Geoff_BDon’t deny those problems, never have 🙂 What I am pointing out is that people try to make issues out of things that apply to most aircraft and try to make them JSF specific.
Give me an engineering problem and 15 engineer’s and I will show you 15 different solutions to the same problem, these issues are inherent in any program
Ah but with the JSF that is the crux of the problem, we had all the LM BS saying how it would all be different with the F-35, they wouldn’t make those mistakes, what minor defects not picked up by the Computers would be quickly rectified in the first few LRIP so they didn’t need to go to a prototype YF-35 after the X-35 demonstrator and could gear up for producation ASAP.
Engineering issues were expected by the pundits and engineers who questioned LM’s policy, and would you believe it they have been proven right in most cases.
It will probably turn out to be an OK aircraft and a regular workhorse of many armed forces, but LM’s short cuts will have cost the program and customers much more than was ever saved in the first place
Geoff_BThe Upper block sectiosn for QE are either being built or in the case of Block 3 already fitted as part of Super Block 3.
For QE to be fitted with CATOBAR they would complete the ship and then back fit the hardware.
Yes they have started PoW blocks but these are currently the lower blocks, thats whay the issue is coming to point now as the funding is needed in this next year to action the new design before those upper block construction order starts.
Geoff_BWhy is it through the nose? The USN isn’t bothering because it has no need to, having F-18E to do it, not because it’s inherently difficult. Integration of a suitable buddy store (a modification of an existing Cobham product) should not cost a huge amount.
Yes, but F-35 (even B) has more internal fuel capacity, so shouldn’t need a load of external fuel to pick up incoming aircraft with low tanks – i.e. the main use of buddy tanking.
I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read, the main use of naval buddy tanking is for recovery, & Harrier doesn’t need it as much as CTOL aircraft – & neither should F-35B. Go-rounds are supposed to be far less common, & there’s the option of an emergency vertical landing on any nearby deck that’s big enough if you can’t reach the carrier. Cheaper to damage a freighter or frigate & pay for repairs than ditch the aircraft.
IIRC some US development work was done on buddy tanking, but it was dropped fairly early on.
Hi Swerve
Why through the nose becuase its not a US requirement and thus not in the current devlopment & testing program so we would have to pay for the design, intergration, testing along with the software changes required. That’s why so few user specific weapons are being intergrated initially and most users going with the default US specified weaponry becuase of the costs.
Geoff_BI know they fit, I was saying that to my knowledge there is not enough height in US carriers for maintenance work.
If the USN believes it can manage with buddy tanking and as long as whatever variant we buy meets our range requirements then I think we should do the same.
Yeap and its worked for us too however thats CATOBAR aircraft not STOVL, none of the F-35 variants are configured for carrying a buddy refuelling pod as its not in the US requirement (The Super Hornets will provide the buddy tanking). So we either pay through the nose to add in the capability or go without
Geoff_BThe decision on conversion/future of the first carrier will not be made until after the next defence review in 2015.
My understanding is that even under the current situation both carriers will be commissioned with the second being fitted CATOBAR. The first carrier will go into a state of extended readiness after the second carrier (CATOBAR) is in service and that they then will continue to cycle with one being extended readiness while the other is available. So how I see it is that this still would be the case if we went with STOVL for both carriers, meaning that at all times a carrier capable of operating fixed wing aircraft would be available at all times.
[EDIT] Hence my support for STOVL
Becuase we have only planned for 1 operational carrier and have set the manpower levels in accordance with Future Force 2020 (Lusty & Oceans crew will go into doing QE sea trials and training before switching over to join PoW when she’s ready.
Trying looking to see how the Assault ships are operated or the Invincibles when we had 3. Factor in the aircraft availability and you know it aint going to happen and we certainly will be lucky to fill one CVF in the next 18 years let alone 2 !!
Geoff_BA question.
Is the high cost of CATOBAR conversion certain to knock the second carrier on the head? Its logical that the extra billion (s) puts the whole thing under much more pressure, but we have no definitive statement yet.
Equally, does going for the B definitely make 2 operational carriers more likely? Or is that just theoretical?
Hard to say on the first as we don’t know what that figure actually is and how’s it broken down. As to knocking the 2nd Carrier conversion on its head, not really if they decided their is a need then they will convert it, the ship exists its being built but i suspect they will defer that choice to either the next SDSR or the even the SDSR 2020.
Its theoretical, in theory we could field 2 STOVL CVF should we ever have the crews and the 72 available F-35Bs with pilots and ground crew. Planning however is set for just one to be operational at any one time and to be honest thats how they were always going to be run, just like the Invincibles and just like the Assault ships.
Plus by the time we would actually have more than 72 F-35s (if orders ever get that far) then it will be towards the end of the next decade. Therefore in theory should the 2nd carrier be Converted to catobar, then it too would be available by the time we actually got the aircraft to enable operations from both carriers.
Geoff_Ball of this quibbling to one side,
Can anyone clear up the issue of weapons bring back concerns with an F35B landing on the deck of a CVF please? I haven’t any hard facts, just third hand reports of reporter’s opinions….
There are no-hard facts as such as those won’t come to light until further into the trials. The computers will predict one thing, the PR people will say another, the douubters will question such claims, and its up to the flight test engineers to test and evaluate performacne & loads to calculate what the true figures will be.
We’ll just have to wait until they do those trials, which should be in the next year or so as they will be lining up for the next step of proper Sea Trials.
Geoff_BBack on topic, the two parts of lower block 5 set off on their barge yesterday from Portsmouth, i bet that wasn’t a fun start to the trip as the weather was rough and sea very choppy.
Trouble is block 5 will sail up to Rosyth this week, be unloaded and and then sit on the dock till next year when they are due to to be fitted.
At the end of May LB02 is also due to be loaded onto a barge and shipped North. Now June could be interesting as Super block 03 is undocked to allow LB02 to be docked and then they can join the blocks together and start building up what is in effect the front half of the ship.:D
Geoff_BDespite what the press have been saying the final choice on a switch back to STOVL has not yet been made according to the MOD under secretary.
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19580
(Don’t watch the video its deathly boring as the MP’s press the Senior Civil Servant for answers she cannot give until after the PR12 has been finalised and the Ministers decided the action to be taken).
We are not going to hear anything now until after the UK local elections
next week.
One thing looked certain, they were not for answering MP’s questions neither confirming or denying the various press stories, and its shocking how many of those committee MP’s had a clue about the Carrier Strike program, the aircraft and the issues apart from what they read in the papers !!!!:eek:
Geoff_B…yes but in the real world, no one outside the spotter/enthusiast community is going to be concerned about whether its a lightning 1 or 2, or whether it should be a lightning 3.
I can’t find any evidence that there is an official name other than JCA at the moment….
Thats possibly becuase its still under the JCA requirement, the F-35C is the preferred solution at the moment to the fulfill the JCA and is being treated as the selected type until instructed otherwise. We probably won’t see its formal name and designation till they start ordering the aircraft
Geoff_BThe crux of the matter is STOVL is niche ability only really there for users who really need it, the RAF got the Harrier to provide close air support in West Germany to support the BAOR as the RAF Germany airbases would be battered in in the first strikes by Warsaw pact forces along with the other NATO airbases. The RN, Spain & Italy got Harriers as they didn’t have carriers large enougth to carry conventional carrier aircraft. The USMC need it as their mission is expeditionary warfare also operating from ships incapable of using conventional carrier aircraft.
They only complement mainstream conventional aircraft, they are not a viable alternative to them, if they were then countries would be opting for the B over the A !.
To be honest if LM had been able to keep to its promises then the B would have been much closer to the A in performance and capability which could have tempted more users
Geoff_BIt is on their Naval Wishlist, although i think the Nuclear SSN is the highest priority. They have however issued RFI to the European yards regarding proposals for a new Carrier
Geoff_BAm I reading this correctly LM have 3,500 unionised employees at Fort Worth to build 30 aircraft a year, 116 machinists per plane.
As the factory would seem to be set up to produce far more than 30 aircraft a year, it could be a way of reducing the unit costs of each aircraft, I am not sure what percentage of the total costs of the Fort Worth plant are labour.:diablo:
Well they configured to ramp up production about now, as they by-passed the prototype stage in the assumption the computers would get it right and any errors would be quickly rectified during the LRIP phase. Obviously they got it wrong, and have a factory on-line without sufficient product.
Thats why we get various numpties trying to insist other partners should order sooner to get the production levels up regardless of the inflated price and flawed aircraft that would be delivered as a result (aka they would be more expensive as teh economies of scale won’t kick in plus the aircraft would be limited by not having the full software block and carrying identified flaws whose fix has not yet been implemented )
Geoff_Bshe looks great, but seems like no further external work have been done. CSL looks busy with other orders right now.
They could be producing the remaining blocks in the production sheds whilst the commercail ship hull is assembled in the dry dock. When thats done the carrier hull will be re-docked and the next batch of blocks attached
Geoff_BRemember the Forward Operating base allows for low endurance short legged aircraft to operate closer to the front line. The only reason the harriers went to Kandahar was becuase the Tornados were covering Iraq and didn’t want to be left with the dreggs at Bagram. Air support for the initial operation came from the Carriers in the Indian Ocean and conventional NATO Air Force Aircraft then operated out of Bagram Air base and provided most of the Close Air Support for NATO ground operations.
Sign In
