A little bit late but since no one has posted it yet

[Oliver]

Just a heads up that the first F-25B (thats our STOVL version guys) has been unveiled, story here: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_r...5b_rollout.html

Interesting note though, is that it seems that the USMC will get theirs before us, why is that given we obviously have a more pressing need for them. Would be nice to have it finally in service with us, but given the mounting issues and Lord Drayson stating that if we don't get full technology transfer, then we will pull out. Its becoming more and more of a fiasco.

Interestingly he did say that we have a plan B, which i have a feeling might just be a navalised Typhoon and not the Rafale as some seem to think.

[Dave Fleming]

Interestingly he did say that we have a plan B, which i have a feeling might just be a navalised Typhoon and not the Rafale as some seem to think.

More likely Super Hornet. One of the early schemes for CVF had parking boxes marked F/A-18E/F.

[keefr22]

More likely Super Hornet. One of the early schemes for CVF had parking boxes marked F/A-18E/F.

We can but hope.......!!

[Vlamgat9]

Of course the thing Drayson's Plan B has to address is generating the steam for the catapult. My understanding is that this is hard to do with modern RN engines and you really need nuclear propulsion or old Admiralty boilers. Electro-magnetic catapult system are arguably still decades away. I can't see how any of Typhoon, Rafale or Super Hornet would ever make it off the deck.... Would probably entail a serious redesign of CVF along the lines of what the French are going to have to do it to use it.

And as I have said on another thread, I think the idea of a navalised Typhoon is a bad one. BAe are bound to f**k it up. We should go with Rafale or Super Hornet as at least that way it will work.

I fear CVF is dead in the water (excuse the pun) without the F-35. The supposed Plan B is probably just a negotiating line but I doubt the US is under any illusions as to the tight spot we find ourselves in.

[tjn]

a little bird tells me that a certain company *has* made serious inroads into producing a navalised Typhoon if the whole JSF thing goes tits up... but it remains a paper project at this time, at least while the JSF is officially still to enter service.

[Oliver]

If JSF goes tits up i can't see us buying American so soon again. A European aircraft is more feesable and likely imo, Rafale would be good as it is already navalised and the French need the sales to fund their AESA radar for the Rafale, which in turn would benifit those who buy Rafale. But then the traditional rivalries/pride plus plus the aircrafts potential op-sec issues, given the French arms industry's willingness to sell almost everything regardless to the highest bidder, may just rule the aircraft out regardless of any potential cost savings etc.

No, for my money it has to be the Typhoon, as out of the contenders it ticks the majority of the right boxes and is already in service with the RAF meaning maintainance would be much easier. Also the navalised Typhoon variant proposed is to be STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) and launch using a ski ramp, a technology we are very familiar with, and not a catapult. And the public view must not be underestimated, as to most of our public, dispite the Typhoon being a joint European venture, it is seen as a British aircraft in all aspects. And as Tjn has said plans have already been looked at regarding Navalising it. If this goes ahead will it be way over budget and late...most likely. But then it wouldn't really be british if that didn't happen, would it?

Edited January 8, 2008 by Oliver

[Guest Drewe]

I can't help thinking "plan B" may in fact be "plan C". The F-35B has always been the one most at risk - budgets and numbers make it the most likely to be cut by the US to fund T.W.A.T. , and with the US dropping it there is simply no way we could fund it alone so it would die on the spot. But it's considerably more certain that the F-35A and F-35C ARE going to happen. So the other option is to do like the French, stick catapaults on it and buy the C instead. I've alway been fairly sceptical about JSF in general, but I'm coming to appreciate that it and the F-22 are the only true new/next gen fighters out there, and so slipping back to Rafale or Typhoon would be a mistake - even given plans for an AESA and such, it's pretty clear that sensor fusion, situational awareness and intelliegnce sharing will be a step up in the JSF, which has been designed from the round up to incorporate it (I leave aside LO characteristics at this juncture - in this brave new post cold war world I believe it's not quite as important as battlefield management and sensor fusion).

As a personal opinion I think that STOVL for the RAF/FAA is a pointless exercise anyway, and leaving out the old adage that it's easier to stop and land than it is to land and stop the F-35C is the best of the bunch. Why buy a range/payload limited variant anyway? Again the landscape has changed sufficiently that austere dispersal of aircraft (by which I mean hiding in woods/on small ships, not remote operating locations like Kandahar which are *still* airfields!) is not really on the cards, and STOVL really is a solution looking for a new problem, a historic alley that I sense we in the UK are sticking with out of loyalty to our invention of the concept in direct contradiction of the current facts (And I thought we'd abandoned the stupidity of a jet engine + lift fan forty years ago and handed that baton to da Rooskis - snigger!).

No, much as it pains me to say it I think JSF is the way forward, I just think we have our variants mixed up. F-35C is the answer. And whatever variant, due to our participation as a level 1 partner, I suspect UK PLC and T'Baron oop north will make more money from JSF than they ever will from Typhoon

[KiwiSteve]

T.W.A.T.

Can someone explain what the acronym for T.W.A.T cause the meaning in NZ isn't the meaning you have in the UK re the wikipedia reference

Wikipedia link to tw*t

I guess it could be one of these then

tw*t Tactical Women's Alert Team (Cheech & Chong skit)

tw*t The War Against Terrorism

tw*t The Warm As Toast

tw*t The Western Area Tourers

tw*t The Word Association Thread

tw*t There Was A Time

tw*t There We Are Then

tw*t Traveling-Wave Amplifier Tube

Edited January 8, 2008 by KiwiSteve

[Richard M]

The War Against Terror, someone obviously didn't work out the acronym after thinking up the name!

Best

Rich

[Vlamgat9]

I can't help thinking "plan B" may in fact be "plan C". The F-35B has always been the one most at risk - budgets and numbers make it the most likely to be cut by the US to fund T.W.A.T. , and with the US dropping it there is simply no way we could fund it alone so it would die on the spot. But it's considerably more certain that the F-35A and F-35C ARE going to happen. So the other option is to do like the French, stick catapaults on it and buy the C instead. I've alway been fairly sceptical about JSF in general, but I'm coming to appreciate that it and the F-22 are the only true new/next gen fighters out there, and so slipping back to Rafale or Typhoon would be a mistake - even given plans for an AESA and such, it's pretty clear that sensor fusion, situational awareness and intelliegnce sharing will be a step up in the JSF, which has been designed from the round up to incorporate it (I leave aside LO characteristics at this juncture - in this brave new post cold war world I believe it's not quite as important as battlefield management and sensor fusion).

As a personal opinion I think that STOVL for the RAF/FAA is a pointless exercise anyway, and leaving out the old adage that it's easier to stop and land than it is to land and stop the F-35C is the best of the bunch. Why buy a range/payload limited variant anyway? Again the landscape has changed sufficiently that austere dispersal of aircraft (by which I mean hiding in woods/on small ships, not remote operating locations like Kandahar which are *still* airfields!) is not really on the cards, and STOVL really is a solution looking for a new problem, a historic alley that I sense we in the UK are sticking with out of loyalty to our invention of the concept in direct contradiction of the current facts (And I thought we'd abandoned the stupidity of a jet engine + lift fan forty years ago and handed that baton to da Rooskis - snigger!).

No, much as it pains me to say it I think JSF is the way forward, I just think we have our variants mixed up. F-35C is the answer. And whatever variant, due to our participation as a level 1 partner, I suspect UK PLC and T'Baron oop north will make more money from JSF than they ever will from Typhoon

I think this is quite a convincing analysis.

[thx6667]

The War Against Terror, someone obviously didn't work out the acronym after thinking up the name!

Best

Rich

But given who it was created for, ironically apt!

Now is it me or is the F-35B "Lightning II" just look plain wrong from every aspect? While the Harrier's concept of a single engine giving both lift and thrust via moving nozzles is beautifully simple, separate lift and thrust engines with a little door that pops open on the top is a throwback to the failed VTOL aircraft of the 1960s. The F-35 just does not seem robust enough to me and I wonder how hardy it will be at sea or in the field?

[AnonymousDFB1]

But given who it was created for, ironically apt!

Now is it me or is the F-35B "Lightning II" just look plain wrong from every aspect? While the Harrier's concept of a single engine giving both lift and thrust via moving nozzles is beautifully simple, separate lift and thrust engines with a little door that pops open on the top is a throwback to the failed VTOL aircraft of the 1960s. The F-35 just does not seem robust enough to me and I wonder how hardy it will be at sea or in the field?

this is my feelings. The separate lift and thrust engine concept has proved to be floor so why try and reinvent the wheel?

Edited January 8, 2008 by Mish

[xffw45343tg]

this is my feelings. The separate lift and thrust engine concept has proved to be floor so why try and reinvent the wheel?

The real problem with the Pegasus ducted fan concept for an aircraft of this type is the difficulty in achieving supersonic performance. The Pegasus moves a large volume of air at relatively low velocity to create both lifting and forward thrust. This dictates the very large intake and the associated difficulty in making a LO design. If you give the engine output sufficient velocity to make the aircraft supersonic, you run into all sorts of problems trying to land the thing. Note that (IIRC) the PCB system in the BS100 engine (for the P1154) is designed to only light up in forward flight.

So, if you want a supersonic aircraft capable of vertical landing, it is simpler to carry around a dedicated lift fan than overcome the engineering problems associated with say making a Low Observable P1154-like machine.

We may think that the F35 is not pretty or British enough for our liking but that doesn't make it make less sense than the alternatives. (Or, "hands up who wants to pay lots more tax so we can make a small number of clever machines?")

Kirk

[tjn]

one thing I cant see as a likely alternative, and quite apart from any opsec considerations, is the purchase of Rafale. Chauvinism aside, when you consider it's genesis as a result of the french throwing their toys out of the pram over not being able to dictate the design of the (then) European Combat Aircraft solely to their needs at the expense of the other design partners (the UK and Germany), leading to the Panavia partner companies going down the road that would see the Eurofighter group being formed, I think it's very unlikely.

[Guest Drewe]

The real problem with the Pegasus ducted fan concept for an aircraft of this type is the difficulty in achieving supersonic performance. The Pegasus moves a large volume of air at relatively low velocity to create both lifting and forward thrust. This dictates the very large intake and the associated difficulty in making a LO design. If you give the engine output sufficient velocity to make the aircraft supersonic, you run into all sorts of problems trying to land the thing. Note that (IIRC) the PCB system in the BS100 engine (for the P1154) is designed to only light up in forward flight.

So, if you want a supersonic aircraft capable of vertical landing, it is simpler to carry around a dedicated lift fan than overcome the engineering problems associated with say making a Low Observable P1154-like machine.

We may think that the F35 is not pretty or British enough for our liking but that doesn't make it make less sense than the alternatives. (Or, "hands up who wants to pay lots more tax so we can make a small number of clever machines?")

Kirk

All of which just reinforces my thoughts right now of "why bother?" with regards to STOVL, and the inherent limitations apparant when you design an airframe for such a capability. I would even be prepared to accept it's necessity were those two carriers to be slightly overgrown destroyers with a flight deck like the Invisible class were, but they're not, they're going to be the best of 65,000 tonnes! Not quite CVN class, but make no mistake big, big warships.

I have no issue with the JSF's genesis, that's just the way of the world nowadays (especially when you consider the last ALL British warplane was the Hawk - essentially a trainer!), and don't regard it as any less "British" (like that matters) than Typhoon. Like I said, I only question our wisdom in buying the least capable variant based on historical, rather than operational reasons. All of which I fear makes me seem like a Harrier hater. I'm not, I think it was an innovative design which served us well, and at least once dug us out of a big hole. But I wonder what the answer from all concerned would be if they were asked if they'd rather have had a couple carriers with Phantoms, Buccaneers and Gannets for AEW instead? Hmmmm. . . . I wonder if the mad general in BA would even have dared in the first place if he knew that he would be facing something like that?

Edited January 8, 2008 by Drewe

[Oliver]

I do agree that we don't really need a STOVL aircraft anymore, and don't get me wrong i think the F-35 brings the right cababilities we need and is a quantum leap over the alternatives, but if we were to switch to the F-35A or C wouldn't that just bring about the same issue we are having with the F-35B now in that they would still be reluctant to release the source code?

[xffw45343tg]

Well made points Drewe & Oliver. I wonder if the STOVL thing is a bit of contingency planning aginst the possibility of the big carrier never coming into being?

[Eric2020]

I have seen that there is only 1 large door behind the canopy. So the nice design of multiple doors is dropped. It doesnt look real good, and the fanblade has to be changed as that is damaged and not fit to fly with. :shithappens:

[Dave Fleming]

One reason we are buying the STOVL F-35 at the moment is so that we don't need to fit cats (and to a lesser extent arrestors) to the CVF. The Navy is expecting a quantum leap forward in electro-magnetic catapult design in the next 10 years, but too soon to be fitted to CVF in time for it's initial in service. No point in fitting an obselete steamer at the moment. The provision to add one at a later date is, however, being designed into the ships.

[Guest Drewe]

One reason we are buying the STOVL F-35 at the moment is so that we don't need to fit cats (and to a lesser extent arrestors) to the CVF. The Navy is expecting a quantum leap forward in electro-magnetic catapult design in the next 10 years, but too soon to be fitted to CVF in time for it's initial in service. No point in fitting an obselete steamer at the moment. The provision to add one at a later date is, however, being designed into the ships.

I appreciate that Dave, I just fear we're future-proofing the ships at the expense of aircraft capability (and as I say, basic point!).

[entlim]

Looks like they(CVF) have been put back anyway.............

[xffw45343tg]

This was my point about why I wouldn't be suprised if UK MoD stick with the B; If (when) the CVF is delayed, I guess if the the F-35 is delivered before it, it could operate from the Invincible class carriers? Does it fit on the lifts & in the hangar deck?

[Dave Fleming]

I appreciate that Dave, I just fear we're future-proofing the ships at the expense of aircraft capability (and as I say, basic point!).

I don't disagree with your fundamental point, in fact by going STOVL (and I beleive it can be flown VTOL as well) we have in effect tied ourselves to a single platform variant - the USMC can always fall back on the CTOL F-35Cif the B is cancelled, as their legacy carriers have a catapult. No choice of other capabilities. It also ties us in to heliborne C3/ISTAR platforms.

It's also worth noting that the French are propsing to build a carrier based on the CVF design but with conventional landing/take off equipment.

I suppose the question is 'Could the F-35C operate from a ski ramp un assisted launch (as in the Flanker)?' If so, buy that and fit an arrested deck to the QE class.

[Nev]

[xffw45343tg]

Pretty uneven deck on those new carriers. That's just got to damage the landing gear one day.