Letter Raises Possibility U.K. Could Return to STOVL F-35 in The Royal Navy Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Letter Raises Possibility U.K. Could Return to STOVL F-35

Author	Comment
SpazSinbad		#41	[-]
Posts: 874 Mar 8 12 1:09 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	'Red Admiral' I don't believe that once JPALS is tested and in service that your comment "The problem is that you can't rely on using JPALS to autoland" will be the case. Time will tell. The accuracy & reliability of JPALS (if correct as indicated in the PDF above) will enable 'autoland' (for Super Hornet and F-35C) under most conditions I believe. JPALS will be relied upon for UAV 'autoland' (another topic altogether - also covered in the PDF). [https://skydrive.live.com/]?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791 & [http://www.]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
	Remove this ad
Red Admiral		#42	[-]
Posts: 2675 Mar 9 12 7:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	SpazSinbad wrote: 'Red Admiral' I don't believe that once JPALS is tested and in service that your comment "The problem is that you can't rely on using JPALS to autoland" will be the case. Time will tell. The accuracy & reliability of JPALS (if correct as indicated in the PDF above) will enable 'autoland' (for Super Hornet and F-35C) under most conditions I believe. You still need a reversionary mode for when JPALS is unusable. Changes to the CLAW etc. as mentioned previously, are hardwired into the aircraft so even without JPALS it's far far easier to land.
SpazSinbad		#43	[-]
Posts: 874 Mar 9 12 9:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There will be many 'modes' including 'autoland' AFAIK. Pilots today don't like complete autoland because it is usually uncomfortable physically and as it does not count for deck landing score they prefer to land manually from around the quarter mile/260 foot mark. JPALS is slated to be on tap all the time, especially the near carrier component which is hosted by the carrier itself. Anyway might be moot according to this report. JPALS needs to be 100% reliable for UAV use, there will be no other way to get them aboard. U.K. Reviewing Lockheed’s F-35B Model, U.S. Official Says By Tony Capaccio and Gopal Ratnam - Mar 10, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/...-s-official-says-1-.html "The U.K. is reconsidering its 2010 decision not to buy Lockheed (LMT) Martin Corp.’s F-35B jet, said U.S. Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet, program manager for the Joint Strike Fighter. Asked in an interview if the U.K. is again interested in the F-35’s short-takeoff and vertical landing model, Venlet replied: “That is under consideration.” If the U.K. decides to buy the F-35B, it would be a boost to Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed, as well as the U.S. Marine Corps, which is the major customer for the airplane. In January, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted a yearlong probation on the B model, which is the most complex of the three F-35 variants. At an estimated $382 billion to produce different models for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the F-35 is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program. In October 2010, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, who is scheduled to visit the U.S. and meet with President Barack Obama March 13-14, announced that Britain wouldn’t buy the F-35B model. Instead, the U.K. expressed interest in the Navy’s aircraft carrier version, which is projected to be cheaper than the short-takeoff and vertical landing model. The U.K.’s reconsideration of the F-35B model is a “relatively new development” driven by “national U.K. financial constraints and what it costs” to modify its two future Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers so they could carry the U.S. Navy’s F-35C, Venlet said after a presentation to a Credit Suisse conference on defense programs yesterday in Arlington, Virginia. U.K. Review The U.K. Ministry of Defense said it is currently completing its budget for 2012 to 2013. “As part of this process we are reviewing all programs, including elements of the carrier strike program, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed,” the ministry said today in an e-mailed statement. “The defense secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament before Easter.” Those modifications to the carriers may include adding catapults, arresting gear and other equipment needed to operate the F-35C, he said. “There is a cost” to making those changes “and I think they are re-analyzing” if they should buy the short-takeoff model instead, Venlet said. “I have told them at various levels of the government, we are with you whatever you need,” Venlet said." [https://skydrive.live.com/]?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791 & [http://www.]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos Last Edited By: SpazSinbad Mar 9 12 9:15 PM. Edited 1 times.
Nauticus27		#44	[-]
Posts: 985 Mar 9 12 9:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	SpazSinbad wrote: ... http://www.bloomberg.com/...-s-official-says-1-.html "The U.K. is reconsidering its 2010 decision not to buy Lockheed (LMT) Martin Corp.’s F-35B jet, said U.S. Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet, program manager for the Joint Strike Fighter. Asked in an interview if the U.K. is again interested in the F-35’s short-takeoff and vertical landing model, Venlet replied: “That is under consideration.” ... Hmm. Well, the decision to swap to the C was certainly taken in haste, and it's probably fair to say that the realisation of the sheer scale and cost of what that decision means in practice has bitten the Govt on the bum somewhat. Fact remains though that politically it would be very, very difficult to swap back now, not least because they have boxed themselves in with the statements they have made about the B and the previous administration's decision to go with that version. We shall see.
istobie		#45	[-]
Posts: 2780 Mar 9 12 11:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Can't see it as as far as I'm aware, the ski jumps have been deleted and would need to be reintroduced, plus the cat and trap integration work would need to be undone. But hey; whatever happens, I don't give a toss as long as we get enough aircraft on deck at some point. What's ISD for the B model? Could we have a STOVL carrier in service by 2016 with a few B's?
Nauticus27		#46	[-]
Posts: 985 Mar 10 12 12:02 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	istobie wrote: But hey; whatever happens, I don't give a toss as long as we get enough aircraft on deck at some point. What's ISD for the B model? Could we have a STOVL carrier in service by 2016 with a few B's? I have some sympathy with that view, even though I'm clear we should stick with the decision that's been taken and the C is a better aicraft for the roles we'd need it to fulfil (including Tornado replacement). At least the C model pretty much means you have to have some aircraft embarked a fair bit of the time to maintain currency (automated whizziness notwithstanding). If we went back to the B we could find ourselves back in a situation where it's an annual three day visit just off Scarborough by four airframes and a photographer.
istobie		#47	[-]
Posts: 2780 Mar 10 12 12:58 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	C is a better choice for the country as a whole- a better strike platform for the RAF and a better aircraft for the FAA - however for carrier work, B would be way cheaper (no rework costs on the carriers, no worries over buddy buddy refuelling and no carrier qualifications or much reduced requirement (RAF pilots managed a first time landings after a fifteen hour flight during the first FI conflict in 1982) Going B would appear to save a billion and a half minimum. I'm not convinced going C makes any difference to the availability - just as easy for the RAF to say "we need them here, doing this.." and have us end up with a problem doing carqual things. The only antidote to this all is to buy enough airframes to satisfy the competing requirements. I'd sooner have C and hitting "reverse" at this point would be political suicide however
Thorvicson		#48	[-]
Posts: 302 Mar 10 12 1:53 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	You know there is the possibility the UK could actually try and go both ways, go with PoW and CATOBAR with F-35C due 2020 or later, and in the meantime get a nominal number of F-35B to run off QE as their stopgap. I suspect having the 2 F-35B being delivered this year whilst new doubts emerge over when the F-35C will be ready for duty may well have refocused their attention. I do get the feeling its not the conversion costs thats the real issue as they had already estimated those in the 800mill - 1billion last summer, i think its that bugbear of having to announce converting PoW and not having it operational till after 2020, whilst QE gets delivered 2016, does sea trials and then does secondary work till replaced by PoW. They would sooner make a slight back track over F-35 types than announce that Queen Elizabeth will be a toothless terror, put into retirement when Prince of Wales is ready as the press will have a field day relating what they do with the ships in terms of the Government attitude to the Royal Family. As a long term solution the conventional carrier with F-35C is best way to go to meeting our carrier strike requirement for force 2020, but a littl compromise in the meantime gives them a short term fix. Personally i would have preferred to see a Super Hornet or Rafale interim solution to get the FAA back to sea with Catobar aircraft even if its onboard our friends carriers, but you can see them reasoning making use of the B and QE whilst they can as long as the B can meet a 2018 IOC of course !!. The reality is they are probably studying all options, weighing up the pro's & con's then waiting the next 9-12 months to assess how the F-35C is progresssing and what its cost and IOC are expected to be, i Would be surprised if we heard anything at Easter bar support for the F-35 program in general to keep LM & BAE from having kittens if anything negitive was announced
SPD67		#49	[-]
Posts: 80 Mar 10 12 10:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	One thing I don't understand about this is what these "reversals" actually mean in practice. It sounds like a political statement with no real legal or contractual consequence. The only aircraft we've actually contracted for are the three demonstators. The British industrial participation is in the overall program and not linked to which model we buy. I would have thought the UK only needs to make a decision when actual production orders are placed. Would there be any actual downside in using QE as a STOVL carrier for a few years until her first refit? If the USMC just bought 20 year old Harriers from us surely they could be persuaded to buy back some F-35Bs in the mid 2020s.
Graeme65		#50	[-]
Posts: 727 Mar 10 12 8:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	So we sign carrier cooperation agreements with the French and US Navies, having stated that the previous government planned to buy the wrong aircraft as it was not compatible with our principle allies, then we see that this may cost a bit more this parliament and immediately switch back to, the in their words, 'wrong' aircraft. It does beg the question what happens if the F35 runs into further delays and cost rises, having returned to a ship design that is totally dependant on one fighter. Do we renegotiate for cats a second time! Is the UK going to develop a UK only VSTOL UCAV or are we locking CVF out of such vehicles for a generation or more? How do they spin reversing SDSR 2 years on? We were newly in office and really didn’t understand what we were doing. UK governments really do have a talent for making major programmes look like a shambles.
