UK to ditch F-35B for Superhornet

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Oct 2010, 20:55

More up to date JPALS briefing here (1.3Mb PDF): by CDR J.B. Hornbuckle, USN PMA213

http://www.afceaboston.com/documents/ev ... -26.08.pdf

GRAPHIC from above PDF:
Attachments
JPALSaccuracy2008pdf.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post09 Oct 2010, 21:37

spazsinbad wrote:... and that capability is being demonstrated as part of the Northrop Grumman X-47B Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program..."


Again I ask the question, does the F-35B have a tailhook and.... does the F-22?

With JPALS being demonstated in 2011 and an Advanced Arresting Gear set being delivered for the CVN 72 RCOH (Feb 2011) it begins to relate that AAGs with JPALS may be coming earlier than CVN 78. With JPALS identifying the plane weight and monitoring the fuel and ordinance load, "coming aboard" with AAG at 60 kts. is very reasonable. JPALS is designed to provide the "hook" in a 3 meter square box. The Navy requires horizontal and vertical accuracies of less than 15 cm (5.9 inches), with integrity assurance of no more than 1.1- meter (3.6-foot) error in 10 million landings. The Marine Corp SRVL on a US Navy ship could employ JPALS and AAG in the SRVL, (unlike the Brits) "if" it has a tailhook. If it does not have a tailhook; then "moot point". Also, the "Bees" and "Seas" are also flight testing at Lakehurst, NJ, the home of the CVN 78 Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). :idea: :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Oct 2010, 21:37

OLD news but...

Naval Aviation News July–August 2001 p.7

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 01text.htm

"On 23 April aboard Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) guided this F/A-18 Hornet from the Naval Strike Aircraft Test Squadron, NAS Patuxent River, Md., to the first global positioning system, fully automated landing at sea. Improving on the current radarbased system, the JPALS provides constant three-dimensional coverage around the ship for up to 100 aircraft within 200 nautical miles. It can be used aboard amphibious ships and during emissions-control conditions. Production is expected to begin in 2007, with fleet introduction by 2009."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Oct 2010, 03:24

Some Brit Insight into TomFoolery with Super Hornets on CVFs:

I Am Puzzled September 13, 2010

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/09/i-am-puzzled/

"In the Guardian yesterday was a piece from Richard Norton-Taylor, the papers Security Editor, in which he describes how the MoD is planning to add ‘cheaper plans and catapults’ to reduce cost from the F35B.

It’s a rehash of the F18/Rafale/F35C story from a few weeks ago and therefore likely complete nonsense, but in the pre SDSR news vacuum any bit of tat qualifies as ‘insight’

I do wonder why our defence journalists just repeat tittle tattle rather than ask questions, like these for instance:

How does changing the design and construction of CVF at this late stage save money
How does adding several hundred million pounds for catapults save money
How does maintaining those catapults for 40 years save money
How do the extra catapult maintainers wages, pensions and other costs over 40 years save money
How does the extra cost of maintaining perishable carrier operations skills save money
How does scrapping the 3 F35B’s we have purchased as part of the operational evaluation phase save money
I am puzzled how adding cost reduces it, either in short term or long term.

Am I being thick?" :P :twisted: :roll: :shock: :D 8)
Last edited by spazsinbad on 10 Oct 2010, 03:25, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post10 Oct 2010, 03:24

neptune wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:... and that capability is being demonstrated as part of the Northrop Grumman X-47B Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program..."


Again I ask the question, does the F-35B have a tailhook and.... does the F-22?

With JPALS being demonstated in 2011 and an Advanced Arresting Gear set being delivered for the CVN 72 RCOH (Feb 2011) it begins to relate that AAGs with JPALS may be coming earlier than CVN 78. With JPALS identifying the plane weight and monitoring the fuel and ordinance load, "coming aboard" with AAG at 60 kts. is very reasonable. JPALS is designed to provide the "hook" in a 3 meter square box. The Navy requires horizontal and vertical accuracies of less than 15 cm (5.9 inches), with integrity assurance of no more than 1.1- meter (3.6-foot) error in 10 million landings. The Marine Corp SRVL on a US Navy ship could employ JPALS and AAG in the SRVL, (unlike the Brits) "if" it has a tailhook. If it does not have a tailhook; then "moot point". Also, the "Bees" and "Seas" are also flight testing at Lakehurst, NJ, the home of the CVN 78 Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). :idea: :)


The F-35B does not have a tailhook. Not room for one with the swivel mechanism for the real nozzle. The F-22 like all air force planes does, but it is smaller and much weaker than a carrier hook.

As for JPALS, it is an excellent backup device if something happens to the pilot. That being said, the chances of it being used operationally are slim. Unless there is a reason, they are not going to risk landing proficiency.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post10 Oct 2010, 06:47

With regards to Spaz's "I am puzzled" post...

It would likely have to come down to a 15-20 Life Cycle Cost review comparing two scenarios.

Let's say the Unitary Procurement Cost of the initial RN F-35B fleet buys averaged $195m. For the same initial buys, let's say the SH PUC was $115m. Then one has to compute the 15-20 yr operational Life Cycle Cost estimate between both acquisitions. For argument sake, let's say the initial F-35B block III sqd comes in at %15-%20 higher then said hypothetical SH air component. Now subtract these costs from the estimated added up-front costs of modifying the initial CVF configuration to CATOBAR or EMALS. Answer that question and the Guardian would have a pretty good story to report. imho.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post10 Oct 2010, 08:44

spazsinbad wrote:Some Brit Insight into TomFoolery with Super Hornets on CVFs:

I Am Puzzled September 13, 2010

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/09/i-am-puzzled/

"In the Guardian yesterday was a piece from Richard Norton-Taylor, the papers Security Editor, in which he describes how the MoD is planning to add ‘cheaper plans and catapults’ to reduce cost from the F35B.


I'm just puzzled why oin earth anyone would read the Guardian for an insight into defence matters!
I'd never knoen a paper to consistantly get it so wrong on such matters, you've only got to look at thier Iraq war coverage to see that. From memory it went something like "unwinnable quagmire!!!" repeated 10000x)

Anyway i'm pretty certain, like 99% sure that it will still be F-35B flying off the decks. The last report I read that said otherwise was by Robert Fox which is reason enough itself to cast it off as utter BS.
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1336
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post10 Oct 2010, 15:52

As for JPALS, it is an excellent backup device if something happens to the pilot. That being said, the chances of it being used operationally are slim. Unless there is a reason, they are not going to risk landing proficiency.


You’re confusing the JPALS approach guidance system with the individual aircraft’s auto-land capability. JPALS is not the auto-land portion of the system, it provides the positional accuracy which allows an aircraft to use its onboard or remotely directed (in the case of a UAV) auto-land capability (the red "easy" button). Auto-land is an autopilot and flight control function, JPALS is an approach aid that assures the auto-land occurs exactly where you want to be.

Auto-land capability may or may not be used very often, but JPALS is NOT a backup device. JPALS approach guidance in some form, based on GPS with LAAS, WILL be used operationally by not only the Navy, but also the USAF, Army Aviation and Civil aviation, including the airlines. It will be used by fixed wing, powered lift & and rotary wing aircraft across the board.

It provides approach guidance, whether or not you have a tail-hook and whether or not you’re doing a vertical landing, SRVL or a standard approach. How you stop the aircraft is a whole different subject.

I believe, in fact, the civil version of it is already in use at Memphis and is proposed for Newark and eventually many other major airports.

It provides incredible approach positioning accuracy whether the approach is terminated with a manual landing or an auto-land.

OL
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Oct 2010, 20:44

No Super Hornets mentioned in this speculation:

David Cameron ‘rules out slash and burn defence cuts’ Robert Fox and Martin Bentham 08.10.10

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... ce-cuts.do

"David Cameron has intervened to prevent “slash and burn” cuts to the Armed Forces after holding a private meeting with defence chiefs.
The Prime Minister is understood to have decided that there will be no reduction in the operational strength of the Army while the fighting in Afghanistan continues.
He has also agreed that both of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers will be built and that, instead of implementing widespread and large-scale cuts immediately, a “rolling review” of defence spending will take place over the next two years. Key decisions on the future strength of the Army will also be put off until 2015 — which Mr Cameron has set as the deadline for a British withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister's intervention over cuts to the Ministry of Defence's £37 billion-a-year budget came during a private summit with defence chiefs held after a meeting of the National Security Council yesterday. He is understood to have emphasised his determination to minimise the impact of cuts on the Armed Forces.
“It is not going to be slash and burn,” one source said. Details of the Government's plans will be announced in a strategic defence and security review — due to be published the week after next, the day before the outcome of the public spending review is revealed.
The decision to go ahead with both new aircraft carriers is understood to have been taken partly because contractual commitments mean that it would be equally expensive to cancel one.
Plans to use vertical take-off aircraft on the carriers have been abandoned, however, and cheaper jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire will be used instead. The second carrier might also be converted from its conventional use to operate as a “floating platform” for commandos.

The Navy is also expected to be allowed to buy new frigates for 2020, and the Royal Marines will be retained instead of being merged with the Army's Paratroop Regiment, as some reports had suggested. However, the helicopter budget is expected to be reduced by as much as £1 billion. Ministers are expected to insist that this will not affect operations in Afghanistan.
All the planned changes are subject to confirmation at a final meeting of the National Security Council prior to publication of the defence review.
PM has realised the world is a more dangerous place
At last, the Prime Minister has taken charge of the radical overhaul of defence and foreign policy, though not in the direction previously advertised.
Chairing a session of the new National Security Council yesterday he and senior ministers put the final lick of paint to the Strategic Defence and Security Review due to be unveiled on October 19 — a day before the voice of doom of the Treasury, George Osborne, announces the Comprehensive Spending Review.
The timing is the clue. “The review document will be very thin, a statement of intent more than definitive plan for cuts,” a Westminster insider said last night.
The plan now is to have a rolling review looking at all aspects of defence management, the armed forces, and equipment procurement, over the next two years or so. There will have to be some cuts, though nothing on the scale previously suggested. One of the target areas is the helicopter budget. The number of machines will be reduced. The Trident replacement will be delayed by a year or two, but will go ahead in one form or another — as will the aircraft carrier programme, though with a different variant of the Lockheed Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
These are mere details compared with the overall change of strategy the Prime Minister appeared to agree at the meeting yesterday. What has changed? First the Americans became alarmed that after appearing in Douglas Hurd's words “to punch above its weight,” Britain under the Hurd protégé David Cameron was preparing to punch well below its weight.
Second, defence industry warned Cameron that the Treasury's scorched earth plan for cuts would wreck defence manufacture, which employs directly more than 300,000 skilled personnel.
Finally, the world is a far more dangerous place than even when Mr Cameron went through the door at No 10 in May. Hot spots are breeding, and at least six of them hint of wars and violence that touch vital British interests.
It is no time for British defences and defence capabilities to be lowered — whatever the Treasury audit clerks may say. Mr Cameron appears to have got the message."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post11 Oct 2010, 08:01

It's yet another Robert Fox article, don't read much, if anything, into it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Oct 2010, 04:49

Navy to get aircraft carriers despite defence cuts Richard Norton-Taylor and Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 October 2010
Senior ministers and military chiefs agree on outcome of strategic defence review after weeks of intense debate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/1 ... fence-cuts

"The navy was said to be happy with the outcome, although it remains uncertain what and how many aircraft will fly from the carriers - and when.

The navy will get its planned two new aircraft carriers at a cost of more than £5bn in a package of defence cuts agreed yesterday that will shape the future of Britain's armed forces for many years to come.

After weeks of intense debate centred around the carriers, the outcome of the government's long-awaited strategic defence and security review was agreed by senior ministers and military chiefs at a meeting of the national security council, chaired by David Cameron.

It agreed that the RAF will lose squadrons of fast jets and bases and the army will get rid of scores of large tanks and heavy artillery pieces. Last night the navy was said to be happy with the outcome, although it remained far from certain what and how many aircraft would fly from the carriers – and when.

The prime minister will announce the results of the review to parliament next Tuesday, the day before the government's comprehensive spending review.

The review's shadow was always hovering over a debate about Britain's future defence needs, which both government supporters and critics said was dominated by the Treasury.

To try and distance the security and defence review from Wednesday's package of cuts William Hague, the foreign secretary, or Liam Fox, the defence secretary, will publish a ministerial statement on Monday setting out what Downing Street calls "the strategic context" of the defence review.

The prime minister's spokesman would not officially comment on the national security council discussions, which lasted around an hour, saying only that "very good progress" had been made.

Fox is under pressure from the Treasury to address a £38bn overspend in the Ministry of Defence procurement budget over the next 10 years. The Treasury is demanding a further 10% in cuts in Fox's annual £37bn budget over the next spending period from 2011-15.

Last night the Telegraph reported that Air Chief Marshal Timothy Anderson, director general of the military aviation authority, told MPs the cuts would mean the UK "would be unable to respond effectively to a 9/11-style terrorist attack from the air"....
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Oct 2010, 20:19

No Super Hornets mentioned here:

Talks on where to slash the navy go down to the wire Published Date: 13 October 2010 By Michael Powell Defence correspondent

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Ta ... 6578772.jp

"TALKS to decide the scale of cuts to the Royal Navy are set to go down to the wire after another meeting of senior ministers and defence chiefs ended inconclusively.
The National Security Council, chaired by Prime Minister David Cameron, met for the third time in three weeks yesterday to consider how to plug a £38bn black hole in the defence budget.

It was supposed to be the final meeting before announcing cuts to the defence budget.

But, despite 'good progress' being made, officials could not rule out further last-minute meetings ahead of next week's deadline.

There are fears the Strategic Defence and Security Review is being rushed and will herald unprecedented cuts to the navy.

The 'strategic context' of the cuts will be revealed on Monday. On Tuesday, details of spending cuts will be unveiled - ahead of the government's Comprehensive Spending Review on Wednesday.

But some key decisions are still to be finalised and the Ministry of Defence said the date is flexible and may be pushed back.

After yesterday's meeting, a Downing Street spokesman said: 'Good progress is being made and there is a good measure of consensus.'

Asked if the SDSR has now come to an end, he said: 'We wouldn't rule out further meetings.'

It comes after The News delivered a letter to Number 10 on Monday calling for the SDSR deadline to be extended. It was signed by top-ranking navy officials, experts, MPs and campaign groups.

Talks have centred on whether to build both of the navy's new £5.2bn aircraft carriers, which will be based in Portsmouth.

Naval chiefs and MPs have lobbied hard to keep both carriers. But the second carrier, due to come in service in 2018, could play a reduced role.

It's believed the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to be built for the aircraft carriers could be reduced from 138 to about 70, halving the £10bn contract.

The aircraft would be based on the first carrier, with the second carrier either being redesigned as a helicopter or troop carrier or put on a state of 'extended readiness'.


There are fears saving both the carriers will mean deep cuts to the rest of the fleet. It's been suggested the number of warships could be halved and the project to build new Type 26 Frigates delayed or cancelled. All amphibious craft could also be axed, posing an uncertain future for the Royal Marines.

HMS Sultan in Gosport could be saved if the £14bn scheme to relocate Ministry of Defence training centres to St Athan in South Wales is axed.

Our response
The government is looking to make deep, devastating cuts to the Royal Navy.

In response, The News has launched a Hands Off Our Navy campaign.

We do not think the Royal Navy should be immune from any cuts. We recognise difficult decisions will have to be made.

Neither do we think the Royal Navy should be spared over other armed services.

What we want is for the government to halt this hasty review and take more time to consider its defence options based solely on strategic needs, rather than letting the Treasury intervene.

Too few politicians appear to understand the important role the navy plays in maintaining our way of life. That's why we say more time needs to be taken by the government before rash decisions are taken.

The News sent an open letter to 10 Downing Street, accompanied by a dossier of evidence spelling out the important role of the Royal Navy and why it must remain a strong force for good."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Oct 2010, 04:24

Still more speculation until TUESDAY I guess: [Perhaps only 40 INITIAL F-35Bs will be ordered]

'Who the hell has ever heard of an aircraft carrier with no jets?': Defence chiefs' reaction as the iconic Harrier is axed By Simon Walters And Christopher Leake 17th Oct

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z12aAHAWqU

"Two new aircraft carriers will be deployed ­without jet fighters after the iconic Harrier jump jet is axed in defence cuts this week.

The ships, due to enter service in 2014 and 2016, will ­operate with no jets until 2018, leaving a ­gaping hole in Britain’s military firepower and potentially putting the Falkland Islands at the mercy of a fresh Argentinian invasion.

Instead the Royal Navy will be forced to use helicopters on the £2.5?billion super-carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

The decision has caused anger among defence chiefs. ‘It will make us an international laughing stock,’ said one. ‘Who the hell has ever heard of an aircraft carrier with no jets?’

Former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West said last night it would be ‘nonsensical’ to scrap the Harriers before their replacements, US-built Joint Strike Fighters, were delivered.

Lord West said: ‘If, God forbid, the Argentinians invade the Falklands, it would be totally impossible for this country, even if we had an Army of ten million, to do anything about it.’

The Harriers, the only jet fighters capable of vertical take-off and landing, played a vital part in retaking the Falklands in 1982.

The Ministry of Defence denied that scrapping them would render the new carriers useless.

An official said it was ‘not viable’ for the RAF to maintain four jet fighters – Harriers, Tornados, Typhoons and the Joint Strike Fighter.

The decision will be announced by David ­Cameron on Tuesday as part of the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review. It will come as a major blow to RAF Cottesmore in Leicestershire and RAF Wittering in Cambridgeshire, where the fleet of 72 Harriers is based.

The cuts follow bitter wrangling between Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox and Chancellor George Osborne, who wanted the £37?billion defence budget slashed by up to ten per cent.

Dr Fox argued for a four per cent cut. Mr ­Cameron was forced to intervene, and they agreed on a cut of around seven per cent.

At one point, Dr Fox feared he would be forced to scrap one of the two super-carriers. He saved them both, but the Navy will lose a large part of its surface fleet, with a reduction in the number of bigger ships, such as frigates, from 24 to 16.

And when the Joint Strike Fighters finally arrive in 2018, there will be far fewer of them. The initial order for 138 has been cut to just 40...."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post17 Oct 2010, 07:11

Not to worry. Everything will be just fine. Wait and see how things make out in 5 or so yrs, then we'll see...
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post17 Oct 2010, 15:06

Easy way around this, transfer the Harrier completely to the RN. Then the RAF won't have to worry about the Harrier or the JSF.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests