Geoff_BI don’t remember the F35B being such a bad thing when that was the only option (pre-SDSR).
I personally think whichever platform gets us both decks in short order (if that is the way of things), is the one to go for.
I am not sure of the history of different cancelled carriers, or how the Falklands could have been fought, but I do consider the F35B to be a stepchange in RN capabilities.
I’m quite sure however that the F35C will be what we go for though, so hoepfully soon we can move on to specifying some new naval UCAVs for the carriers:)
Er No its was ****e then which is why we switched variants and its not really improved in the timeframe to justify the U-turn.
When touted as a Sea Harrier/Harrier II replacement it was a supersonic stealth STOVL aircraft with the same capabilities as the other two variants less the range lost to the lift fan, it was scheduled to be in operational service by 2014-16 at the latest and at a reasonsible price. However since selection, they got the design wrong, put it on a crash diet, shrunk the weapons bays, reduced the range and delayed production and doubled the price. Its got issues about its weight margins, load capacity, bring back weight and has yet to prove its reliability and maintainability at sea.
Its still got a long way to go in expanding its flight test envelope and bring its systems and software on-line to create a viable warfighter.
Thats why people express dismay of rumours of the switch back to STOVL as its still a few years off proving its ability to meet the JCA requirement let alone Carrier Strike. Should it fail to do so then we are left with no alternative aircraft and would then have to go about a 2nd attempt at CATOBAR at grater expense and much greater delay.
Geoff_BN Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with which other nations’ aircraft carriers the F35B fighter jet would be interoperable with a full weapon load.
Easy – NONE the the F-35B cant land on any carrier with a full weapon load, unless its in token stealth mode with the minimal internal weapons.
I’m not sure he should be going down the full load question route as that does highlight the weakness of the F-35B compared with the CATOBAR aircraft.
Geoff_BTurboprops from the 50s???:confused:
He’s thinking the Hawkeye was 50s design rather than 60’s unless he mean the Gannet AEW3 !.
Geoff_BThey might stay with the F35C… but that means getting only ONE carrier, end of the story. And i don’t like it. I prefer two with F35B than one with the C.
No they still have two hulls, one is earmarked for conversion at present under the 2010 SDSR. Come 2015 SDSR when we have withdrawn from Afghanistan and are puuling out of Germany then they may well authorise the funding for the 2nd conversion in the next decade once PoW has entered service.
If the US are genuine about operating from the UK CVF on a regular basis then they may well encourage getting the 2nd Carrier Converted once the first has entered service.
“Also the article reveals the US have already effectively decided for us that the Carriers are required, for their benefit as well as ours.”
Can they secure the destiny of the second CVF hull and share a bunch of Hawkeyes?
If they can, i’ll love them forever.
Its possible it could well be a tailored airgroup which could include Hawkeye and Super Hornets as well as USN F-35C which leads to some interesting questions.
Anyway if we have the expected PR12 announcement on Monday with conformation of the U-turn then we know its red herring story. If its not then the Dave Cameron will have some hard choices to make after Easter
Geoff_BI personally DID see this coming, but the doom mongers on the forums would have just shouted me down. F-35C it is then!
Not quite its still upto the MOD to review the cost & risk options and then pass the results back to Hammond and then Cameroon for them to decide the best course of action. But its does kinda a put a break on the back to STOVL option that appeared to have gained momentum.
The trouble is we won’t know for another month and then we’ll have to see what the repercussions will be for which ever choice is made
Geoff_BLooks like the Gulf News article wasn’t quite as fantasy as we thought and the US have stepped in in favour or retaining CATOBAR conversions !
Geoff_BRight… building 10X more a year will not make it cheaper. 😉
Well not if they are beta versions that require concurrency to bring them up to production standard which is another 7 years off (as long as no other clangers come to light which could put that back further !).
