Govt U-turn on the F-35

[Mike DeTorrice]

Here's just my own personal view ! (in no particular order)

(1) The Royal Navy should commission and keep in service both of the 65,000 ton QE class carriers set up to operate conventional strike and fighter aircraft like the Lockheed-Martin F-35C, and perhaps leased F-18E/F's Super Hornets if needed and thus, hopefully, interoperability with US Navy carriers, both Nimitz and Ford class. The Falkland lessons should never have to be re-learned and the UK should remain a top-rank power (RN and RAF) to act as a strong US ally in a dangerous world.

(2) The F-35 will certainly turn out to be an excellent stealth/strike/fighter craft, although unquestionably it is taking too long and costing more than it should. All parties will eventually have a very effective (if expensive) aircraft. The U.S. Marines should probably operate the F-35B and this version may also have benefits for other air forces, too, if costs can be brought under control at some point.

(3) The F-14D was retired too early (and this final development of the Tomcat was also wrongly delayed in development and full service use far too long). Further improvements could have been made to the F-14D (AESA radar other advanced electronics and missiles, etc)

(4) The F-22 Raptor was VERY foolishly halted in it's production run. It is (and will remain for some time) the best fighter in the world. The F-35 is a fine fighter, too, yet will always be second to the Raptor in U.S. service. It was the same with the F-14 Tomcat and the F-18A Hornet in U.S. Navy service ....... it should have always been : get as many Tomcats as possible and have the Hornet for additional roles and a capable backstop to the Tomcat in Fleet Air Defense duties.

(5) For UK fighter and air defense duties, the development and full use of necessary numbers of Typhoon/Eurofighters is important. The RAF probably could not afford Raptors and, for most duties (and to retain British design and development capabilities) a properly maintained and kept up-to-date Typhoon will be very satisfactory.

(6) There are "somethings" being tested and perfected (as they have been for some time) at certain sites in Nevada, Utah and Alaska that may make all the above (and nearly any other developments elsewhere in the world) quite a moot point !

Mike

[Lieuwe]

Much better alternative?

[Mike DeTorrice]

I think UAV will (and already have) proven excellent for certain missions. But presently (and for some time to come) my view is they can really only operate as a PART of a balanced air force, land or sea based.

We do not want to risk the clear problems as previously engendered by Sandys-type "few or no more manned aircraft" white papers, Arrow-like cancellations in favor of only inflexible SAM basings and over-reliance on ICBM's, AAM's and SAM's in several cases of cancelled American projects (bomber and fighter) that all went the way of placing far too much emphasis on missiles, electronic brains and inflexible systems. Even just dropping the M61's and multi-cannon from a number of upcoming US fighters/interceptors in the late Fifties into the 1960's proved to be quite premature.

UAV's will get better and better, but for the near and foreseeable mid-future, I think they will operate best as a synergistic blend of manned fighters and bombers, long-range rockets and missiles, electronic attack from manned, unmanned and space platforms and directed energy weapons from several sources, both crewed and uncrewed.

Mike

[Alan P]

While AirForces Monthly sure is a serious magazine, some things written in the article should be put in the correct perspective:

Here's one thing I struggle to understand: the FAA has been stuck with aircrafts inferior to the competition for most of its existance. There is the chance of the FAA having one of the most advanced aircrafts around, an aircraft that is potentially superior to everything any enemy could throw at it, and nobody seems to want this to happen...

Here's just my own personal view ! (in no particular order)

(1) The Royal Navy should commission and keep in service both of the 65,000 ton QE class carriers set up to operate conventional strike and fighter aircraft like the Lockheed-Martin F-35C, and perhaps leased F-18E/F's Super Hornets if needed and thus, hopefully, interoperability with US Navy carriers, both Nimitz and Ford class. The Falkland lessons should never have to be re-learned and the UK should remain a top-rank power (RN and RAF) to act as a strong US ally in a dangerous world.

(2) The F-35 will certainly turn out to be an excellent stealth/strike/fighter craft, although unquestionably it is taking too long and costing more than it should. All parties will eventually have a very effective (if expensive) aircraft. The U.S. Marines should probably operate the F-35B and this version may also have benefits for other air forces, too, if costs can be brought under control at some point.

Thank you Giorgio and Mike for your sensible input. Everyone else is taking the Daily Mail at face value.

We're talking B vs C, STOVL vs conventional - would you make the same comparisons between a Harrier and a Tornado? The MoD did, and guess which one they kept? And comparing a Harrier to an F-35 really is being deliberately obtuse.

