheels, go faster stripe, vinyl roof and fluffy dice)?

It would have been better to utilise products already on the market; for instance B52 mainplane, A10 fuselage, A320 cockpit, Cessna 172 ailerons; that type of stuff.

[t43562]

The point you're making is only partially fair. Their decision about *what* to do (flat rate internet, expensive but high quality, thought out experience, focus on one product) was revolutionary and their software was already very good in the ways that mattered thanks to years of spending. What they managed to do was take immediate advantage of a development where the hardware appeared that could run their heavy but good software well. They left everyone else scrambling - people who had abused their software to try and make it work on crap hardware and had not looked after it were thus unable to change direction quickly. Plus they were spreading all their development effort across many types of chipset unlike Apple (who design their own CPUs BTW).

So this is taking this analogy much too far but my general reading is that if you sleep, you're dead. If you stop working on new things, you're dead. If you don't focus all your might on making something so good that your competition are left scratching their heads for years then you can't win.

Every advance has to be thought out in terms of whether people will actually find it so hard to use that they can be bothered. If you get caught in technology for it's own sake but don't sort out the other issues that affect your users then again you can't win.

....but, if you get it all right and have an amazing product then people with no money will get into debt and sell their grannies to get it.

I promise to shut up from now on on this. :-) .. Except one more thing - every development that looks cheap usually has some gigantic bit of expense before it somewhere. Even if all the spending does in the end is to pay engineers salaries and train technicians, the stuff that they will go off and do apparently cheaply later on will be because of all the amazing ideas that they had while they worked on these expensive things now.

[hval]

Morning t43562,

What you have written proves my point; even with the processers. They take an already existing ARM designed processor (e.g. the A8), get a company they bought to add a few bits on and call it the A5 and A5X. Then Apple get a company (Samsung) who have the facilities and experience to fab the A5 processor.

As for Nokia etc stopping development on new technology, they didn't. All they did was to delay the introduction of technology to the market, deliberately, to increase their profits for minimum investments. Apple came along and said "let's use all this stuff that others have developed, but haven't introduced to the market, and use it".

I generalise slightly, but hopefully you get the idea. Even with the latest iPhone 5 there is no great new technology, yet this phone is sellling phenomonally well, mainly because it does what it is designed to do well (except for maps).

[althenick]

hval,t43562

You forgot the biggest selling factor of all - Market forces, and even that can be applied to the mil.
eg I have a Nokia N8, it does every thing I want it to do, maps, satnav mp3/4
(avi not supported) but generally quite happy. Now my brother (ex RAF Spanner W*nker) swears by the i-Phone does the very same as the N8 I cant see the difference other than cost.

Seem the same to me with mil hardware particularly in the uk. Why have an F35 when a Superbug will do? or something cheaper for that matter?

As an aside the war office asked me to get her "Something Hi-tech begining with i-" for her birthday. so I bought her and i-Ron. Do you know what it feels like to have a hi-velocity metatarsal enema? I do!

[peter we]

Up until Apple released the iPhone all other mobile telephone producers had come to an understanding that improvements in technology would be held back, releasing one or two improvements a year.

Apple release once per year. What they did have was more user friendly software. But HTC phones, which I notice you seem completely unaware of, were pretty much on par with the Apple and much better in several respects.

Apple are a marketing and consumer design company, their legion of fans will buy anything they produce which gives them an advantage as they know they can get the volume.

Of course if you are utterly unaware of developments in mobile phones and first heard of smartphones when Apple released their products it must have been like white man invading America. It isn't magic.

[Courtney Mil]

Do iPhones do Flash?

And, does all this mean the F35 won't be able to do unlimited downloads? Does each aircraft need it's own account of does each pilot log in individually?

Do you see my point?

[hval]

Courtney,

Totally agree. I could go on discussing this iPhone thing and what have you, but my allegory for the F35 seems to have got somewhat out of hand.

Peter,

Of course if you are utterly unaware of developments in mobile phones and first heard of smartphones when Apple released their products it must have been like white man invading America. It isn't magic.

Oooh, you mean those paragons of wonder the SE P990i, its' predecessors and the other useless telephones that were supposed to be smartphones (e.g. Nokia 9000 series, Blackberry, Palm Treo), but were not really. As for Apple fanboys being the only ones who buy Apple iPhones, I would think again. What happened to the droves of people who have deserted all other manufacturers leaving many of them bankrupt, close to bankrupt, or chasing after Apple and its' one smart phone product? I am well aware of HTC.

Apple, as I have written before, did not invent anything. They took existing products, produced an OS, stuck them all together and sold a product that was miles better than any other smart phone on the market. It wasn't the best at any one thing it did, it still isn't. The whole package is though.

Peter, I suggest we carry on this discussion by email if you wish to.

[Courtney Mil]

hval,

Mrs Courtney suddenly wants an iPhone (mass visit by tech-aware offspring, etc). What do I tell her? Serious question.

Oh, thread drift, Sorry.

[mike-wsm]

Typical



ooooo

[Courtney Mil]

...of? !