Geoff_BThe USMC has already switched from all B to a mix of B & C, reducing the number of Bs. The Cs will be flown from carriers, the Bs from LHDs & shore bases. I don’t see it going any further along that road, since it wants to be able to deploy LHD-based aircraft ashore, & operate from short land strips in expeditionary warfare, & that means B. The Cs are purely for carrier ops, & might as well be USN-crewed as USMC.
I know i meant to include ‘more’ – DOH !
Anyway we will find out next Monday, as that Gulf News bit says there will be nothing before Easter CVF/JCA or even the PR12 Defence Budget which does go against most other articles where they expect the decision to be announced as part of that briefing.
Whats the betting they haven’t actually made a final choice yet, have let an option be leaked and gauge the reaction then go back and review the figures (popularity that is) then the budget to see what options they can afford and possibly finally as an afterthought see the MOD/NAVY/RAF on whats actually needed and when.
Whatever happens its going to be a compromise and a mess 😡
Geoff_BInteresting if true although nothing mentioned in the London Evening Standard, where they have their own idiot saying labour ordered the carriers to be too big. Basically no research by the muppet into the original requirement and the number of aircraft expected to be in use upon them or the expected 50 yrs life span.
However if the Gulf news is true then that will cause Dave to think carefully about the issue and leave Phil to check and justify his spreadsheet figures.
Wonder if the USN are looking to force the USMC to switch their F-35 order about with the C in the majority and the B taking a specialist LHD support role, that may well set the cat amongst the pidgeons 😮
Geoff_BYeap you would have thought they would have the cargo door fitted to at least allow palletised loads to be carried.
I thought they were for Afghanistan duty, for base to base transport to ease the reliance on Herks and Chinooks ?
Geoff_BIt is not just about mainteinance of the plane, but about the catapults, wires, landing lights and signal systems, the added crew for the ship for CATOBAR ops…
There’s a reason why nations who cannot afford big carriers use small STOVL carriers. Technology has evolved in the years, and it is not as bad as it used to be, but the point still stands.
The trouble is people are basing STOVL costs on the realatively simple and rugged but hard to fly Harrier. F-35B has been made easy to fly but at a whopping cost in technology leaving alot to go wrong.
Its going to take some time to evaluate the actual performance, reliability and servicability of any of the F-35 variants, and that may well prove its achilles heel by just being too expensive to operate at the levels required.
I know the F-35 was supposed to be designed to be easy reliable and cheap to operate and service, but much of that capacity was dropped in the drastic weight cutting exercise as parts were redesigned to be lighter and repositioned so they are no longer accessible. Put that on a carrier in rolling seas, heavy landings and salt water environment and see how servicable they really are. However that info wont be available till both variants have had extensive sea trials in a few years time
Geoff_BI hope in a reversion to the B variant, sweetened by a committment to putting both carriers in service.
Give me this announcement, and i’m happy. The F35C would be better, but i’d much rather have both carriers than a single one with the C.
To be honest i think the Carrier conversion cost increase is a bit of a red herring, it would be interesting to see how that actually breaks down as i suspect they are roping in alot of the associated costs of training coupled with BAE’s fee for drawing out the build schedule rather than the actual costs of converting the carrier to CATOBAR format.
On the plus side it does open the way to make use of HMS Queen Elizabeth when she is ready for service come 2018, and it will be easier to maintain HMS Prince of Wales to the same standard in a rotating service.
On the downside it does leave the PM with egg on his face after making various statements to justify the switch back in the 2010 SDSR, it also brings into question the RAF choice to dump the Harrier in favour of the Tornado as the Harrier force has now gone so we will now have to send crews to maintain their skills with the USMC and Italian navies. It also knocks a hole in the carrier cooperation deals with both the US & French as we won’t have a compatible carrier.
I also think the recent arrestor hook issue on the F-35C and the deferral of the USN F-35C orders have had a drastic impact on when the F-35C would actually become available for RN use onboard the CVF, that is probably the biggest factor driving the rethink.
Personally rather than switching back to STOVL i would prefer they continue with the CATOBAR CVF and split the JCA requirement from the Tonado replacement program, keeping involved in the F-35C as part of the Tornado replacement come 2025 as that would ensure a carrier capable RAF Strike package in line with our long term force goal. However instead of F-35C for the FAA aspect of JCA go with an off the shelf solution such as Super Hornet or Rafale M of a couple of sqdns worth, then use these to form the basis of the CVF airgroup using shared facilities with our allies to keep running costs down. They can then act in the cap/sea strike roles, make use of the existing buddy tanking capability and if nesessary be replaced by F-35C should it be suitable or sign up for the NGAD.
Of course we’ll have to wait and see whats decided next week, it was interesting to note that Hammond has left it to David Cameron to decide as he’s the one who will face the music should it become a U-turn.
Geoff_BI rather doubt the figure is 1.8 billion to actually convert PoW, i would hazard a guess that they are roping in a whole string of costs on top of the CATOBAR gear and the ship revisions such as design, compensation to ACA for the longer build, training of aircrew & groundcrew, modifications to the base airfield where ever that may be, etc, etc. Plus thats just a figure quoted from one source trying to spin up the story.
The other aspect is that we’re only seeing the pro F-35B aspect of the studies as the source leak may be either a Labour supporter, or a STOVL fan as the official line is much more generalised.
There will be other studies going on, probably a change in the JCA to a Naval Combat Aircraft and a reduced buy to meet the Carrier Strike need, with the rest deferred onto the Tornado replacement. Now those would hurt BAE & LM so they are pushing the F-35B spin to support the rumours, as the alternatives would leave them somewhat expossed !.
The offical line so far is :-
In a statement, the UK Ministry of Defence says it is currently finalising its budget for 2012-13 and balancing its equipment plan. “As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed,” it says.
Defence secretary Philip Hammond will announce the outcome of this process before Parliament’s Easter recess starts on 27 March, but the MoD says the government remains committed to fielding a new carrier strike capability as part of its “Future Force 2020” plans.
From that we know the Govt is committed to Carrier Strike and they are reviewing the program to validate costs and manage risks, the biggest cost and risk is the F-35 program at present as its still got a long way to go and issues to resolve before it enters service.
Can you really see Cameron doing another Public reversal and at the same time cancelling or having to seriously revise the carrier cooperation agreements made with both France & the USA ?.
As Leiger says we’ll have to await the budget review at the end of the month, but unlike him i’m not sure it they can stay 100% committed to the JSF program as meeting the Carrier Strike requirement in light of recent events to the program.
Geoff_BThe MOD are juggling with various issues, the SDSR stated what we planned to do by going CATOBAR with the F-35C.
However this did leave a serious political issue caused by the timeline would effectively favour the 2nd ship over the first which whilst bad enough having a new capital ship built and tested then mothballed and worse in that the respective ships are named after the monarch and hier respectively.
Now we have problem with the F-35C, whilst the slightly more cheaper and capable variant, it won’t be ready in the time scale we need it to be.
The F-35B has come off probation which was the threat hanging over it which forced the initial switch of variants, but even if it may get an earlier IOC thanks to USMC pressure, it may still not be ready in the numbers required to suit our schedule, coupled with a more expensive and less capable aircraft which may be a compromise solution for carrier strike but may not be viable as a Tornado replacement for the RAF. Most of the performance and cost issues about the F-35B have not been fixed for the JCA requirement and it too could still encounter further development delays.
I do wonder if these sources who are leaking the rumours may be biased, so are pushing the F-35B alternative rather than a CATOBAR alternative aircraft to the F-35 as i suspect those options are also being looked as the greater risk is the F-35 rather than the carrier conversions ?
Geoff_BDaily Telegraph is still pushing this story of the switch back to STOVL, trouble is the MOD quotes are the same as the last time so nothing new, but his sources appear to be confirming this. The trouble is these could be VTOL fans rather than official sources especially if quoting the claptrap about the STOVL problems being largely resolved by the manufacturer, it still has unresolved issues on performance and reliability and its cost is still excessive for the capability delivered.
Sign In
