- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Hammond to receive UK's first F-35
19 July 2012
The aircraft, BK-1, completed its first test flight in April after assembly was completed in November 2011 and will be officially received by the Defence Secretary during an event at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility.
There have been concerns over the F-35B in recent months following several highly critical reports by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) warning that flaws being discovered during testing would require years of back-engineering on aircraft which had already been produced.
"I have assurances at the highest levels that this is a program that is now on track," Hammond told reporters at the Pentagon on 18 July. "It's a program that's doing very well."
"It went through a period 18 months or so ago when it was placed on probation because of some technical difficulties. It's come out of those. The aircraft, the B variant now has over 1,000 hours of flying time clocked up, the US Marine Corps is successfully flying it off maritime platforms, which are ships, in plain English.
"And I know that this is a project that is extremely important to the future of the US Marine Corps. And I also know that the administration understands the crucial importance of this aircraft variant to our own carrier strike regeneration project, which I should place on record, the U.S. administration, the Department of Defense, has been massively supportive of and is providing us with all sorts of facilities to maintain and regenerate our capabilities to operate the carrier flight deck and to maintain the skills in our pilots, many of whom are now flying with the US Navy and Marine Corps to keep those skills alive."
The joint strike fighter programme achieved six out of its 11 important objectives in 2011, but a GAO report last month found that the developmental flight testing programme was just 21 per cent complete and that only 4 per cent of mission systems had been verified.
Of the five major technical problems identified with the STOVL variant, just two - bulkhead cracks and excessive loads on air inlet doors, have been redesigned or given long-term solutions. Others, including an overheating lift-fan clutch and the unexpected thermal expansion of the airframe and engine during flight, have been given temporary fixes.
The Government Accountability Office also warned that work on developing the aircraft's 24 million lines of code was incomplete and that deficiencies with the aircraft's advanced helmet-mounted display were "most problematic".
Responding to the warnings in the report, Hammond said: "If you ever buy a house and you get a surveyor to do a structural survey, you will never, ever buy the house if you read the structural survey.
"We've got past the phase where the focus was getting the plane flying and proving it, and we're now at the stage where the customer is seeking to drive the cost down," he said.
"…I'm not saying all the work's been done, all the hitches have been ironed out – of course they haven't - - there's lots of development work lots still to do. Maybe some of the sceptics will change their minds when they see it fly."
HAVE YOUR SAY
19 July 2012
If we must buy the F35, and PPE graduate treasury plant Hammond, thinks we must, perhaps we could keep the Illustrious and Ark Royal active until the QEs are ready, so we can fly the F35s of them to keep the FAA active with fixed winged assets in the mean time?
It would seem logical, and get the coalition of a hook, as the decision to scrap the Harriers and carriers prior to the QEs being ready was clearly nonsense.
PS: Don't write off the STOBAR Typhoon for the QEs just yet - the F35B is not out of the woods yet, nor is the coalition.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
19 July 2012
STOBAR Typhoon will never happen.
RNR - UK
19 July 2012
Martin,
The only possible use Lusty will see with an F-35 is tests similar to those on the USS Wasp recently.
For the UK testing could include ski-jump ramp launches, SRVL and how to mitigate surface damage due to exhaust gases. These need to be started from a UK perspective before QE is ready around 2016 and so Lusty can be of use until then helping gather data and get issues resolved in advance of 2016.
We will only have three preproduction a/c over the next few years and the UK in service date is going to be after the first QE has entered service by which time Lusty will be gone.
Graham - High Wycombe
19 July 2012
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
The issue with HMS Illustrious, is her recent conversion to LPH, to cover HMS Ocean whilst she is in refit, by the time Ocean is returned to service (if she does), HMS Queen Elizabeth will have been launched, will the Royal Navy go to the expense of reconverting Lusty back to a CV(L), with the cost implications and the time it would take?
HMS Ark Royal, last time I was in HMNB Portsmouth (last Tuesday) is rusting away in the harbour and I do not see a reprieve for her, though your comment makes sense to me.
Seaphon though .. . . lets not go there again, 10 years to late.
Rob - Telford
19 July 2012
Martin the STOBAR Typhoon will never happen. I keep telling you it is just a paper drawing and an idea right now. Factor in development time and extra costs you are talking an even longer protracted development time.
You keep raising this pipedream with no grasp of the problems of development.
HamishUK - GB
19 July 2012
A recent report by the Sun Newspaper indicates that the F35B is still under threat in US Defence Cutbacks. I have heard that from other more reliable sources. But, I can't really see it being axed at this stage. The typhoon is a definite no no. It's F35 or nothing.
Paul - UK
19 July 2012
F35 will be fine. It is the two carriers that worries me. We must have both if they are not replacing Ocean.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford
19 July 2012
Paul - UK
Suggest you read the following link, Panetta seems pretty certain that all F-35 variants are essential.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120718/DEFREG02/307180009/U-S-U-K-Defense-Chiefs-Call-Furthering-Partnership
Graham - High Wycombe
19 July 2012
I wait with baited breath to see Mr Hammond drive down the cost if hes only buying 1/3 of the original planned order. Everyone knows the price will rise considerably- if its not expensive enough already!
The F35 is definitely not out of the woods yet, if the USMC buy less or its cancelled, which is entirely possible if the automatic budget cuts are triggered in the US.
Let alone the fact the aircraft hamstrings the the RAF and the FAA on WAT issues and only 30% of its landings will be vertical, therefore reducing its use on the Carriers, it has only some 4% of its mission systems verified.
No one doubts that the F35a will eventually become a formidable asset for the US, but the US navy has already asked for tenders for a F/A XX and the f35B will never ever fit the OR unless they alter it and always will be a compromised disaster.
There is an affordable option but for some reason best known to Hammond, the MOD didn't even look at it properly. That story will come out in time, when it does, I would think will be in for a new government.
Tim Dainton - Romsey
20 July 2012
Wonders what the price of Hammond flying out for this photo op is in serving-infantryman-man-years?
Jeremy - Newcastle
20 July 2012
Tim Dainton - Romsey
F/A-XX is a USN clique pipe-dream there is no chance of it going ahead as planned, there is no budget being proposed now or planned for in the future, it has no support beyond a small USN lobby in the pentagon, with sequestration the only choice for some time for all three services is JSF like it or not. The USN will have no choice but to get behind F-35C which they will do increasingly.
The F-35B is being given the top priority of the three variants and will be a formidable aircraft. The problems in development are only symptomatic of the fact it is a very advanced aircraft but they will be overcome.
Graham - High Wycombe
20 July 2012
Sun's article re speculation of F-35 Fighter/bomber project's cancellation:
- "Aircraft barriers- (PM) facing new ships humiliation", July 16-2012:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4431570/PM-David-Cameron-could-be-facing-fresh-humiliating-U-turn-on-new-aircraft-carrier-designs.html
Links to additional information supporting Sun's article's speculation:
1) "(US) Navy admiral hints at jettisoning F-35 fighter", July 10-2012:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/10/navy-admiral-hints-at-jettisoning-f-35-fighter/
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=130
2) - July-2012 article by US Navy Adm Jonathan Greenert implying US Navy abandonment of support for the F-35 Fighter/bomber project:
"Payloads Over Platforms- Charting A New Course", (July-2012 Proceedings Magazine):
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course -
"We need unmanned payloads that expand the reach of today's platforms both for sensing and attack. And we need volume (IE: high numbers) in our platforms to accommodate the people and equipment for new missions.... "
3) Stealth Aircraft's vulnerabilities to detection using unconventional methods:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2001-12/stealth-threat
4) F-35 Fighter/bombers' current and projected operating and maintenance costs are through the roof!!-
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35-nearly-doubles-in-cost-but-you-dont-know-thanks-to-its-rubber-baseline/ :
"... On page 11, (of the US's Government Accountability Office's June-14-2012 report*, the) GAO cites (the US's Department of Defense's) DOD's goal for the (escalating) operating, logistics and support costs ('sustainment') of the F-35 fighter (is)... : $35,200 per flight hour...
"... (the) GAO says the program is experiencing 'excessive time for low observable (radar-evading/stealth characteristics) repair and restoration, low reliability, and poor maintainability performance' (page 17)...
"... The (US) Air Force's 'ownership' cost per flying hour for the F-22 (Fighter/bomber) in 2010 was $63,929****...
