UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24082
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Jun 2016, 04:47

ALL I can get doods...
U.K., U.S. Explore F-35 Partnership In Britain
"U.S., U.K. talk up training and logistics plans for joint F-35 basing in England"
23 Jun 2016 Tony Osborne

"During the 2020s, both Britain and the U.S. will begin building up their fleets of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) in the U.K. The U.K. will be one of the first countries within the growing F-35 community where U.S. JSFs will be based alongside aircraft operated by other nations, and senior leaders from both countries are looking into the potential benefits this could bring. Britain pledged in its Strategic Defense and Security Review published last November to purchase 138 ..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/military-govern ... ip-britain
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: 24082
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Jun 2016, 11:09

AvWeak have come good for the freeloaders such as moi regarding above.... LONG ARTICLE BEST READ AT SOURCE.
U.K., U.S. Explore F-35 Partnership In Britain
U.S., U.K. talk up training and logistics plans for joint F-35 basing in England
23 Jun 2016 Tony Osborne

"During the 2020s, both Britain and the U.S. will begin building up their fleets of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) in the U.K.

The U.K. will be one of the first countries within the growing F-35 community where U.S. JSFs will be based alongside aircraft operated by other nations, and senior leaders from both countries are looking into the potential benefits this could bring.

Britain pledged in its Strategic Defense and Security Review published last November to purchase 138 aircraft, all to be based at RAF Marham, while the U.S. Air Force plans to station up to 54 F-35As at RAF Lakenheath as part of the future configuration of its 48th Fighter Wing.

As a result, Eastern England could see one of the greatest concentrations of F-35s anywhere, with as many as 192 jets located with 20 mi. between the two stations.

While achieving this full complement is at least a decade or more away, working groups have been set up to establish how the two air arms could work more closely, in areas such as training, airspace sharing, maintenance, logistics and sustainment....

...The two nations have established steering and working groups to meet in a quarterly forum designed to maximize benefits from the partnership. Co-chairs are a United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE) major and an RAF squadron leader.

“It is not just about logistics and sustainment, it is across the board. It is operations, maintenance, and it is training. You name it, we are looking at it,” explains Lt. Col. Tim Trimmell, deputy director of USAFE in the U.K. “We are figuring out what makes sense and how to operate together.”

An obvious benefit is an idea to network the planned F-35 simulators at both Lakenheath and Marham so USAF and U.K. Lightning Force crews can train together despite sitting 20 mi. apart. There are a number of network and security issues to overcome, however....

...Airspace for training is likely to present a major challenge, however....

...“I can pretty much take up that same airspace with an F-35 four-ship, so when we start talking about putting multiple four-ships out of Marham or Lakenheath, the U.K. simply isn’t big enough,” he pointed out. “If the U.K. itself was a range, we would struggle.”

Smyth also suggested some elements of training were being handicapped by security concerns over the potential of adversaries listening to electronic emissions....

...The U.K. also is working closely with the U.S. Marine Corps, and it is likely the service’s F-35Bs will operate from Britain’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers as mentioned in the Marines’ 2016 Aviation Plan.

Officers from both countries believe there is potential in the new relationships that could emerge with both countries operating the F-35, even down to closer integration of exchange officers, according to Novotny.

“The goal would be that, ideally, after the aircraft are all settled, an American pilot who lives at Lakenheath—whose kids go to school there—gets in his car, goes to Marham and flies an F-35B as an exchange pilot; and an RAF pilot—whose family lives at Marham—drives to Lakenheath and flies an ‘A’ model,” says Novotny.

“Everybody likes that idea. It’s a long way off, but at least we are talking about those things.”"

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/uk-us-e ... ip-britain
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post09 Aug 2016, 17:59

Story about QE carriers with video I'll see if I can get it.
WATCH: HMS Queen Elizabeth, how will she be used?

Merlin helicopters will be the first aircraft to begin flying from HMS Queen Elizabeth, soon followed by Apache, Wildcat, Chinook and F-35.

The information comes from a senior official said at the Farnborough air show.

The Queen Elizabeth is due to start sea trials next year before its first deployment in 2021, followed by its sister ship, the Prince of Wales.

It was stated that the Merlins will start simple flight activities in March 2017 and then first-class flight trials begin in early 2018.

It has been reported that all Merlins will also be modified to carry the Crowsnest airborne early warning and control radar although a contract has yet to be finalised.

Former First Sea Lord George Zambellas said:

“When the first of our new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, deploys on her first mission in a few years, with fifth generation fighters and drones embarked, she will scotch at a stroke any talk of Britain’s retreat from the world.”

Tabloids often like to quote 12 as the maximum number of F-35B’s the carrier will be able to carry (despite the intention to purchase 138 in the long term), however this, as you probably know, is nonsense. The carriers, in peacetime, will usually deploy with 12 F-35B’s as a minimum and a number of various helicopters. To reduce costs and free aircraft for other commitments, the maximum aircraft complement will not usually be carried in peacetime, it instead will be supplied as required or deployed to the vessels in the event of a crisis. Rather than funding a large and permanent Carrier Air Group, the relatively new concept of a Tailored Air Group rather than fixed Carrier Air Group will be adopted for the Queen Elizabeth class with the exact types and numbers of aircraft embarked being adjusted to meet current requirements and threats.

The Queen Elizabeth class mark a change from expressing carrier power in terms of number of aircraft carried, to the number of sortie’s that can be generated from the deck. The class are not the largest class of carrier in the world but they are most likely the smallest and least expensive carrier the Royal Navy could build which still have the advantages that large carriers offer.

Crew are currently moving aboard the supercarrier, sea trials begin in the New Year and the vessel moves to Portsmouth in Spring 2017.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/watch-h ... will-used/




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEIH_2lEHCQ
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24082
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Sep 2016, 15:33

RIAT - Right. An overlooked link on the F-35 media kit page: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/docu ... -Brief.pdf (5Mb). Some pages are plain awful whilst others are very informative so a few of these are reproduced below....

CLICK on the Graphics to get a much better view because when they are smallized in the post some look terrible. :doh:
F-35 LIGHTNING BRIEF
RIAT 2016 Air Commodore Linc Taylor | HQ Air Command | Senior Responsible Owner - F-35

"Future Capability Block 4 Capabilities
• Common upgrades
• UK Weapons
..... • PW4 Tactical Penetrator
..... • ASRAAM Blk6
..... • Meteor BVRAAM
..... • SPEAR Cap 3
• Developing Intrinsic ISR
• Synthetics
• Reprogramming "
• Information & Connectivity"

Source: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/docu ... -Brief.pdf (5Mb)
Attachments
ScaleCarriers RIAT-16-UK-Brief.gif
ScaleCarriers RIAT-16-UK-BriefTIFforum.gif
CVF RIAT-16-UK-Brief Stamp.gif
RAF Marham RIAT-16-UK-Brief.jpg
TransAtlanticTrail RIAT-16-UK-Brief.gif
UK F-35 Program RIAT-16-UK-Brief.gif
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: 24082
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Sep 2016, 20:27

Royal Marines push for personnel recovery capability
02 Sep 2016 Tim Ripley

"Senior UK Royal Marine officers are pushing for the country's two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to be provided with their own personnel and equipment recovery capability when they enter service later this decade.

Such a force would be "trained and equipped to recover downed aircrew and recover or deny highly classified equipment", according to a briefing on the joint personnel recovery capability prepared by a staff officer in the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade in July, which has been seen by IHS Jane's .

RAF Squadron Leader Phil Skinner, who co-ordinates air support within 3 Commando Brigade's headquarters in Plymouth, revealed that the Royal Marines have already set up a Personnel Recovery Co-ordination Cell (PRCC) in the brigade as a result of last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review...."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/63405/roya ... capability
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

condor1970

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 07 May 2011, 21:40
  • Location: Port Orchard WA

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 02:23

You know, I'm no expert on the F-35 by any means, but when I look at the few numbers of aging assault ships the US and UK both have, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just save the $50-Billion in F-35B development, and just used all that money to build some newer/smaller fast carriers that could operate the F-35C version?

Then, if they don't want to use the old Assault ships (some still fairly new) to make reefs, convert them to operate as primarily Helo/V-22 carriers.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 02:25

condor1970 wrote:You know, I'm no expert on the F-35 by any means, but when I look at the few numbers of aging assault ships the US and UK both have, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just save the $50-Billion in F-35B development, and just used all that money to build some newer/smaller fast carriers that could operate the F-35C version?

Then, if they don't want to use the old Assault ships (some still fairly new) to make reefs, convert them to operate as primarily Helo/V-22 carriers.

In other words, why shouldn't the US abolish the USMC?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 07:49

condor1970 wrote:I can't help but wonder why they didn't just save the $50-Billion in F-35B development, and just used all that money to build some newer/smaller fast carriers that could operate the F-35C version?


Well for one the entire F-35 development program , ie all three jets from 1996 t0 2021, is $60 billion... so ... no.

If you tried to take out only those aspects of the program that relate exclusively to the B model, that might be $10 to $15 billion.. and that's a stretch.

