UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[neptune]

..... Let the RAF ponder their future as they must - I don't care.

....point to consider; encourage the RAF to buy as many "Bees" as possible, thereby making their price lower (by volume) and later when the RAF realizes they have no foreign runway on which to land the "Bees", the RN can step in and provide the QEs to take them aboard. Eventually, the RAF will get tired of being "seasick" and yield the "Bees" to their rightful owners, "n'es pas"!!!

[spazsinbad]

'tcs' the RN did get back their FAA just before WWII (and that is why they had 'stringbags' for example - whilst look at what the RN FAA did with them so well). The 'JOINT FORCE' concept of combined Harrier ops is relatively new however; by my reckoning the RAF sabotaged that 'joint effort' with the Sea Harriers going early on and then the RAF Harriers later. All of that was to save money, with the long view in mind; but as we know the RAF cannot help themselves so all is lost in my opinion. As you say once the rot starts the overwhelming bureacrabs will outlast any lesser effort from what is at the moment a non-existent fixed wing RN FAA. I say give all the aircraft to ARMY control to teach the RAF a lesson about what it is like.

The Italians (since before change in relative numbers) had it right. Their F-35Bs would be totally separate under Navy control, with no mixing of the airforce F-35A or navy F-35B ops/pilots. As far as I know today, with smaller numbers of both aircraft due budget constraints, it is still the same setup. Give sufficient F-35Bs to RN FAA/Naval Air Service control (perhaps share the main base at MARHAM because it is being modified) and let the RAF mess about with their folderol.

ADDITION: Went to find out what mix the Italians are buying at moment (which may change in future) however this is a recent number. Elsewhere a post makes clear the Italian Navy Pilots will not mix with Air Force F-35B pilots.

Exclusive: spotlight on F-35 production in Italy
28 Nov 2016 Elmer van Hest

"...The exact numbers are debated for a considerable time already in Italy, but the country currently is eyeing 52 more F-35As for its air force, plus 30 F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variants to be used by both navy and air force...."

Source: http://airheadsfly.com/2016/11/28/f-35- ... -pictures/

GAWD here is a good 1 SENTENCE PER PARAGRAPH SLDinfo artickle [ED] about the Italian Air Force and Navy MISSION MIX:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=262846&hilit=Italian+Navy#p262846

The Italian Approach to the F-35: A Discussion with Rear Admiral Covella
08 Nov 2013 Robbin Laird

"...The head of the Italian Air Force had underscored during his interview that the 60/40 split between the As and Bs was being done because the Air Force saw the need for expeditionary flexibility. “We want to go to the mission, not the airfield.”

Question: What is your view of how the Italian Navy and Air Force will evolve in their use of the B, especially because they will be based at the same facility?
Answer: Commonality is a great way to go forward in the future. There will be two squadrons of Bs, one for the Navy and one for the Air Force. The missions are different.

The Air Force is focused on expeditionary use of the aircraft and will focus on its ability to operate off of short airfields in operations to be closer to the action, so to speak. The Navy is focused on the way we use carriers.

We do not use the carrier as the US does; we do not deploy for 6 months at a time. We need to go out and be ready to go without a significant build up time. We look at the F-35B as providing a more capable ramp up capability for the Cavour.

The two competencies are different. The Navy is focused on the ability to operate rapidly during the carrier’s operation in fleet activities as the main “ship weapon system”; the Air Force is focused on a specialized expeditionary operational focus...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-italian-appr ... l-covella/

[neptune]

'... let the RAF mess about with their folderol.

Amen!

[spazsinbad]

LOok above for the amendment addition to my last post and below for more about how Italians separate church 'nstate.

AND more on how the Italian Navy kept Harriers whilst RN FAA did not: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=232728&hilit=Italian+Navy#p232728

BELOW quotes From: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23202&p=248606&hilit=Italian+Navy#p248606

F-35 Base-Sharing Plan Defuses Spat Between Italy’s AF, Navy
02 Jul 2012 TOM KINGTON & VAGO MURADIAN

"“...Italy has confirmed a base sharing plan for its 30 Navy and Air Force short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) aircraft, which is set to save on maintenance and support. The fighters — 15 for the Navy and 15 for the Air Force — will be grouped at the Navy’s Grottaglie base in southern Italy, which currently hosts the Navy’s AV-8 Harrier jump jets....

...“The arrangement with the Italian Ministry of Defense, which issued the directive on this, was that the Air Force and Navy would put two squadrons of 15 aircraft in a single base, and we accepted to share the base with the Navy at Grottaglie close to where the [Italian carrier] Cavour is stationed,” said Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis, Italian Air Force chief. ... “Supportability is a key issue with two squadrons of 15 and 15 [STOVLs],” Bernardis said. “We think 30 is a number that is sustainable, and that is why we are going together. We will have common support and different advanced training.”

Bernardis said the two squadrons would not fall under one command, nor would Air Force pilots get into the habit of flying from the decks of the Cavour. “That is something we are not aiming at now, but in case of need, we are ready to do everything,” he said. “We don’t want a replica of the U.K. system where the [Royal Air Force] & Royal Navy Harriers are under one single line of command. The British model creates too many controversies between the two forces.

“But what is important is that we could switch JSF aircraft between the two services,” he said. “The aircraft will be owned by the two forces, but in case of necessity, the Air Force vision is that pilots from one force could fly the aircraft belonging to the other force.”...

...“We commissioned a Lockheed Martin study 12 years ago about mixed fleet capability and we think in many instances, the use of the F-35B could make the difference between having and not having a suitable runway for land operations,” he said....”

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... -s-AF-Navy [no longer working URL]

[SpudmanWP]

In a related UK F-35 note... They apparently did not know that fighters require spare parts, get upgrades, or require the bases to need the same radios as the F-35 in order to receive MADL traffic.

But The Times said the true cost of the planes delivered this year will be more than £150 million each to cover 'extras' such as software upgrades and spare parts.
The newspaper has uncovered a series of shocking failures with the new generation of warplane which raises serious questions about the project.
It found that the 'stealth' F-35 are unable to transmit data to British ships and older aircraft without revealing its position.

More BS at the jump
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aring.html

[spazsinbad]

Yes 'SWP' Brit 'news'papers give publishing a bad name. As pointed out on pprune it is likely some of the criticism (which we cannot read on a subscriber only TIMES series of articles) comes from an obvious source - GIVE THEM SOME MONEY!...

"The newest part of the military, in charge of networks and cyber-matters, must save up to £400 million this year to help bail out the rest of defence. Pressure on the budget for Joint Forces Command (JFC) is symptomatic of a failure by defence chiefs to prioritise information-sharing over the procurement of equipment such as fast jets and warships, former commanders and defence industry sources said. “Hardware has triumphed and networking and connectivity has failed,” a senior defence source said.

All parts of the armed forces have to find additional savings over the year because of a hole in the defence budget of between £1 billion and £2 billion.

The JFC, led by General Sir Chris Deverell, was created in 2011 to take charge of areas that span the navy, army and air force, including information systems. It was hoped this would ensure a greater appreciation of IT at the heart of fighting. Six years later, officials at the Ministry of Defence are aware that networking and connectivity for their two new aircraft carriers and the fighter jets that will fly off them is vital but there is insufficient funding left to buy and install the desired systems...."

[spazsinbad]

[juretrn]

On a related note to Spud's post, this gem was posted on keypub:
https://www.rt.com/uk/396521-f35-fighter-jet-problems/

Britain will press ahead with a £150 billion (US$196 billion) deal to buy 138 flawed F-35 fighter jets despite serious concerns over virtually every aspect of their capability, according to an aviation analyst. (guess who!)

RT manages to overestimate the cost of F-35 only by an order of magnitude (no kidding).
Also, some drivel by same "analyst" about how the QE class has weak Wi-Fi (???).

[sferrin]

On a related note to Spud's post, this gem was posted on keypub:
https://www.rt.com/uk/396521-f35-fighter-jet-problems/

Britain will press ahead with a £150 billion (US$196 billion) deal to buy 138 flawed F-35 fighter jets despite serious concerns over virtually every aspect of their capability, according to an aviation analyst. (guess who!)

RT manages to overestimate the cost of F-35 only by an order of magnitude (no kidding).
Also, some drivel by same "analyst" about how the QE class has weak Wi-Fi (???).

Why would anybody even bother with Keypub? It was like a YouTube comments section before YouTube was around.

[juretrn]

I lurk there for the lulz such as this.
Russia Stronk etc.

[bring_it_on]

F-35B begins new ski-ramp testing campaign

The F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force has begun a second round of land-based F-35B ski-ramp testing at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River in Maryland ahead of First of Class Flight Trials (FOCFT) on the UK Royal Navy (RN) carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth , scheduled for 2018.

The Phase 2 test programme began in June and is designed to expand the ski-jump envelope. This includes launches with external stores, increased crosswind conditions, and take offs at a range of different speeds.

The RN’s two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers feature a 12.5-degree ski-ramp on the bow. This serves to launch aircraft upward and forward, allowing the short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B to improve its payload radius.

As part of the F-35 system design and development phase, a land-based ski-ramp – modelled on the legacy 12-degree design used in the RN’s earlier Invincible-class carriers – has been built at NAS Patuxent River to support UK testing. A first ski-ramp launch was performed in June 2015, and by the end of June 2016 a total of 31 ski-ramp take offs had been performed to complete Phase 1 testing.

Test aircraft BF-01 and BF-04, both instrumented to measure landing gear loads, were used for testing with internal stores only.

According to Pete ‘Wizzer’ Wilson, BAE Systems F-35 STOVL lead test pilot, the current Phase 2 ski-ramp trials will be used to evaluate handling characteristics with external weapons including asymmetric weapon loads, crosswinds up to 15 kt, and overspeed/underspeed take-offs. “In the order of 150 ski jumps will be performed from the Pax ramp on this part of the programme,” he told Jane’s . “Right now, we’re approaching the halfway point.

Three of the five F-35B system design and development aircraft have been used for Phase 2 testing, which has to date been shared by six pilots. “At least one additional pilot will be introduced shortly, in preparation for the First of Class Flight Trials on [HMS Queen Elizabeth ] next year,” Wilson added. “We will complete by the end of the year; most likely by the end of October.

“The results will be used to allow us to take relatively big steps during FOCFT, which means we’ll get through the testing at the ship much quicker and with much lower risk.”

As well as adopting a slightly steeper angle than the Invincible-class carriers ramp, the ski-ramp on the Queen Elizabeth-class ships is a longer (200 ft rather than 150 ft) two-part projection. “The results from land-based trials remain of value, said Wilson. “We believe these results have already allowed us to improve the handling from the [Queen Elizabeth-class] ski jump profile.”

He continued: “We have predictions for how the aircraft should behave from multiple ski jump profiles, including the Pax ski jump. By comparing the results with the predictions for the Pax ski jump, we can have a really well-educated guess at how the imperfections in the Control Law should impact the other ski jump profiles. Then we can tweak the Control Law in ways that should improve the [Queen Elizabeth-class] handling characteristics.”

The F-35B flight control law mode incorporates a so-called Ski Jump Short Take Off (STO) Mode. There is no action on the part of the pilot to engage it, other than to ensure the aircraft is steered up the ski jump; rather, the mode is enabled when the Control Law detects the rotation and rotation rate as the aircraft accelerates up the ski jump.

http://www.janes.com/article/72352/f-35 ... ign=buffer

[spazsinbad]

Thanks for the extra details 'brungItBack'.

Photo: "F-35B test aircraft BF-1 seen during Phase 2 ski ramp testing. The aircraft is pictured here configured with external pylons and AIM-9X missiles. Source: Dane Wiedmann/Lockheed Martin" http://www.janes.com/images/assets/352/ ... -_main.jpg

[zerion]

Lockheed Martin respond to claims in the Times regarding F-35

Your coverage of the F-35, “Trouble on Deck” (July 17), does not accurately reflect the current status of the programme, the aircraft’s capabilities, nor the detailed responses we provided to your questions.

We simply do not recognise your cost estimates, nor agree with the way you arrived at them. The costs of the jet continue to fall contract-to-contract with the most recent Lot 10 contract in February representing a 62 percent reduction in the F-35A price from the first contract in 2007. The F-35B that the UK is procuring is on a similar cost reduction curve that will ultimately bring the price of a 5 th generation F-35 down to that of older 4th generation fighters.

Many of the programmatic issues raised in your coverage are historic and have long since been addressed. The performance of the F-35 speaks for itself and the best people to ask continue to be the operators and maintainers who understand the aircraft’s full potential and capability – not long time critics who have nothing to do with the programme.

For example, earlier this year the former lead of the F-35 Integration Office, Brigadier General Scott Pleus said in an interview with Business Insider that “the capabilities of the F-35 are absolutely eye-watering. The airplane has unbelievable manoeuvring characteristics that make it completely undefeatable in an air-to-air environment.”

The F-35 is combat ready and already making a game-changing difference to the defence of a number of nations. We are in absolute agreement with the assessment of Wing Commander Beck – who has had a key role in testing this jet – that it is “the best aircraft [he has] ever flown” and we are proud of the contribution the jet will make to the defence of the UK, the US and our allies around the world.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/lockhee ... ding-f-35/

[XanderCrews]

Fake news gets told

[spazsinbad]

HMS Queen Elizabeth’s extended stop at Invergordon explained
19 Jul 2017 SaveTheRoyalNavy

Best Read Story at source....

Source: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-que ... explained/