If we had to do something like the Falklands again, would you really want Harriers rather than F-35s?

Al

[magwitch]

While AirForces Monthly sure is a serious magazine, some things written in the article should be put in the correct perspective:

It was a dreadful article; sadly indicative of the way AFM is going under the new editor. It was very poorly written with several unsupported assertations and some outright mistakes that should have been caught in proofreading - eg a whole paragraph that refers to Typhoon when it clearly meant to say Tornado.

[xffw45343tg]

If we had to do something like the Falklands again, would you really want Harriers rather than F-35s?

If recent BBC reports are to be believed, you'd not need much more than a rowing boat and a class full of primary school children with nerf guns.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Whay bugs me about some of the reports on this matter is the references to how embarrassing it will be for one party to return to a policy originally made by a rival party.

If the current government cannot afford the carrier conversion costs to make them compatible with the F-35C, then it makes perfect sense to revert to the F-35B. It is the correct military decision. I don't give a rat's about which political party made the decision. However it does concern me that ministers may make decisions based not on military requirements but on political rivalry.

[SkippyBing]

If the current government cannot afford the carrier conversion costs to make them compatible with the F-35C, then it makes perfect sense to revert to the F-35B.

The problem is, the F-35B is going to cost more than the F-35C* so although you may make a short term saving on the boats you end up spending far more on the aircraft. But then MoD has never really done long term planning.

*It's even worse when if you compare the cost to perform the same tasking as you need more Bs to do the same job as a given number of Cs.

[xffw45343tg]

Is not part of the argument put forward by the B proponents that:

1) It has increased safety over the C (on the principle that it is generally safer to stop then land than land then try to stop). Weather minima are reduced for recorvery

2) Increased flexibility. Certainly with a Harrier, one could operate from sites where long conventional runways were not available. The argument goes that this means that you can be closer to the action and the marginal increases in fuel capacity and stores are more than offset.

?

However, I'm not clear on how much of this holds true for the F-35B. Pointing an afterburning jet at the average bit of airfield/ship is likely to make a big hole and FOD the engine into unserviceability. Perhaps the USMC is planning to carry flat pack (Ikea?) landing pads for theirs. Dunno what the UK plan is.

Anyway, I'm pleased if we end up with the B as it means that the UK operators won't have to give away a vast amount of their budget re-learning how to operate CATOBAR again, and RR get to sell lots of Lift Fans.

Kirk

[SkippyBing]

1) It has increased safety over the C (on the principle that it is generally safer to stop then land than land then try to stop). Weather minima are reduced for recorvery

But, it has significantly less holding fuel over the C ~8 minutes, if the deck is fouled for any length of time you're looking at some very expensive depth charges. This isn't helped by the move towards a short rolling vertical landing (SRVL) as the UK's method of recovery to allow a bigger bring back as you won't be able to pop it down just anywhere on deck.

2) Increased flexibility. Certainly with a Harrier, one could operate from sites where long conventional runways were not available. The argument goes that this means that you can be closer to the action and the marginal increases in fuel capacity and stores are more than offset.

Generally it's considered better to keep the aircraft carrier further away from the action as it gives the enemy a larger area to search to find it and gives you greater freedom of manoeuvre.

Incidentally the F-35B isn't in afterburner during the landing phase (or take off going by the video clips) so damage to the deck is a moot point, it's more serious on the V-22 as the exhausts are always pointing at the deck whereas for the F-35 it's only for a short period.

Anyway, I'm pleased if we end up with the B as it means that the UK operators won't have to give away a vast amount of their budget re-learning how to operate CATOBAR again, and RR get to sell lots of Lift Fans.

The fact is a lot of money is going to have to be spent learning how to do proper large carrier ops again whatever aircraft we get, the question is do you want to choose an aircraft that's so expensive you can barely afford a squadron's worth or do you want to be able to do it properly?

[xffw45343tg]

But, it has significantly less holding fuel over the C ~8 minutes, if the deck is fouled for any length of time you're looking at some very expensive depth charges. This isn't helped by the move towards a short rolling vertical landing (SRVL) as the UK's method of recovery to allow a bigger bring back as you won't be able to pop it down just anywhere on deck.

How many Harriers were lost to fouled deck incidents? (On decks that were just a tad smaller.) Or perhaps compare the proportion of recovery incidents per landing with CATOBAR over the same time period. Ah, that'll be the vertical landing capability coming into it's own again then.

Presumably SRVL is intended to minimise FOD problems (which I agree did nothing to keep down Pegasus ownership costs), but you can't deny the fundamental advantage of landing in a confined space a B has over a C.

Generally it's considered better to keep the aircraft carrier further away from the action as it gives the enemy a larger area to search to find it and gives you greater freedom of manoeuvre.

Keep the carrier back, set up a STOVL Forward Operating Base. How easy is that to do with a C?

Incidentally the F-35B isn't in afterburner during the landing phase (or take off going by the video clips) so damage to the deck is a moot point, it's more serious on the V-22 as the exhausts are always pointing at the deck whereas for the F-35 it's only for a short period.

My mistake. Improves the case for the B though.

The fact is a lot of money is going to have to be spent learning how to do proper large carrier ops again whatever aircraft we get, the question is do you want to choose an aircraft that's so expensive you can barely afford a squadron's worth or do you want to be able to do it properly?

I suspect you are better qualified than I to argue the merits of relative squadron size (which I'd be keen to hear), but I will make a couple of other observations:

A lot more would have to be spent on CATOBAR than STOVL or even STOSRVL (which I can't even pronounce). I'd agree that the amount of money for either is vast and probably out of proportion with this country's ability to afford. But that will lead us to the essentially political discussion of what sort of armed forces are needed by the UK, which while I'm happy to have is actively discouraged on BM.

Kirk

[thx6667]

So, to clarify - we scrapped our Harrier fleet and Ark Royal in favour of the F-35C and some new super carriers with a catapult/hook system for a variant we're now not buying in favour of the F-35B which we could probably operate from Ark Royal and Lusty just like we did the Harriers, only we could actually have just hung on to the Harriers until the F-35 is ready.

Yes? No?

[SkippyBing]

How many Harriers were lost to fouled deck incidents? (On decks that were just a tad smaller.) Or perhaps compare the proportion of recovery incidents per landing with CATOBAR over the same time period. Ah, that'll be the vertical landing capability coming into it's own again then.

Presumably SRVL is intended to minimise FOD problems (which I agree did nothing to keep down Pegasus ownership costs), but you can't deny the fundamental advantage of landing in a confined space a B has over a C.

The problem is Harrier/CVS is being compared to F-35/CVF which is something of an apples and oranges situation, you never really had that many aircraft airborne with CVS so it was unlikely you'd foul all the available spots. With F-35 the SRVL is being done to increase bring back as the wing is still providing some lift, this does mean you need a nice clear stretch of deck to land on. It's also worth remembering at least one Harrier was lost at night because there weren't enough visual references for him to hover by. Sure the B can land in a smaller space than a C, but at what cost in terms of capability and operating costs?

Keep the carrier back, set up a STOVL Forward Operating Base. How easy is that to do with a C?

How easy is it to do with the B if you haven't got a foot hold ashore? Plus you'd have to move an engineering element ashore to support the aircraft, set up an arms drop etc. etc. all of which could be a distraction from the main effort.

The C has a 150NM range advantage over the B (600NM vs 450NM), a 1000lb internal payload advantage and more holding fuel on recovery. The B can land and take-off in a slightly smaller area, a capability which the Harrier seems to have used more at air shows than in actual anger. You'd need 2xBs to carry the same internal bomb load as 1XC and I'm not sure any number of Bs could carry them as far without giving them AAR pods. I'm not sure what happens if you start considering external loads as well, but the C should have the advantage as there's a catapult to get it up to flying speed where the B is relying on its own thrust to do it before it runs out of ship.

Reference the training side of things the US Navy are more than happy to help train up the RN in CATOBAR operations which offers saving through economies of scale, STOVL would require a bespoke training requirement which I'm sure the MoD could make eye wateringly expensive given the opportunity. The other advantage of making the carriers with catapults is you're not tying the whole programme's success on the F-35, you can always decide on the cheaper option of Hornets or Rafales

[xffw45343tg]

So, to clarify - we scrapped our Harrier fleet and Ark Royal in favour of the F-35C and some new super carriers with a catapult/hook system for a variant we're now not buying in favour of the F-35B which we could probably operate from Ark Royal and Lusty just like we did the Harriers, only we could actually have just hung on to the Harriers until the F-35 is ready.

Yes? No?

Kinda, but you missed out the bit where we spent a huge amount on a beautiful aircraft for intercepting Soviet bombers, which proved so successful that the Soviet Union gave up.

[SPerx]

Kinda, but you missed out the bit where we spent a huge amount on a beautiful aircraft for intercepting Soviet bombers, which proved so successful that the Soviet Union gave up.

Much as I admire the sentiment, I don't think WARPAC gave up because of the BAC Lightning

[Antoine]

I have said for a long time this is the way we should go.

Would give complete inter-operability with the Aéronavale, which should be given the fact we are only buying 2 carriers which is really one short.

We should be also building up the European defence capability and not having to rely on the US as much.

The F-35 should have been dropped a long time ago.

Julien

Daydreaming, Julien?

It's only a joke, you know as well as I that Rafale in the FAA will NEVER happen.

Could only be a what-if subject here on a modelling forum.

[Mike]

Oh well, at least they've not cancelled the programme completely, along with the aircraft carriers, so it could be worse

[xffw45343tg]

Reckon Airfix will announce a 1:350 CVF anytime soon? (With a realistic squadron of 4 F-35Bs and a Wallis autogyro as keeper of course.)

[Vlamgat9]

What i dont understand is why we arent making a mixed purchase of As and Bs in the way the Italians were proposing to do.

Obviously the As cant operate from CVF but they have a higher performance for ops where you do have land bases and whilst there are differences between the models there is a commonality of something like 70%, which ought to provide economies of scale as against operating entirely different types (eg B and Tornado).

A purchase of 70 odd Bs and 150 odd As would surely provide a sensible fleet to replace Harrier and Tornado.

I find it a bit rich of Jim Murphy lambasting the decision to switch back to the B when part of the reason is that the supposed flexibility Gordon Brown had built into the CVF design to cheaply and quickly convert it to CATOBAR turned out to be a complete fantasy. The CVF contract is a total disgrace.

[SkippyBing]

What i dont understand is why we arent making a mixed purchase of As and Bs in the way the Italians were proposing to do.

I believe that's because the current requirement is to provide the air group for CVF, i.e. it's a Harrier replacement.

The Tornado replacement, which I think is still the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) hasn't got to the deciding what they want stage, never mind the deciding what's closest to providing it stage. So currently buying F-35 to replace Tornado would be premature, after all someone may decide UAVs are a better bet.

I am impressed by the cluster BAe are making of converting CVF to catapults, the current story seems to be that it'll delay the delivery by 7 years. Now it took 8 to do it to the old Victorious, but that did involve cutting off everything above the hanger floor and rebuilding her with an angled deck, which is a slightly bigger job!

[magwitch]

A purchase of 70 odd Bs and 150 odd As would surely provide a sensible fleet to replace Harrier and Tornado.

That would be a fly away cost of very close to $20 billion before we get into any operating costs so, no it's not a "sensible fleet".

UK JSF purchase (of whatever type) will be 24 (likely) to 48 (vanishingly unlikely).

Some background here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/def...n-Belgiums.html

n the medium-term, over the next seven to 10 years, Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell said, the RAF “will be a six-squadron world; that’s what’s on the books”. He said he expected there to be five squadrons of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and just one of the Harrier’s long-term replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter. “I expect a single [JSF] squadron in 2020 and that’s it,” he said.

Edited April 19, 2012 by magwitch

[GrahamS]

One thing I've never understood - if we are to operate the STOVL version why are we building proper full size carriers?

Graham

[RFT]

Because at the time they were specced out, the maximum sortie rate the carriers were requested to produce (missions flown/day) required a large number of embarked aircraft (needing a big ship to house them).

so, the carriers were big to provide space for lots of planes (that we now probably won't have), instead of to allow CATOBAR operation.

[Giorgio N]

What i dont understand is why we arent making a mixed purchase of As and Bs in the way the Italians were proposing to do.

The Italian situation is completely different: the navy wants the B because it would be the only aircraft that can operate from their carriers. There's no plan to have proper CATOBAR carriers for a number of reasons, both economic and political.

The air force wants the A as an AMX and tornado replacement, so that the future line will be on the typhoon for air defence and F-35A for strike/GA. There's never been any interest in VTOL operations within the air force, as the defence policy foresees operations in defence of the national territory (therefore from properly equipped bases) and support to peacekeeping forces, that again can rely on proper bases.

There's never been any intention of having air force aircrafts capable of operating from the carriers as an extra support... actually if the air force could they would just scrap the carriers and sell the AV-8B+ ! Watching the navy building a carrier force was a huge blow for the air force when it happened, especially as they had succeeded preventing the Navy from having a carrier force for many years. But this is another story, a sad story of seized Helldivers and shattered plans...

[xffw45343tg]

One thing I've never understood - if we are to operate the STOVL version why are we building proper full size carriers?

Graham

Can't get as many golf holes on an Invincible class deck?