"It is that amount that should serve as the starting point for considering plausible F-35 operating costs..."
* http://gao.gov/assets/600/591608.pdf
**** (" Project on Government Oversight (POGO) ")
http://www.pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/08/03.xls : scroll down page to section of document titled " F-22A "
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada
20 July 2012
In fact Hammond has just announced that the UK will order it's fourth F-35B next year.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-to-order-fourth-f-35b-next-year-hammond-says-374552/
Graham - High Wycombe
20 July 2012
The F35 is transatlantic politics, and when compared to a combination of a tranche 3 avionics fit STOBAR Typhoon and the first generation of Taranis production variants in a decade or so the F35 is nothing like as advanced/effective/cost effective/beneficial to the UK. This is just the UK transatlantic vested interests attempting to keep the UK tied to US interests at the expense of the UK tax payer and indigenous industry. Of course Blair/Brown were mindless White House lap dogs, Cameron looks to be the same, Ed Milliband, if he ever gets rid of the Blairite dinosaurs in his shadow cabinet, might over rule the paradigm where the F35 is concerned and go for the STOBAR Typhoon/Taranis UCAV combo, and leave the US to sorts its own mess out.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
20 July 2012
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
If you think Ed Miliband is any different to other career politicians then you are sorely mistaken, they are all as bad as each other, my main concern with Milliband is he is a Union stooge and owes his position as leader of the labour party to the Unions, his brother would have been a much better choice.
STOBAR Typhoon would take too long to develop and if it suffered only half of the problems that the Russians encountered when they tried converting their aircraft to STOBAR (Mig 29 / SU 25 / SU 27)then it would take years to get it into service and cost billions of pounds, you seem to be under the mis conception that you just park the aircraft on the carrier, fly up the ski jump and bobs your uncle, please read into the problems encountered when trying to convert Land based aircraft into carrier.
Rob - Telford
20 July 2012
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
Still banging on about STOBAR Typhoon! Besides the developmental costs of the aircraft, what about the cost of converting the carriers to EMALS etc. This is already supposed to be too expensive. The government will also have to make another U-turn on the original U-turn. F35B will be pushed through with a limited number of aircraft ordered regardless of the cost.
RNR - UK
20 July 2012
Rob - Telford
Yes a STOBAR Typhoon would require development, but BAE have already completed years of work on such a solution.
And given the price differential between the Typhoon and F35 that is opening up, it could be afforded.
The F35B has so many issues, it is not truly VSTOL, its range and payload is limited by the STOVOL requirement so we will need more of them to equal the capability given by a CATBAR or STOBAR alternative.
For example, the F35B in US marine service will not use a ski jump (can't understand why not) so the F35B is not cleared for ski jump launch without the UK spending its money on ski jump qualification. I did hear that its weapon hard points were not stressed/cleared for ski jump launch at the moment - so you can take 20% off its range straight away.
I many ways new build and developed Harriers may well have been more capable than the F35. The so called F35 stealth advantage is more or less obsolete now. Take that away and a Harrier Mk III could approach the F35 performance operationally. The supersonic performance in the strike roll (the F35's alleged primary role) being irrelevant for strike, high subsonic speed being more important (see Tornado vs. Buccaneer).
The SOBAR Typhoon is a very real prospect and should have been the front runner. It is only politics that dictated otherwise.
I take your point re Ed Milliband, although he has been making the right noises recently, I am trying to be hopeful.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
20 July 2012
RNR - UK
All a F35B capable carrier would require to be STOBAR Typhoon capable would be the fitting of arrestor cables, not as expensive as fitting the CAT.
An angled flight deck would be a good idea for the F35B or STOBAR Typhoon. Please don't say we are going for a straight flight deck and hence back 60 years in carriers acrhitecture!
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
20 July 2012
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
Trust me, I am not a fan of the F35B, I would have much rather we had gone for the F35C out of the two. I know I am probably going to get shouted at but in my opinion Naval Typhoon should have been started ten years ago if that was the way we wanted to go, I personally would have probably opted for Super Hornet (cheaper / proven and capable) and CATOBAR when we initially announced the new carriers and certainly not the F35B. However the decision has been made and the F35 is the direction we are taking.
