F-35B: Anatomy of a decision

HAVE YOUR SAY

11 May 2012

A well balanced article, however I still find the MoD statement implausible :

"Our current plans and our current weapons stockpile would not call for us to wish to store any weapons internally that we can't store on either aircraft. So we are not missing any capability as a result of the slightly smaller internal weapons bay on the STOVL aircraft."

Is he saying we would not plan to be able to operate the EPW-111 internally. This will only fit in the A and C F-35 models and is an essential weapon where the EPW-11 is not sufficient. So it really sounds like MoD fudge really.

I now think the decision is correct but we need some honesty about the differences from the MoD.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/enhancedpaveway.cfm

EPW-111 = Enhanced Paveway III 900Kg/2,000ib

EPW-11 (450kg/1,000ib)
Graham - High Wycombe

11 May 2012

And how is the land-based, deep strike capacbility now going to be provided? Previously it was going to be met by the same F35C providing the carrier strike capability ...
Marcellus - London

11 May 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Paveway 3 will not physically fit into the B variant weapons bay due to the intrusion of the lift fan installation. It can only carry 1x 1000lb bomb of standard diameter in each bay. The A and C variants can carry 1x 2000lb bomb or 2x 1000lb bombs in each bay. So if we need to use EPW3, it won't be carried by F-35B. Best call ghost-busters!

Marcellus - London

Land-based, deep strike can only be carried out by A or C model. No point in buying C model for just RAF to use, so it will have to be the A model, unless RAF conveniently forgets that requirement like it did in 60s with TSR2/F-111/Buccaneer fiasco that this so closely resembles!
AW Employee - Yeovil

11 May 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

I know it won't hence if you read my original post again:

"This will only fit in the A and C F-35 models"

I am saying that we need this capability and if we can't have it in the F-35B then the MoD should be honest and say so rather than pretend there is no difference between the variants.

It's also one of the reason I prefer a split buy between the A and B for the RAF and FAA respectively.
Graham - High Wycombe

11 May 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Ah yes. I had realised that you knew of the limitation posed by the smaller B variant weapons bay, I just articulated very poorly!

I think what I meant to say is that while in the short term this u-turn makes fiscal and strategic sense, it doesn't in the longer term when much more than £6Bn will be needed to modify QE carrier(s) and buy C variant to do original task. I believe the fiscal and logical answer would have been to design and build the CVF with cat and trap capability from the outset and buy/lease F/A-18s until F-35 was mature and buy which ever model achieved UK requirements in the most cost effective manner. The B variant can operate off a CATOBAR deck almost as well as a ski-ramp. Don't believe the USMC are going to use ski-ramp.
AW Employee - Yeovil

11 May 2012

Please forgive my ignorance, particularly on issues of 'stealth'

Are we saying that the 'B' variant cannot deploy the EPW-111 at all? Clearly it cannot do so using the reduced size internal weapons bay, compared to the A & C variants, but as the article implies would this preclude its carriage externally? I appreciate any external stores would impact on the aircraft's stealth capability.

Looking at data on LM's site, http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us.html

It would seem that the 'A' variant offers the greatest internal weapons capacity for only a marginally shorter combat radius than the 'C' variant, both having the same overall weapon load of 18,000lbs against the 'B' model's total load of 15,000lbs and the internal load decreased allowing two 1,000lb bombs rather than 2x 2,000lbs of the other variants. Combat radius figures given are for aircraft carrying internal weapons only, so presumably will be somewhat different for a fully armed aircraft.

As such it would seem that despite its 'shortcomings' the F35B offers about a 50% increase in combat radius, over 80% increase in overall weapon load and with internal weapons only, nearly twice the maximum speed of our much lamented Harrier. Perhaps not the best 'that money can buy' but maybe the best we can afford?
Hereman - Wirral, England

11 May 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

The cost of converting the carriers is prohibitive and I'd rather we have two carriers each able to operate F-35B than one that can operate F-35C.

The USMC operate very differently as they use the F-35B just as close air support for the Marines so range/payload is not such a factor as sortie rate so they get as close to shore as possible and they take off Lift Fan up and jet nozzle down which restricts take off weight and hence range/payload. They can do this as they have carriers with F-35C further away offering air defence.

In our case we have to operate very differently. The F-35B has to be a jack of all trades and so we want it to be able to take off with maximum weight and hence range/payload. So on a QE carrier it will be a 240m run with Lift Fan down and full throttle (reheat if required) and then a 40m ski jump to launch it.

I originally supported the move the F-35C but I have changed my mind and believe we have done the right thing to reverse the decision and use both carriers. We can mitigate most of the issues with operating F-35B and we will have 100% carrier availability.
Graham - High Wycombe

11 May 2012

I think we are missing the point when it comes to the carriers, we are getting a significant improvement in our carrier strike capabiliy, that is the whole point of new carriers. The QE class can carry more planes and sail further and the f35b is far better than the harrier in every single respect. If we had not upgraded we would be worse of. the fact that we may fall short of the capabilities of the US navy is not a point to cry over, its a fat of life when it comes to all naval aspects. We should be proud of our advancements. if you want us to be the most powerful navy in the world then you need to advocate full scale rearnmant.
N. Brown

11 May 2012

Hereman - Wirral, England

No we are only saying it can't go in the internal weapons bay as it can on an A or C variant.
Graham - High Wycombe

11 May 2012

Looking ahead. If QE does indeed now have an angled deck and will have a ski jump fitted. Will POW be similarly completed?
Can F35B land on the angle in a semi-conventional landing rather than vertical?
Can a/c such as Mantis fly from jump and land on the angle?
Given that EMALS would be required for a/c such as Taranis will Converteam continue to develop their EMALS for future fitting? Will a PA2be the first fit? (After all I understand they are the prime people in providing the electrical propulsion system).
As for weapons ... it seems to me that they and their warheads are getting smaller due to the precision guidance/targetting and collateral damage issue.
Given the size of Future Force 2020 and the nature of the 21st century world do we really see ourselves (the UK) getting into a future conflict on the scale that requires 'A' type aircraft to foreign (rather than NATO country) based?
Not trying to speculate ... just throwing in a few bones that I believe are relevant to where we are now and where we need to be.
Norman - UK

11 May 2012

"one senior defence source... said the increases were somewhat unexpected to say the least".

You'd have to be totally naive and completely ignorant of the history of defence procurement to imagine that redesigning a ship being built with an unproven new catapult system wouldn't lead to huge cost increases.

The defence establishment pulled the wool over the eyes of a new wet-between-the-ears government. In the midst of a financial crisis, when the carriers were already unaffordable they got Cameron to make the project even more expensive. Two catapult carriers - what the Navy always wanted.

The line about the other lot buying the wrong version of the F-35 - classic. Cameron stood up in the House with a letter from BAE saying it would be more expensive to cancel the second carrier than build it. Prepesterous. And preposterous to let your supplier tell you such things.

This is just another episode in the long history of money thrown into the bin in the name of defence procurement. No sackings ever. Just weasel excuses like "unexpected to say the least". The same incompetence over and over...
Jeremy - Newcastle

12 May 2012

Graham. Operating two carriers is not going to happen. The Navy doesnt have enough manpower even now to operate two carriers at the same time.
Hamish - GB

12 May 2012

This not a balanced article in the slightest, Joel Shenton has no idea what the consequences or trade-offs this decision will mean for Britain & RN. This article is not only bias but short sighted!

What do the Fleet Air Arm train on whilst they wait for the F-35B?

In honesty what would you prefer the RAF use, the outdated Tornado or switch to that of the F-35C? Why can't the plane also be land based?

Whilst the conversion took place, we could have continued to operate the old harriers as an interim measure, albeit from one new carrier or HMS Ocean/ Illustrious.

Now that we are 'locked' in to the F-35B, we are also locked into the weight implications of take off/recovery and weight gain life cycle advancements.

Is the new carrier future proof? Although it should have been Nuclear powdered in the first place, it now operates differently to any of its 'partner' nations.

The U.K has a bloated officer structure, why do we need so many when the poor decisions are only more pain to the taxpayer?
Gary - Newport

12 May 2012

Installation would be "substantially more invasive" than had originally been thought,

What happen to the original design statement about the carriers being easy to refit with catapults? Also look like we'll never get catapults if it requires so much modification.

Have the UK also missed a trick in the early design stage. Perhaps a deck configuration allowing the use of the ski jump, with a second angle deck EMALS ready for future refit. Aft ready to accept arrestors. Could have meant early use would be STOVL, arrestors would allow STOBAR capability and eventually CATOBAR after EMALS refit. Unfortunately the UK seems to have lost its ability to think innovatively.

I'm not so much worried about the F35B however lack of fixed wing AEW is a concern. It really doesn't matter if we have a more capable carrier strike capability than we had before, of course F35B will be better than the Harrier. What matters is that it's more capable than any adversary land or see based that it's going up against.

Kuznetsov and Varyag look at least as good the QE class STOVL and Kuznetsov is like to be refitted with a nuke plant and cats starting this year.

And I dread to think of an Argentine air force with SU35's with a range of nearly 2000 nmiles.
Expat - Dubai

12 May 2012

OK, lets get this into perspective. F35B may not have the outright performance of the `C` variant in terms of internal payload and range, but it does offer advantages in other areas such as versatility. Compared to the much lamented Harrier, overall capabilities are in most areas almost double, and if the choice of this aircraft means we can operate two identical carriers even part time, then the marginal sacrifices will be well worthwhile! Indeed, some of the wording in the published statements alludes to a two carrier force.
Some may ask how this plane fulfils the RAF "Deep Strike" role, but with the carriers able to take their air wings so much closer to the target, is that capability any longer required? Why spend more money on an Air Force "ego booster" when the carriers can do the job so much more effectively?
Much has also been made of stealth strike ability, but in reality this would not be a factor in the planes day to day close support role. External ordnance points can be used to accommodate any weapons required, including all versions of Paveway, Brimstone etc. Standoff weapons such as Storm Shadow can only be accommodated externally on all versions of the F35, and are thus not a factor. We should also remember that all stealth aircraft are only really effective at night or really low visibility- no design features can make a plane invisible!
All in all, the correct decision has been made, with carrier strike available sooner and much reduced training requirements. It's just a shame that so much money was wasted on "studies" when a little more consideration in SDSR would have reached the same conclusion!
Focus now should switch to the need for an effective AWACS/ASaC system to complement the F35 – 8 converted Merlins are obviously not sufficient for the role and would be far better added to the HM2 conversion program, with 12 new aircraft specifically built for the task.
Steve R - London

12 May 2012

I wonder what happened, the DPA recognised it was a requirement to have the carriers capable to back fit with catapults. There should have been no need to 'carve up' compartments. Did the last government drop this from the design requirement.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

'The hull designs are being planned for a 50-year service life and are currently being configured with a ski ramp for short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) operations. The carrier's service life is substantially longer than the 20-year service life of the selected F-35 STOVL carrier aircraft. The DPA has decided the carriers will be upgradeable to a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) design, so the option will be available to operate conventional maritime aircraft.'

'No catapult or arresters will be fitted in the initial build but the carrier will be built to accommodate a future back-fit. The carrier will be fitted with a steam catapult or electromagnetic launch system and arrester gear, if the option to convert the carrier to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant proceeds.'

Once I was proud of the UK for embarking on this project, now I'm just embarrassed and afraid for our service men and women.
Expat - Dubai

12 May 2012

If this is the new MOD in action, God help us!!!!!
P Court - Paignton

14 May 2012

I was trying not to insert my own opinions, but can't help the one that sneaked in about this being a victory for pragmatism. £40m on a study is a lot of money, but it makes it hard to deny that the proper consideration has been given to the move - if only from a financial standpoint. That is the nature of the MoD today,for better or worse.

I have to refuse to enter any capability arguments, however, and have just reported the facts as they were told to me.

The briefing process for this decision was very organised, the sources very senior, and much of the detail behind the decision made it into this article.

As for the Paveway issue, I will be asking the question of the appropriate individuals in future. We appreciate all comments, emails, Facebook and Tweets and enjoy healthy debate, but I'll leave the opinions to site readers in future.
JS - Editor - DefenceManagement.com

14 May 2012

Having now had another foray through the comments, including my own, it occurs to me that quite a number are concerned about land base deep strike.
Is it not the case that Typhoon fitted with AESA radar and the appropriate software, as I believe is planned, could take on this task??
Graham?
Norman - UK

14 May 2012

Please see comment regards Balancing Books and over lap in this topic...
Seems to me we could have had F35C
Degradable - UK

14 May 2012

Steve R - London

The carrier program does not replace the RAF deep strike requirement rather it compliments it. We do not know if a maritime or land based strike capability will be required or as has been the case for the wars we have fought since the Falklands.. Both!
An RAF with 7 E-3D, 5 Sentinel, 3 RC135 Rivet Joints, 14 A330 MRTT, 8 C-17 and 22 A400M and a combination of enhanced Typhoon and JSF is as much part of our expeditionary warfare capabilities as the RN with a carrier battle group. We need the specialisation that both services bring to have the full range of options in any scenario. Neither service can sufficiently do the job of the other to replace it and so both need an indigenous capability.
While we maximise effectiveness through joint force structures they are not replacements for the specialisation of each service.

Norman - UK

"Is it not the case that Typhoon fitted with AESA radar and the appropriate software, as I believe is planned, could take on this task?? Graham?"

Not on its own no. It needs to be partnered with JSF as otherwise we will have the choice of a high casualty rate or not deploying enhanced Typhoon against a modern Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) with full coverage by something like S400 and modern combat aircraft. Yes the Typhoon could achieve sufficient degradation of an enemy IADS so that air dominance is achieved but at what cost? With JSF the RAF has much higher survivability on the first day of war and can assist Typhoon in the highest threat environments reducing loses and increasing the chances of air dominance being achieved quickly. The RAF needs both these aircraft to meet the challenges of the 2020's out to the end of the 2030's when Typhoon at least will be replaced.
Graham - High Wycombe

14 May 2012

@JS - Editor - DefenceManagement.com

I understand why you don't want to get caught up in the cats n traps debate.

But I'd love some insight into why the ships seem to require intrusive modifications fit something that should have been allowed for in the design. Unless of course the requirement to have the option to back fit cats n traps was removed. If it wasn't and our new MoD is looking to behave with more fiscal responsibility then why are they not looking to the contractor to absorb the cost these intrusive mods, as they should have been allowed for in design and covered in the Project cost.
E - Dubai

14 May 2012

Graham, many thanks. Now I see why you so strongly advocate a buy of both A and B.
Norman - UK

14 May 2012

The sage of the Royal navy carriers is not over yet!I`am sure there will be more twist and turn`s before these ships are launched/bought into service.
The only thing that is worrying about reverting to the F35B`s, is if the aircraft is grounded for any reason/prolonged time the RN will looses its entire strike capability ,where if you had a "Cat & traps" carrier different aircraft could be flown off it!
Ian L - Norwich

15 May 2012

Norman - UK

"Graham, many thanks. Now I see why you so strongly advocate a buy of both A and B."

I wonder if the way forward is a split buy of B and C models? If RAF operate C model, they get same payload capability with extra range and UK gets the added bonus of a carrier capable aircraft when/if the QEs are fitted with cats & traps. UK could then also slowly send RAF and FAA pilots on exchange with US carrier group to relearn the art of naval aviation. The difference in cost between A and C models is minimal while the difference in range is significant. Maintenance is unchanged.
AW Employee - Yeovil

15 May 2012

Graham, eminently sensible. Would help bridge a gap between flying the B and eventual fitting of Cats and Traps which will have to happen to fly off any X47 or Taranis type aircraft. I understand that it has been stated that Taranis would have a world wide capability but launch from sea rather throws in an element of uncertainty for potential adversaries??!!!
Norman - UK

15 May 2012

Norman UK

I suspect Cats and Traps for the carriers is now dead. The costs are just too high even during build stage when their is access to compartments. Costs of refitting completed ships will be much higher. I expect the F35B may have airframe life extensions or we may get some under utilised US airframes so we can plug on with these ships for a few more years. Maybe some future STOBAR capabilities could be accomplished with the F135 engine in a UCAV airframe.
Expat - Dubai

15 May 2012

@Joel Thanks for some proper journalism that is a welcome antidote to much of the commentary on CVF.

Obviously BAE did a great job of pulling the wool over Labour's eyes when they said that CVF could easily be converted to C&T - and they should be punished for it. STOVL made sense when EMALS was unproven and the only alternative for cats on a non-nuke carrier would have been installing donkey boilers to power them.

This business of reengineering EMALS for 2 rather than 4 seems..a bit odd Have you heard any explanation on that? It makes you wonder how much the new-build Converteam option would cost in comparison.

I'm sure people will flap at the £100m cost of the U-turn, but much better that you measure twice and cut once when you're talking about things that you think cost £500m and could end up costing 6 times that. That and the prolonged T26 design phase have Bernard Grey's fingerprints all over them, one of his key recommendations in his report was spending more money before Main Gate, to better nail things down before commiting to spending the big bucks. It's come too late for some of the big projects that already have mistakes locked in, but it does seem to be making for better decision making. We'll only know for certain with the benefit of hindsight though.

Just on the Paveway thing - it is utterly bonkers to set up a separate supply chain/pilots for a separate class of aircraft just for the sake of one weapon like that. How many 2000lb weapons have we actually fired in the last 20 years? How many had to be carried internally?

People are assuming that the current weapons stockpile will stand still, which is equally unreasonable. If 2000lb-sized bangs are that important, the prevalence of F-35 means that it will be worth designing weapons to fit in the bomb bay. So you will end up with an 1800lb model of Paveway VII, perhaps with a two-stage warhead if you want extra penetration. Ditto with JSOW.

@Norman - your "semi-conventional landing" is known in the trade as
shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) - and yes, the RN are very keen on it, have persuaded the USMC of its merits, and a pot of money has been allocated for the necessary trials.

@Gary - Newport
It's no good wishing the Harriers back - they're gone. We are where we are, which means that regardless of B or C, we're reliant on other carrier navies for any training we want to do whilst we wait for F-35 to arrive. Going with B means that we get our own F-35's three years earlier - and our pilots get to train with the USMC and Italians rather than the USN and the French. Not a biggy. And even if it "operates differently to partner nations" - so what? In fact it doesn't, it looks awfully like an America LHA, except big enough to have a meangingful air group. Don't forget the second biggest fleet of aircraft carriers in the world belongs to the US Marines....
El Sid

15 May 2012

El Sid

Its not a separate type the A and B are both F-35 with the same supply chain!

Even if we developed a weapon to fit into the B model internal weapons bay we would still be restricted on range.
Graham - High Wycombe

15 May 2012

I am openly going to show my lack of technical knowledge on this,BUT,if the Russians,Chinese and Indians are going to be able to fly their non STOVL SU-35's off their ski ramp equipped carriers,is it merely a power matter that prevents the F35C from doing the same off ours with TRAPS only?
Howard N - Farnborough,UK

16 May 2012

Looks like the Italians are fighting over who gets to operate their F-35B the air force or navy, looks like the only solution is going to be a joint force.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120515/DEFREG01/305150010/Italian-AF-Navy-Head-F-35B-Showdown?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Graham - High Wycombe

16 May 2012

El Sid .... many thanks. I now seem to recall seeing something of this on Gabrieles blog. A British embyo system now being developed by others again. I expect it was Gabrieles blog that implanted the thought in my mind.
Certainly no requirement for this in Ark IV with Phantoms and Buccaneers!!
Norman - UK

17 May 2012

To anyone who thinks there is any chance of the F-35B facing cancellation:

"Panetta reiterates support for F-35B" - 17 May.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/panetta-reiterates-support-for-f-35b-and-mv-22-371994/

"The Marines need a fifth-generation fighter for the future, and they will have it"
Graham - High Wycombe

17 May 2012

@ El Sid
Read my post before issuing a convoluted reply.

Buying more of the C variant could mean the RAF could utilize this asset from day 1. An advanced group could also train with the USN whilst the carriers are made ready.

Like it or not, defence strategy is still based on lessons learned from the Falkands. Of course it is still debatable whether such a war would have started had Hermes not been sold & Thatcher acted on earlier intelligence reports.

In simple terms the F35B needs to get closer inshore which then makes the whole carrier group a far easier target. Had the Americans not supplied the Stinger missile, the harrier wouldn't have had the edge over that of the Argentine fixed wing.

What if the U.S develops new missiles which only fit the internal bays of the F35C? USMC doesn't care because they have ordered more C variants and only need the B to perform one role.

The bare bones of the argument is that the B will work out more expensive, so why not procure the better option for the lifetime pay off.
Gary - Newport

18 May 2012

Gary - Newport

"Had the Americans not supplied the Stinger missile, the harrier wouldn't have had the edge over that of the Argentine fixed wing."

What gave the Shar the edge over the Argentine fixed wing is two fold and nothing to do with Stinger.

1. The then new AIM-9L Sidewinder delivered direct from US stocks.
2. The decision of the Argentines to concentrate on air to ground operations and hence give their aircraft almost no air to air capability.

I think you are confusing Stinger with AIM-9L sidewinder in your post.

Also the F-35B still has considerably more range than the Harrier and we can operate it further away from the coast than you think although not as far as with the F-35C agreed.

Also we will integrate ASRAAM and Meteor not the US. Same with Paveway IV, Brimstone and almost certainly SPEAR.

Have a look at the RUSI commentary on comparing the F-35C and F-35B

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4F6C9D5A2F291/

On the question of the RAF operating the C variant the problem with that is that the C model is almost as expensive as the B whereas the A model is by far the cheapest and so would offset the cost of the B models we buy. Also it would meet RAF requirements in terms of range and internal payload.

I would say the best outcome would be

2 F-35B FAA squadrons.
1 F-35B RAF squadron to provide carrier surge and expeditionary capability.
2 F-35A RAF squadrons to provide deep strike alongside enhanced Typhoon (It may be possible to get away with a single large squadron of 15-18 a/c as opposed to the standard 12).

Any OCU could be a joint service effort and be entirely F-35B as you can qualify for the A model with the B model and it also increases the surge capacity if necessary for the carriers having the OCU operating the B model.
Graham - High Wycombe

18 May 2012

Unless my memory is failing, the original concept for the carriers was that they would operate the F-35B but have flexibility built in for future cat and trap operation. Having to carry out 290 major and 250 minor modifications to compartments suggests that the original claims re flexibility of design and the actual design/construction were a mismatch. Where does the fault lie for this?
Peter Morton - Aylesbury

18 May 2012

Graham I apologise but I think you have missed my point:-

1. Correct I had meant the Sidewinder, the Stinger also made its debut in the Falklands with one Pucará shot down.

2. "The decision of the Argentines to concentrate on air to ground operations and hence give their aircraft almost no air to air capability"

There was no real need Graham, their primary aim was get one of the carriers. Had they have been successful we would have lost the war.

"The F-35B still has considerably more range than the Harrier"

However you will see from the Libya conflict, it is not just about range… loiter time is far more important these days. The airframes are to have many sensors and it is best to utilise these whilst in theatre.

Plan to integrate ASRAAM and Meteor.

The experience of Aster has taught me that it is not always guaranteed to be successful. I for one would prefer to mirror the USN and save on procurement costs.

Meteor for example:-

Modification will need to be made to the fin span and air intakes to be compatible with the air-to-air stations on the F35.

Nobody knows what the RAF requirements for range/internal payload will ultimately be.

It is however far more economical to operate one model, plus I really doubt the U.K will procure that many F35's.

RAF/ FAA sharing one platform mean that the carrier group is always stocked and interchangeable. However without cats and traps we have lost the chance to ever launch E-2 Hawkeye.

I'm still not convinced that the B model will be cheaper in the long run! No one complained when the Tories mothballed the current carriers, so I don't understand this 3 year justification for operational requirements.
Gary - Newport

26 May 2012

The arguments of F35 a,b,c is not the problem, the problem is a complete lack of a credible policy for the defence of the UK. We cannot pick the right mix planes ships etc without a proper plan of what we need, what we want these forces to do and a budget large enough to achieve it over 20 or so years. Also giving up the stupid system we have of saying we need 10 of this or 20 of that, when we all no we shall get about half of the numbers we need costing twice as much as planned, and then kidding ourselves by saying we have 'force multipliers' or the ability to be in three places at the same time, sadly we are on a downward spiral of declining influence both military & political, lets hope it does not take a war to snap us out of it.
David Stutley - uk

26 May 2012

I seem to recall reading some years ago before Labor signed off on the CVF contracts, was that in the design stage it was possible to go either way with what was required....traps or ramps. Once the decision was made and the construction commenced it would seem reasonable to say it would become a major problem to scrap a portion of the work done and just turn around and change it. Also cast your minds way back to just after WW2 and the rebuild of the HMS Victorious to operate the then modern jets, with new steam catapults, angled flight deck and mirrored landing systems...I recall from my reading that there was much over optimism for this as being a cheap out to building new purpose designed carriers for the job. There were massive cost overruns and delays and it put the Government and RN off further projects. The RAN had similar problems with the rebuild of the incomplete HMS Majestic/HMAS Melbourne , to the extent the HMAS Sydney did not get the same rebuild.

Twenty -thirty years down the track the CVFs if they ever get into RN service are probably going to face some kind of rebuild to operate a future generation jet...who knows it might be a VSTOL UCAV or a Manned CTOL...god knows. So they could get a slight or massive rebuild....and BAE allowed for that. What they didn't bargain for was a Government who didn't have a clue what they were doing (bad advice or not)insisting on a mid build reconstruction after key components had already been ordered or
fabricated.

So the carriers should have been ordered as cat and traps in the first place? Okay, but they weren't. Live with that and make the best of it.

The Harriers and Strike Carriers should not have been scrapped until the QE and F-35B were ready to stand up. Agreed. But that wasn't the fault of the previous government who never intended for there to be that gap. That was the doing of the Cameron Government mere months after they got in and even less time after they had basically told the Navy the capability was safe...see the speech given to the crew of Ark Royal during their Canada visit in 2010. As much as we would like that decision turned back ...it won't happen. HOWEVER with the US cutbacks perhaps the USN and Marines could be convinced to welcome a substantial number of UK pilots and deck handlers aboard one of thier ships at the UKs expense to maintain some semblance of qualification in fixed wing carrier ops. after all they were going to take on a few for CTOL operations weren't they?

Now the F-35B is back on the books, they are not going to have to rip apart QE to rebuild her or redesign the PoW. You might actually be able to afford some more jets now.

Recently saw images of F-35 doing weapons stores trials on external pylons. Okay that defeats the point of stealth but it gives you options on how you drop your bombs and missiles doesn't it, according to the threat?

Argentina flying state of the art Su-35s with similar missiles? Beyond thier dreams and your nightmares, Argentinas economy, military and military production is even older, smaller and more disfunctional than yours, thier hopes and Chavezs boasts aside.

So let's stop harping on past decisions already made and acted on, be thankful they (might) not make a further mess of things and that the Navy might actually get a strike capacity back by 2020 not 2030.
Craig Lynch - Australia

16 June 2012

The key thing to remember here is that BAE Systems has a 15% stake in the F35. The US Government underwrote the cost of purchasing and fitting the Emals to the QE Class at 856 Million, BAE then quoted the Government a cost of 2.2 Billion - a 1.3 Billon difference? Of course with the Emals fitted the MOD would have the option of purchasing a cheaper aircraft such as the F18E to operate from our carriers, plus of course we could also purchase the E2D Hawkeye! BAE would then loose Billions if the UK cancelled it's F35 order, and of course there would be no requirement and funds forthcoming for them to develop the 'Crowsnest' AEW System to be fitted to the Merlin Helicopter. This may just be an innocent co-incidence, but until I see a full and detailed explaination of the difference in the cost of Emal installation quoted by the US Government and BAE respectively, I'll continue to wonder if the tail is wagging the dog in the UK corridors of power????
Paul Courtenay - UK

03 July 2012

If the Italians can see 'jointness' is wrong, why can't the UK?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120702/DEFREG01/307020002/F-35-Base-Sharing-Plan-Defuses-Spat-Between-Italy-8217-s-AF-Navy?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

20 July 2012

"---So we are not missing any capability as a result of the slightly smaller internal weapons bay on the STOVL aircraft. The external hardpoints mean we can carry the same weapon load externally on the STOVL variant as we can on the carrier variant."

If you are planning to use externally mounted weapons on the F-35B, then there is no point in getting a stealthy aircraft (5th generation), because the external weapons sacrifice all of the stealth advantages.

The smartest thing for Britain would be:

Produce a navalized version of the Typhoon including a stronger engine, thrust vectoring and stronger landing gear. Put a ramp and arrestor wires on the aircraft carrier (STOBAR). This is a lot cheaper and easier than refitting a catapult.

You would get a carrier with a superior fleet of aircraft. Each Typhoon has a higher weapons load than the F-35B and is more lethal in air-to-air combat.
kikl - Germany

27 July 2012

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065969970&channel=defence

'Initially' 48 for the carriers means the UK cannot field both carriers with effective fast air groups. It is likely around 12 of these aircraft will be used for trials and training, at best that means one carrier with 36 (all mass press releases quote 'up to 36 F-35's'); or two carriers with a mix of these numbers.

What about the GR4 replacements. As I mentioned earlier in previous posts, the Alpha version would be a fit-for-purpose replacement; though the MoD will have to consider if the sufficient numbers of Bravos for two full carriers are not ordered in subsequent orders; then the UK will not realise the CVF's full capabilities. I still would prefer a twin engined jet vis the Lightenings, but the UK has chosen it route (for now anyway).
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

10 August 2012

i was thinking about the pro's and Con's of us buying F35B over the C model of the jet, even though i think we've bought into a jet that appears to be becoming the biggest and most expensive joke in avaition history, but i digress. is the F35B capable of In Flight Refueuling? and if so what system is going to be used? as at present the RAF as is widely known only uses the probe and droge system, are we going to have to out source this to companies like Omega if god forbid we ever get into a wartime situation where the jets need to be tanked up ingressing and egressing from a target? from what i have read in various military aviation magazines the F35B has a smaller combat radius than both the A and C variants of the Jet, so why buy this? just t0 save a few pounds? and what happened to the much vaunted conept of interoperability of our allied Naval aircraft? no now we are limited to our f35B and USMC AV8B's. where is the logic behind it beside saving a few pounds?
Peter Dimmock - United Kingdom

27 November 2012

I've heard that the Aussies have slated it and given it the thumbs down!!
john elwick - Doncaster ex RN. NA1 AH3

09 January 2013

Issue is the F-35, it is FAR too expensive, and in simulations vs Sukhoi-33/35 it loses, why? Because it is not an air superiority fighter. For the sake of money alone we should got for Rafale, it would be cheaper to buy now, let alone to fact the cost per airframe would drop if we order say 100 from Dassault. We should then convert both carriers to CATOBAR operations. The conversion would not be as expensive as threatened by BAE (BAE wants F-35B model due to its stake in it). CATOBAR will also allow us to fly E-2 Hawkeye plus American/French jets. Rafale is superior to B model in load and range. Range being the key, since the short range of the B model would put the carriers in increased danger from land attacks.
EDWARD J F KEY - University of Nottingham