How out the box does this sound….

QE is built as is for STVOL
Approx 45 F35Bs purchased, these split as you like roughly 2 sqns of 12-15 or 3 short sqns of 10, with the remainder going to a sqn of say 8-10 that also covers Op-Eval and OCU leaving a few spare.
A p’ing contest can be had as to which shade of blue the flight suits are for each squadron.

MaSC Merlins (palettised radar system) provide the airborne coverage.

PoW is built with the now mature EMALS, RN pilots go catobar training. MOD purchases a guess of 60-70 much cheaper E/F/G Hornets or Rafales. Giving 4 sqns of 12 plus training sqn and a few spare.

Hawkeye is purchased as now able to operate using emals, Merlins with ramps put back on are re-roled as necessary.

QE has early/first refit to get EMALS as well, and all F35bs now join the RAF. Leaving the FAA with 4 sqns of Shornets/Rafales rotating between the 2 carriers

Excercises and Surge/War time scenario, still has F35b able to “jump” off with internal loading without a ski jump. SHornet/Rafales Buddy re-fuelling if no ski jump means full weapons and reduced fuel.

Yes money is tight but a well thought out (better thought out than mine) spending scenario might just get everyone something close to what they want.

Just a thought regarding the use of the HM1, would it not be possible to insert a permanent/beef up the existing vertical bulkhead on a line with the rear of the Sponsons on which the Searchwater system would be mounted, with the rear fuse reworked to wrap around into a more simple fairing that would keep the radar out of the worst of the slipstream whilst in the stowed position. In much the same way as the sides of the rampless HC3 would.

Obviously I know nothing about centre of gravity or aircraft design to make such a proposal, but from the cut away in Badger1968’s post it appears that the crew stations are set forward perhaps to counteract the weight of the radar and it’s kit when in the palletised form. With a permanent bulkhead the crew station might work better being against that bulkhead and still leave what appears to be a reasonable usable space at the side door for a secondary role.

Difficult to get a sense of scale from the still images shown here…

Is this the prototype that is built on the Hawk landing gear with similar general dimensions of overall wing span?

From a layman’s point of view what got me was how little time the pilot had under the fully inflated chute before hitting the ground, it’s only about 3 seconds.
I’d have thought that a “zero-zero” seat would have taken the pilot higher, so that in a worst case scenario there would be room to steer away from the burning aircraft.

The problem is that the RAF own all fast jets and will be the buyer of all F35. The RAF want F35 B because they will provide the vast majority of the aircrew for the new aircraft and they want it based on land like their other assets, with occasional familiarisation visits to a carrier. This fits the expeditionary air group idea with CVF as ‘just another airbase’. This rules out the use of CATOBAR as this would require dedicated naval air wings that train with and deploy on the carriers pretty much all the timein order to maintain their deck currency. The down side is that it means continuing with a lash-up AEW and makes the prospect of a naval capable UCAV pretty much impossible, as no one is building a VSTOL one. This mans that any UCAV operation in the 2020s will be land base dependent with all the restrictions that that includes.

This raises a question with me… namely does the RAF really need the B model. Yes I know they want to own everything with a jet pipe, but in reality, other than being able to drop it onto 100m of moving Island every now and again, what operational use does the RAF really have for VSTOL.

Wouldn’t a mixed buy of As and Cs or As and Rafales make more sense.

The RAF would still oversee all the initial flight training up the Hawk then separate for their type conversion and learning how to controlled crash onto the QE.

I’d have to agree after all the Nimrod has been part of Scottish skies for many years.

The Comet flew into East Fortune so surely if the ground is good enough this could be done or is there now new obsticles around the runway?

Regards,

Phil

Speaking with one of the museum people whilst down there last week, he said that the museum won’t get a Nimrod because the current boss isn’t really a military type, and that he views a Nimrod as being too close to the Comet 4 that they already have.

Regarding the airfield. The museum don’t own it which is the biggest draw back, however even if they got permission you have the motorbike circuit at one end of the main runway, with it’s own tarmac level, fencing and various other barriers . At the other end, there is now a road across the runway complete with roundabout in the middle of the runway, with the microlight centre beyond the road.
The cross runway, which I don’t think would be long enough, as the semi-permanent structures of the Sunday Market which edge up the the bike circuit.

The other observation, if they were to get one (even by road), is where to put it. The museum itself is pretty congested with airfield buildings, more and more of which are going to be refurbished and opened to expand the non-aircraft exhibits.
There is now very little hard standing that could hold an aircraft of Nimrod size that wouldn’t compromise access to the hangers when shuffling aircraft around, nor prevent the farmer who owns the airfield itself from gaining access to his fields.
The one place it might have sat, would have been near hanger 4 (Concord) that now holds the BAC 1-11.
Link to East Fortune Map

Is it possible to design two booms into a single tanker and would it be an advantage?

There was a Lockheed proposal for a transporter/tanker that used a box wing configuration that had two booms. One on each lower junction and also 2 Drogues from the upper junctions.

Source Global Security website.

Isn’t the biggest issue regarding black projects and UAV’s in particular the very strict restrictions on UAV operations in UK airspace….namely it really isn’t allowed.

That’s the main reason why BAe take the test flights down to Australia where the wide open spaces and empty airspace allow not just security/secrecy but also safety should positive control be lost.