	Remove this ad
Nauticus27		#51	[-]
Posts: 985 Mar 10 12 8:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thorvicson wrote: You know there is the possibility the UK could actually try and go both ways, go with PoW and CATOBAR with F-35C due 2020 or later, and in the meantime get a nominal number of F-35B to run off QE as their stopgap. I suspect having the 2 F-35B being delivered this year whilst new doubts emerge over when the F-35C will be ready for duty may well have refocused their attention. ...They would sooner make a slight back track over F-35 types than announce that Queen Elizabeth will be a toothless terror, put into retirement when Prince of Wales is ready as the press will have a field day relating what they do with the ships in terms of the Government attitude to the Royal Family. ...The reality is they are probably studying all options, weighing up the pro's & con's then waiting the next 9-12 months to assess how the F-35C is progresssing and what its cost and IOC are expected to be, i Would be surprised if we heard anything at Easter bar support for the F-35 program in general to keep LM & BAE from having kittens if anything negitive was announced I think you may not be too far out there. Certainly the Govt is acutely aware of the embarrassment potential of a lengthy gap between vessel commissioning and aircraft availability. Pressure from the Treasury will presumably be to do nothing - we've had a gap, a longer gap is neither here nor there they'd say. But an interim B acquisition could be an elegant solution. We wouldn't need many as the intention is only to field an initial 6 then 12 in the early days, so even a lease of 18 or so airframes might permit that, passing back to USMC idc. More likely than an interim Shornet acquisition given at least a degree of airframe and sensor commonality and benefit to UK manufacturers, as well as permitting deployment on QE. And being a temporary fix, less politically difficult than a wholesale switch back An alternative might be lease of a few Rafale M, in which case physical co-location and pooled maintenance would make sense. No ability to field from QE and no commonality, but could bridge a gap on PW if the C ISD drifts markedly to the right. Probably all pie in the sky but what are these boards for if not to idly and harmlessly speculate. Also like you say, a pause to see how things develop is probably likely. Last Edited By: Nauticus27 Mar 10 12 8:51 PM. Edited 1 times.
Colin Mc		#52	[-]
Posts: 1265 Mar 11 12 3:42 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The F35 saga has been a dog's breakfast. Fox was the problem. He had his own agenda. He wanted me-too carriers. So we had the spectacle of F35Cs being announced in the SDSR without any real change to the CVF operational scenario - even eight Apaches! The delay involved in fitting cats gave them the excuse that the carriers would not be complete until the 2020s which meant there would be aircraft to fly off them and they would not have the spectacle of carriers driving round without planes - there had already been some scoffing in the press, in fact you hear it still. The SDSR was changed at the last minute without the word getting through to the Press Office which was still pushing out the timetable which we actually got back to quite soon afterwards. You couldn't make it up. And so we have the cycle completing with a return to STOVL. But what I think is being missed is the politics of it. The Coalition came to power with a plan to front-end all its legislative programme in the first half of the parliament allowing the second half for economic recovery and the electorate to get used to things. Crucial to this is the splurge of sweeteners from Osborne, pre-election. But the project is off-course. Recovery has not been as quick as anticipated. They have to be able to afford those sweeteners; they are important for the retention of power and the personal careers of the politicians involved. Money will be garnered in from all over. Borrowing will not be a solution because it lays them open to a Labour charge of hypocrisy and also exposes them to a hit on the country's credit rating. So, where for instance could the government find ...Oh, say £1.2bn and not hurt anyone - in fact improve the situation with more work and no downside? OK the F35B will cost more but that can be managed later, once back in government. So if you are a politician with a five year horizon and desperate for re-election, it is a bit of a no-brainer. Just my opinion, it is all I've got. But I am rarely right. Clearly, RN F35Bs could operate from a Spanish or Italian carrier. I presume they could land and take off from US Marine carriers and indeed US CVs too, it is just that CVF could not host CATOBAR. That might be a problem for the French or at a stretch the USN but how would it affect the RN?
wavewalker		#53	[-]
Posts: 51 Mar 11 12 12:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If the F35B flies off QE in 2016, what AEW would be available? Or is that out of consideration for a stop gap solution?
Graeme65		#54	[-]
Posts: 727 Mar 11 12 1:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Musing on this makes me wonder if we are looking in the wrong place. Its not the ships that are driving this, but the aircraft. A bit of additional money spent on keeping manufacturing and design teams off the dole and in work is potentially a good thing in the current climate. Also lets be brutally honest, if something the government really cared about, like the banks, needed 10 extra billion they would get it immediately, never mind 1.2 billion. If the F35 C faces possible delays, due to the hook issue, then the logical option should be F18. But that ignores the reality that the aircraft are an RAF buy. Is it just as simple as the RAF being determined to have a stealth fighter (and the UK to buy an aircraft with some UK content) and equally not to have a Typhoon/F18 mix which they would rightly see as bringing nothing new to them other than carrier capability. They prefer the C with its longer range and payload but if that is not available at the right price and in the right time frame then the next best is the B. The carriers simply have to be finished to the requirements of the aircraft. So if the hook is a simple fix stay with the current plan and spend a bit more. If the C gets slipped sideways then take the B and the political embarrassment and save a little as a bonus. I see no logic in not going cat and trap, the USN and French Navy will deploy CATOBAR UCAVs, new generation Hawkeye and COD platforms and we will be left out of step with expensive UK only programmes or nothing, but that’s am embarrassment for a future administration not the current, so why should they worry.
wavewalker		#55	[-]
Posts: 51 Mar 11 12 2:03 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	i'll place my bets on a couple (50 or so) of F35B's for the 2 carriers and F35A's (let's say a 100) for the RAF.
Anthony58		#56	[-]
Posts: 4104 Mar 11 12 2:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	To do that SDSR will need to be changed for a larger RAF, where is the funds?
istobie	Sea	#57	[-]
Posts: 2780 Mar 11 12 2:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	wavewalker wrote: If the F35B flies off QE in 2016, what AEW would be available? Or is that out of consideration for a stop gap solution? Sea King or whatever follows it - no change in effect - it'd be the same whatever was selected - B or C, there's no money in the budget for E2 as far as I'm aware so whatever happens, we'll have a heliborne radar of some sort.
wavewalker		#58	[-]
Posts: 51 Mar 11 12 2:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hmmm, I thought the UK was going for "proper carrier strike"? Is that possible with a helicopter born AEW?
Thorvicson		#59	[-]
Posts: 302 Mar 11 12 3:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	istobie wrote: wavewalker wrote: If the F35B flies off QE in 2016, what AEW would be available? Or is that out of consideration for a stop gap solution? Sea King or whatever follows it - no change in effect - it'd be the same whatever was selected - B or C, there's no money in the budget for E2 as far as I'm aware so whatever happens, we'll have a heliborne radar of some sort. They are actually reviewing their options at the moment, a Merlin based system is an option, but like many programs its under review and is not likely to be decided this side of the next SDSR. I have seen a quote from an Admiral responsible that they are reviewing thier options in light of the switch to CATOBAR and they may even take a capabilitiy gap following the retirement of the Sea Kings until the new carrier is operational. Basically we ain't going to see much movement on this till after SDSR 2015, it may be helo based, it may be ucav, it may even be fixed wing as the other aspect that needs to come into the equation is the Carrier cooperation agreements as they firm up along with the closer interaction with both the US & France forces. It could well be E-2 but possibly as part of a pooled resource than an outright squadron of aircraft.The only thing that is certain is that they are keeping their options open and costs at a minimum at present, and we're not going to see confirmation of their plans till the 2015 SDSR or later
istobie		#60	[-]
Posts: 2780 Mar 11 12 3:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	wavewalker wrote: i'll place my bets on a couple (50 or so) of F35B's for the 2 carriers and F35A's (let's say a 100) for the RAF. That's total fantasy if you're talking of a decision announced any time this year. We'll be talking about an order for less than forty being formally announced - and remember, the later in sequence we order F35, the cheaper it gets - we're facing a steep price hike right now as the US has moved about 120 orders into the future, delaying the start of full rate production. Low rate initial production orders are getting cheaper, block by block but right now, ordering F35x will be several tens of millions more expensive than ordering later. We have about 36-38 production slots reserved for the UK and those are LRIP orders - contractually I believe we're obliged to execute on those slots or give them up around 2015which is where the SDSR announcement will kick in. Any announcement this year will relate to what aircraft are to be ordered, and what arrangements will be made to support them - in other words, CATOBAR OR STOVL if there is any actual debate and which carrier will be fitted out - all this stuff seems relatively straightforward and I doubt there'll be any stunning revelations. Any talk about interim solutions is nonsense - anything we buy, we're stuck with - spending a couple of billion introducing a new aircraft type just to cover a two or four year gap isn't going to happen. Either we put a STOVL carrier in the water in 2016 and proceed from there with B or wait a couple of years more and get C.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Letter Raises Possibility U.K. Could Return to STOVL F-35