Rob - Telford
20 July 2012
At the rate it is going the pilots who will start training on it soon will no longer be in the forces when it enters operation duties with HM forces.
Why bother with it, it has taken so far 16yrs from initial contracts to get to the stage were we get our first developement aircraft. How much longer before we get a squadron, if we can still afford that many, into service?
JC - UK
20 July 2012
Rob - Telford
We can agree that the Naval Typhoon should have staretd 10 years ago, I am just of the view it's not too late.
F18, excellent aircraft and all, but would require CAT, perhaps it could do STOBAR, but if we were going to develop an aircraft as STOBAR then we may as well make it one of our own.
Of course if we were going to have CATS, then the F35C or F18 would do fine, although F18 would have the edge in my view.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
20 July 2012
Graham-High Wycombe.
You seem to assume that the F/A XX will be something other than a F35. I do not, If anything it will be a F35C PLUS.
I simply said they are looking at it and it has Preliminary funding to look at replacing late model F18 E/F/G models. As to whether it is funded further, is anyone's guess.
Everyone is missing the point here, yes sure the F35B is a step change (MOD phase, not mine)over whats gone before but, strategically it is a sideways step. We could have had so much more.
From the conversations Ive had with people in the US that really do know what they are talking about, I actually think Mr Hammonds enthusiasm is based on hope rather than real life facts.
Tim Dainton - Romsey
20 July 2012
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
I would have gone CAT's and TRAP's from the go, I would want my airgroup to do more than take off, circle the battlegroup once then have to land, F-35C or Super Hornets could do that.
Rob - Telford
20 July 2012
Rob-Telford,
Thats exactly my point, the choice of VSTOL was flawed from the start.
Even though the Harrier was an exceptional aircraft and the way the RN & RAF used it was a credit to their professionalism. I'm fairly certain even Mr Sea Harrier himself, would would agree that Strategically, it falls short of the capabilities of a full CATOBAR carrier, with fixed wing AEW and purpose built fast jets.
Tim Dainton - Romsey
20 July 2012
Tim Dainton - Romsey
Rob - Telford
The gap between the F-35B and F-35C is less than you both make out so while I agree that the the F-35C has a greater payload and range in fact the F-35B will still be able to carry all the weapons internally we want with the exception of the 2,000ib EPW-2 and as we will be using a 240m long take off run with ski-jump ramp it will be able to take off full load and have a range not that far off the F-35C while SRVL means it can land without dumping unused weapons or fuel. Also it has the ability to be deployed ashore without the need for a full runway like the Harrier.
An important point to note is that the USMC doesn't have to operate the F-35B the same way as the RN will as they will have F-35C operating from CBG's so the USMC will operate the F-35B close in shore to support the Marines as they want a high sortie rate they are not worried about range or bring back whereas we will. So the RN will operate the F-35B very differently mitigating the differences between the variants as we have to whereas the US doesn't.
Tim, forget F/A-XX, sequestration has killed it not the JSF so the USN has no choice but to get behind the F-35C and as they realise how good it is they will buy into it, JSF is safe.
Graham - High Wycombe
24 July 2012
Graham - High Wycombe
I can't help myself, I still think the investment in converting both Carriers to EMAL's would have been worth the investment, I know the defence budget is tight, but for a 50 year service life of the carrier, I am not convinced that we will not have to go down the conversion route at some point in the carriers lifetime, surely it would be easier (and cheaper) now.
Hark at me waffling on, I do know that the decision has been made and there is no point going on about it. F35B is the chosen aircraft and I'm sure the FAA and RAF will make good use of it.
Rob - Telford
25 July 2012
Nothing like the F35 to generate a debate. I was reading the Germans Typhoons took out a few f22's at red flag.
I guess we won't be seeing our F35 on UK soil soon but it would be interesting to put it up against a few of our existing air assets before we commit.
Will the f35b still be dumping most of its unused ordinance in the drink before landing? Or has that been solved.
Expat - Dubai
26 July 2012
Maybe if the F35 fails, this could be a reality. Dust of a few.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avbIcbCG5Rs
Luv those old jags.
resupply and AEW. To big perhaps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk
casa295 tho?
Expat - Dubai
26 July 2012
Is it really true that the F35 is 4 times louder than other jets during takeoffs? Might make appearences at airshows interesting?
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford