nocutstoRAFThe problem as far as I can tell (and I have only done casual research on this) was the F-35B was seriously overweight back in 2003/4, this meant it would have difficulty operating off the CVF’s and did not quite have the desired combat radius. They have sorted the problem now, but I believe one of the sacrifices was the size of the internal weapons bay.
nocutstoRAFI found it interesting that when “senior” sources at the MoD started to dismiss it as an idea earlier in the week, “senior” sources over in France we convinced we would share carriers – makes you wonder if the French where the source of the story in the first place.
However Morin did say at the press conference “we are exploring things like the A400 (military transport plane), refueling planes, possibly cooperation on naval capacity, but not on aircraft carriers.”
I get the A400M’s and the refueling planes, but what did he mean about naval capacity?
nocutstoRAFRE: Performance – nothing specific in the article, but taking lots of things together I would hazard a guess that they are looking at the problems with the F-35B in the test programme and worrying that the F-35B might not be able to deliver. In this case then they would re-visit there second choice of CATOBAR as it was as Jonesy said only meant to be selected if the F-35B was cancelled.
In the past (like back in 2004) there where some serious performance shortfalls in F-35B compared to what the UK wanted (reading Navy Matters) and the UK did not pull out then so I do not see why they would be particularly worried by the problems now unless they were expecting them to massively impact on the F-35B’s “availability” by requiring a lot more maintenance than would reasonably be expected.
nocutstoRAFRE: Swerve
Following up my earlier post with regard to Brimstone and Harriers, it says in Air Forces Monthly, page 39, looking at the work of 41 SQN “One recent example of Harrier work involved one of 41’s test pilots flying a Harrier GR9 with Brimstone at BAE Warton, (see News, July, p6). The weapon has caused some issues on the Harrier because it is a weapon that causes a lot of drag on an aircraft which has some very sensitive centres of gravity.”
I took this to mean that Brimstone (for some reason that escapes me) is a rather draggy weapon on an aircraft and it is particular problem for the Harrier with a sensitive centre of gravity, but it might just mean that it causes drag on the Harrier.
RE: Everyone else – Nice balanced news article in Combat Aircraft Monthly (page 9) where they seem to be partially channelling Jonesy where they state the UK is looking at CATOBAR but STOL remains the favourite. Reading between the lines it sounds like that it is performance issues which have prompted a re-visit of CATOBAR not cost cutting for the SDSR.
nocutstoRAFLots of drag? It’s only a 50kg weapon, & there are pictures out there of Tornadoes carrying loads of ’em. Harriers in Afghanistan were carrying maybe two.
I was puzzled by it as well but that what it said in this month Air Forces Monthly where the have an article on the squadron responsible for testing and evaluation – as I am at lunch at work I cannot give you more details.
nocutstoRAFI googled it and could not find reference to the UK planning to buy SDB and since the Tornado and the Typhoon are cleared for Paveway IV which was not acquired all that long ago I imagine they will stick with Paveway IV for their F-35B purchase otherwise they end up with two weapons doing similar jobs.
Have the last few posts been suggestions that the UK (or any other non-US air force for that matter) is a bit weird for wanting to intergrate their own weapons rather than buying weapons that are integrated by the US?
Does anyone know what blocks will integrate Paveway IV, Brimstone and Stormshadow? I am sure someone posted a nice update a while ago, from around January/February where LM announced that due to constraints in the development programme certain weapons would not be integrated until but I have not been able to find it.
nocutstoRAFJust to mention Brimstone is anti-armour missile currently in UK service and the Joint Common Missile was going to fill a similar role. With regard to free-fall weapons the UK is using Paveway IV which fulfils a similar role to JDAM and SDB, its a dual mode GPS/INS and laser guidance kit on a Mk 82 general-purpose bomb.
nocutstoRAFHowever long legacy platforms are retained, tasking them to CAP until their last flights hours seems the most likely scenario, which means that isn`t a high priority for F-35. …After all, CAP can be done alot more cheaply than F-35.
Except in RN use the F-35 will have to do CAP (unless you meant CAS – then apologies) as the F-35B will come on line as the Harrier’s retire.
nocutstoRAFHow much do brimstones weigh? if it can carry 500 pounders on the stations brimstones should not be an issue.
It’s not the weight but the fact they need software integration and despite not being the largest weapon in the world according to page 39 of this months Air Forces Monthly integrating Brimstone on the Harrier caused some issues due to Brimstone causing a lot of drag on an aircraft – I guess every weapon on the F-35 will need the fly by wire software updating and as Brimstone needs it target data updating before firing (INS autopilot and radar guidance) it needs to talk to the F-35 computer which will need additional development work.
nocutstoRAFTo be frank the weapon mix seems optimised for the Naval Strike Wing – Stormshadow for stand off engagements, Paveway IV for precise strike either for first day of war missions (if carried internally) or on external pylon’s for strike missions, and the ability to carry 4 AMRAAMS externally and 2 ASRAAMS internally for CAP. The area it is a bit weak is CAS – the F-35B will not be able to haul large number of Brimstones.
nocutstoRAFShrug – from the context of the section of the report and fact each is listed with savings made I assumed that MoD had removed the requirement to mount externally ASRAAM, Brimstone, Paveway II and III. Reading it again in light of your comments I now take it to mean that MoD removed the requirement to externally mount of ASRAAM and Brimstone and removed the requirement to be able to mount Paveway II and III in either the internal and external bays.
I wonder is there any significance in the weapons they are clearing for initial use and if it says anything about the role they expect the F-35B to fill in the RN/RAF? If I am reading various sources of information correctly, out of the current RAF arsenal: ASRAAM and AMRAAM will be cleared for internal use, AMRAAM for external use, Paveway IV will be cleared for internal and external use, Brimstone for internal use and Stormshadow for external use.
nocutstoRAFI think the fact that the RAF was mainly behind the UK F35 B programme, not the RN, is widely accepted now.
.
You have said this before but you have not really provided evidence – for example I have always imagined that the RAF wanted the F-35A and the RN wanted F-35C and the MoD did not want the logistics of two F-35 types hence the choice of B.
Others contend that the RN wanted the sortie rate of the STOL carrier making the F-35B the only choice but I have never seen anything in writing where the RN has said that the F-35B was their second choice.
In fact I find it hard to work out why the RAF even wants the F-35B and given some of the recent decisions it is clear that CAS is not at the top of their list.
For example having recently read the NAO 2009, where on page 159 they saved money by “MPR06: Reviews of the external missile systems for Joint Combat Aircraft resulted in the removal of the requirement for integrating externally mounted Brimstone (-£41m) and Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (-£49m), and Paveway II and III (-£1m) capabilities.” The lack of Brimstone and ASRAAM on external pylons suggests that they not seeing it as a direct Harrier replacement as it will be limited to AMRAAM (more useful to the RN IMO when providing CAP), Paveway IV and Stormshadow (and I would argue that the ability to carry Stormshadow is more important for the RN than RAF as the Tornado is the RAF primary choice of platform to deliver Stormshadow), and the limited number of Brimstone compared to Tornado IMO could be a serious shortfall in capabilities for a CAS platform.
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=4ff53a89-6f67-4347-a8a5-b27081741a8e&version=-1
nocutstoRAFRE: BPE’s
Problem with that alternate approach though is that 3 BPE’s couldnt match the UK Carrier Strike requirement. STOVL CVF can.
I have no doubt you are correct … just in hindsight given the current finances two CVF’s seem a high risk, highly capable solution to the problem of power projection while three BPE style ships now seem a low risk solution which would have en-masse at least allowed limited carrier strike.
nocutstoRAFSTOVL F35 B was the RAF’s, not the RN’s choice.
No matter if the UK buys Super Hornet or CATOBAR F35C the order is likely to be no more than 50 aircraft, and certainly no more than about 80 at the very most. Ordering less aircraft allows EMALS to be fitted to the QE Class Aircraft Carriers, which would make very good sense. It also gives the RN back control of the Fleet Air Arm, from the RAF, again, good sense.
Well I have read a lot of threads on this topic (though I do not post on any other sites other than this one, I know that you do) and I have seen this claim both ways that the RAF wanted the F-35B and the RN wanted the F-35B do you or anyone else have concrete evidence that any particular service wants the F-35B and that the other service was forced into a compromise?
How does less aircraft = EMALS, surely less aircraft = savings that have to be made are to accommodate 10% – 20% reduction, an equipment overspend of billions and Trident?
nocutstoRAFExpress’s take on the SDSR apparently the NDC will select the cuts this week:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196267/D-Day-looming-for-MoD-chiefs/
Sign In