[hval]

Courtney,

Tell her to stay away from the iPhone 5. UK doesn't have 4G so they can't make use of it. If she wants 4G then she will have to wait some considerable time. What EE (Everything Everywhere) are offering is not 4G.

Mind you, a lack of 4G doesn't make an iPhone useless.

The fact that Maps is crap doesn't help either. If your Mrs wants a phone for use as a phone then a phone is a better choice, and a dam sight cheaper. The iPhone, and all smartphones, have the problem that they tend to be okay at what they do, just not brilliant. Thats the thing with Multi Role devices, "Jack of all trades, master of none".

That should start a few arguments.

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks, hval. So, we're talking the original MRCA concept? Thank God they made it into two different aircraft. (See, aviation topic on an aviation thread).

Thanks.


So, Mike, what's typical?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I spent two months a couple of years ago being an Apple technical support type.
iPhones, etc are great if you are a busy exec type and have lots of contacts.
Ask yourself.
Do I need email on the go more often than weekly?
Do I have contact lists on several different platforms at the moment?
Do I need at least 5 major apps which I will use often?
Am I tech competent (i.e. I may not know how to fix things, but I can find a forum online and do what it says)?
If you don't need the above, then you don't need a smartphone.

As an example, people who have them might include estate agents, people running small businesses who aren't always in the office, doctors, etc.

[Courtney Mil]

Fox 3,

A great, well informed answer. So what do I tell Mrs C? Logic?

[t43562]

Breaking vow of silence to say: confusion works best. Take people into a snazzy shop and show them a Galaxy Note (huge screen) A Galaxy S3 (fast), a Nexus 7 tablet etc. I used to work on the N8 a bit indirectly so it galls me to say this but the newest Nokia Windows phone has probably got the best interface even though I personally will kill myself before buying one.

She's suffering from the terrific impression made by the gadget and the way that it seems alone on its pedestal. Once other goodies are seen I usually notice that the ardour cools a bit. However, you are probably screwed.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Courtney, see PMs

[BEagle]

A great, well informed answer. So what do I tell Mrs C? Logic?

"iPhone or shoes, sweetie, your choice....!"

iToys seem to be the latest 'must have' for the 'I want it now, I don't care how' brigade. Beware that even 3G coverage is poor, GPRS is slow and data charges are high....

I stick with a good laptop and my trusty Nokia 6310i!

Rushing new software, such as iOS 6 onto the market which simply doesn't work correctly is a crazy way to do business - particularly when the manufacturer hasn't provided a way of reverting to an earlier OS.

One hopes that the 'B' in F-35B doesn't stand for 'beta'....:\

[LowObservable]

Actually, the F-35 mission systems run iOS 6. On a recent CATBird run, aimed at going downtown against a peer adversary, they nailed the hell out of the target.

Shacked! A JDAM within 2 metres of the deep-fryer. It was counted as a 100 per cent success and a progress payment was issued accordingly.

http://www.coolest-traveling.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/tucson-restaurants-favorite-and-unique-places-to-eat2.jpg

[glojo]

More likely Merlin HM1 frames that are not part of the current CSP. From memory there are something like 40/41 of the original 44 frame buy still on the MAR.

Won't allow "Role-on, roll-off"(???) whatever that is, but I doubt that is as "simple" as being portrayed.

Hi Mr Boffin, I have only highlighted your post because we are discussing helicopters.

Have you seen this snippet (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121007/DEFFEAT05/310070010/Keep-Bags?odyssey=nav|head)

I was always expecting a gap but will there? Will the Merlin be operational before the first carrier is commissioned?

[mike-wsm]

Political time runs pretty quickly, real time moves a bit slower, then there's geological time, and galactic time, but nothing runs slower than aircraft carrier assembly time.

Just think, Boris, of Boris Island fame, could come and go before the flat-tops are completed. :eek:

[ORAC]

F-35 put through refueling paces (http://www.yumasun.com/news/air-82180-yuma-pilots.html)

Some of the first Marine Corps F-35B pilots are getting practice in a routine but important task in the new plane: midair refueling. Maj. Ty Bachmann, a test pilot, and Maj. Paul Holst, who is preparing to be an F-35 instructor, had a train-the-trainer day at Eglin Air Force Base Tuesday to run the first midair test of the aerial refueling systems on the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, which is expected to make its first appearance at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma later this year.

The pilots each took off in an F-35 from the coastal Florida Air Force base and flew about 50 to 75 miles off-shore before meeting up with a C-130 tanker out of Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C., to replenish their fuel in the sky over the Gulf of Mexico. The 300 gallons of fuel they took on wasn't much for a plane, but enough to show that the systems were solid and the training was effective.

Holst, an experienced pilot with about 1,800 hours in the F-18, said it was an overall similar refueling technique “The airplane and the tanker worked as advertised, and everything went really smoothly.”

http://images.onset.freedom.com/yumasun/gallery/mbe76v-mbe72vf35refueling2web.jpg

Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 252 assists Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 in an aerial refueling on F-35B Lighting II aircrafts Tuesday. This was the first aerial refueling training flight to be performed on F-35B aircrafts.