Now try to develop a replacement for the Harrier for that same $10-$15 billion.

Good luck with that.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 14:21

condor1970 wrote: just used all that money to build some newer/smaller fast carriers that could operate the F-35C version?

.


Carriers that can operate F-35C

Carriers that are small and fast

Pick one
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 14:22

spazsinbad wrote:
Royal Marines push for personnel recovery capability
02 Sep 2016 Tim Ripley

"Senior UK Royal Marine officers are pushing for the country's two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to be provided with their own personnel and equipment recovery capability when they enter service later this decade.

Such a force would be "trained and equipped to recover downed aircrew and recover or deny highly classified equipment", according to a briefing on the joint personnel recovery capability prepared by a staff officer in the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade in July, which has been seen by IHS Jane's .

RAF Squadron Leader Phil Skinner, who co-ordinates air support within 3 Commando Brigade's headquarters in Plymouth, revealed that the Royal Marines have already set up a Personnel Recovery Co-ordination Cell (PRCC) in the brigade as a result of last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review...."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/63405/roya ... capability



So they want TRAP teams
Choose Crews
Offline

condor1970

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 07 May 2011, 21:40
  • Location: Port Orchard WA

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 14:22

popcorn wrote:
condor1970 wrote:You know, I'm no expert on the F-35 by any means, but when I look at the few numbers of aging assault ships the US and UK both have, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just save the $50-Billion in F-35B development, and just used all that money to build some newer/smaller fast carriers that could operate the F-35C version?

Then, if they don't want to use the old Assault ships (some still fairly new) to make reefs, convert them to operate as primarily Helo/V-22 carriers.

In other words, why shouldn't the US abolish the USMC?


No, what I mean is develop a newer more advanced Assault Amphibious capable fast carrier that does the same job, but with a catapult, instead of relying on STOVL. The original idea behind the Harrier was that not only would it operate from the Assault style ship, but could also land on roads/highways and other rough areas if needed.

This particular design of the new F-35B is not capable of safely landing on roads anymore because of the new engine design. They tried a few times, and the new engine exhaust is so hot, that unless it was dire emergency, the aircraft cannot safely land on roads and other difficult terrain. So, they are suited for that kind of off kilt mission like they used to be. Because of this, the new B version is basically relegated to landing on designated carrier landing spots, and properly prepared runways that can handle the engine.

Now, because of this, it means they had to develop the aircraft just for the Assault ship, and nothing else. When, to me it would make more sense to start building a newer more advanced Assault ships to replace a lot of the aging fleet. Ships that could handle the same aircraft as the Navy (using new EM catapults) without any other modifications needed to the aircraft. The C version has more range, and weapons load capabilities than the B version, which inherently makes it a better strike aircraft. Thus, the Marine Corps could spend more valuable resources on developing newer and more advanced amphibious warfare capabilities without spending billions on a very specialized aircraft.

I'm sorry but I really do think as much as I appreciate the WOW factor of the advanced technology in the B version, the C version is a more suitable aircraft that would serve the needs of the USMC of the future.
Offline

condor1970

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 07 May 2011, 21:40
  • Location: Port Orchard WA

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 14:24

condor1970 wrote:
popcorn wrote:
condor1970 wrote:You know, I'm no expert on the F-35 by any means, but when I look at the few numbers of aging assault ships the US and UK both have, I can't help but wonder why they didn't just save the $50-Billion in F-35B development, and just used all that money to build some newer/smaller fast carriers that could operate the F-35C version?

Then, if they don't want to use the old Assault ships (some still fairly new) to make reefs, convert them to operate as primarily Helo/V-22 carriers.

In other words, why shouldn't the US abolish the USMC?


No, what I mean is develop a newer more advanced Assault Amphibious capable fast carrier that does the same job, but with a catapult, instead of relying on STOVL. The original idea behind the Harrier was that not only would it operate from the Assault style ship, but could also land on roads/highways and other rough areas if needed.

This particular design of the new F-35B is not capable of safely landing on roads anymore because of the new engine design. They tried a few times, and the new engine exhaust is so hot, that unless it was dire emergency, the aircraft cannot safely land on roads and other difficult terrain. So, they are no longer suited for that kind of off kilt missions like they used to be. Because of this, the new B version is basically relegated to landing on designated carrier landing spots, and properly prepared runways that can handle the engine. This drastically limits the mission capability of the original idea behind a STOVL aircraft.

Now, because of this, it means they had to develop the aircraft just for the Assault ship, and nothing else. When, to me it would make more sense to start building a newer more advanced Assault ships to replace a lot of the aging fleet. Ships that could handle the same aircraft as the Navy (using new EM catapults) without any other modifications needed to the aircraft. The C version has more range, and weapons load capabilities than the B version, which inherently makes it a better strike aircraft. Thus, the Marine Corps could spend more valuable resources on developing newer and more advanced amphibious warfare capabilities without spending billions on a very specialized aircraft.

I'm sorry but I really do think as much as I appreciate the WOW factor of the advanced technology in the B version, the C version is a more suitable aircraft that would serve the needs of the USMC of the future.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6243
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 14:41

No, what I mean is develop a newer more advanced Assault Amphibious capable fast carrier that does the same job, but with a catapult, instead of relying on STOVL. The original idea behind the Harrier was that not only would it operate from the Assault style ship, but could also land on roads/highways and other rough areas if needed.


And it would need wires to land on too. Once you include wires to land on, you need organic tankers as well, you need heavier construction equipment to clear fowled decks, and it costs much much more.

This particular design of the new F-35B is not capable of safely landing on roads anymore because of the new engine design. They tried a few times, and the new engine exhaust is so hot, that unless it was dire emergency, the aircraft cannot safely land on roads and other difficult terrain. So, they are suited for that kind of off kilt mission like they used to be. Because of this, the new B version is basically relegated to landing on designated carrier landing spots, and properly prepared runways that can handle the engine.


WTF are you talking about?

Now, because of this, it means they had to develop the aircraft just for the Assault ship, and nothing else.


you just pulled that completely out of your a$$ especially since the USMC is realesing concepts and strategies that go well inland and off the assault ship.

When, to me it would make more sense to start building a newer more advanced Assault ships to replace a lot of the aging fleet. Ships that could handle the same aircraft as the Navy (using new EM catapults) without any other modifications needed to the aircraft. The C version has more range, and weapons load capabilities than the B version, which inherently makes it a better strike aircraft.


The Marines feel the better strike aircraft is the more adaptable/versatile one. Which is also why they have always had harriers and have never gone full Hornet. There is a historical precedent for this, The Marines know the advantages and attributes STOVL vs brings because they operate from Land, and both types of ships (L-class/CVN)


Thus, the Marine Corps could spend more valuable resources on developing newer and more advanced amphibious warfare capabilities without spending billions on a very specialized aircraft.


They are spending billions of dollars on a specialized aircraft that brings newer more advanced amphibious warfare capabilities

You may also want to check the cost of the F-35C. Last I saw it was more expensive than the B.

I'm sorry but I really do think as much as I appreciate the WOW factor of the advanced technology in the B version, the C version is a more suitable aircraft that would serve the needs of the USMC of the future.


You said yourself you don't know the subject that well:

condor1970 wrote:You know, I'm no expert on the F-35 by any means


If you think the B is about "wow" factor, and that its costs far more than you claimed, than I'm sorry but you simply don't know what you are talking about. The Marines have been liberal in their published material that you can read all about with STOVL, F-35B and even the Harrier. I would suggest you read some of it. We even have threads here that cover current and future CONOPS specifically for the USMC.

popcorn wrote:In other words, why shouldn't the US abolish the USMC?


The Navy would have a bigger problem with "CVN Lite", used by the Marines than the USN would LOL :mrgreen:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 14:50

@condor1970, you're new here but FYI the falacy that F-35B can't operate from FOBs or otherwise hastily prepared land bases has been thoroughly debunked on these boards. USMC believe they can set up and stage F-35B from austere bases and pull up and relocate the entire circus within 24 hours if need be to avoid enemy counterattack. The preferred base of operations will still be the LHA/LHD but land basing remains a key capability.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2510
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post03 Sep 2016, 15:40

You know what would be cooler than solely using F-35B off amphibious carriers? A VRL (vertical roll landing) vehicle that is unmanned. Certainly they could come up with an affordable X-47B equivalent for augmenting the F-35B fleet. Using something akin to Magic Carpet and augmented by a parachute for both gliding and breaking, you should be able to come up with something that is simple to maintain. The technology has been around for around a decade for dropping payloads from transports to troops; the Gigafly medium JPADS ram-air parachute demonstrated 40k pounds precision drops in 2008. Something that on final approach can literally land at ultralight speeds would fit that duty. With an emphasis on higher speed landing than an airdrop situation, manageable ram air parachute size to repack on ship, and affordability; there is no reason you couldn't get these down to a working unit that is safe nearly 100% of the time. Adapt off the shelf. I can't imagine the British, Spain, and Italy would snub this kind of idea to augment their smaller carriers.

Image
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests