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: 23155
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 00:58

Latest USN LSO newsletter PDF Oct 2011 has a story about CVF change over to F-35Cs with RN staff getting the gen for the future:

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2011.pdf (1.5Mb)

Building the Queen Elizabeth
"...Over the course of two weeks in September, officers from the Royal Navy and engineers from Air-craft Carrier Alliance (the company spearheading the design and development process) conducted a development seminar at the Landing Signal Officer School. In addition to the LSO School Staff, Captain Stoops (Former CVN-73 Air Boss) and CDR Bulis (Current CVN-75 Air Boss) were also in attendance to lend their expertise....

...After much debate and discussion, to include extensive LSO-related presentations by the LSO School Staff, the decision was made for the LSO Platform to be located at the exact same position in relation to the intended hook touchdown point as it is on our Nimitz class ships...."
MUCH MORE IN THE PDF!
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 790
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 04:47

I'm sure it's been mentioned before but having a "conventional" carrier does have the advantage of allowing the use of an E-2D Hawkeye A.W.A.C. Britain payed dearly for that lack in the Falklands War (and yeah I know they have a radar mounted on a helicopter but still). And hopefully Britain's second heli-carrier might still fly F-35B's someday.
The cross cooperation with France makes it easier to keep at least one carrier at sea as well. Just my :2c:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23155
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 08:27

The idea floated in the UKland today (probably to take attention away from the first F-35B VL aboard WASP) was this one (headline is a bit arseabout though?) See the last post on previous page of this thread. UK wants a cheap ride. IMHO they have made an huge mistake not proceeding with F-35Bs as planned. Still time to correct though - as always - watch this space.

We saw in the leadup to their momentous decision late last year that there was all kinds of speculation. This speculation will not stop. I don't believe anyone believes that the UKers have a clue about what they are doing. Their military - especially the RN FAA - does their best to keep up and to be flexible so I'm not knocking them at all. My tuppenceworth.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2262
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 13:24

No E-2 means carting around AEW on helicopters which was a failing proposition.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23155
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Oct 2011, 10:20

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post12 Oct 2011, 14:57

As capable as we hope the JSF will be, the one thing no "fast mover" has is persistance. The E-2 is necessary to not only to protect the capital ships but to have the long view, far beyond visual range (fbvr). Trading the expense of several JSFs for the cost of an E-2 is very cost effective vs. losing one capital ship. Oh, and lest one try to defend the inferior helicopter radar, "egg beaters" lack persistence also. Get an E-2, it is the better idea.
Offline

geogen

Banned

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

Unread post12 Oct 2011, 22:43

Neptune - You'd be surprised, RN won't actually have to trade too many 'several' F-35C for the acquisition of an E-2, maybe 2 jets?

But one might argue that it's probably more prudent and strategic to 'trade' something other than simply more tactical aviation shortfall than is already being piled on, over the next 10 yrs!? (what has it become now, the International Bank of JSF??) So, perhaps unless budget, I mean security requirements change to require fewer capital ships and less aviation off the top over the next 10 yrs, RN will probably want to find more creative and sustainable methods of acquiring/replacing core equipment and maintaining capabilities. imho.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post13 Oct 2011, 00:42

CVF Cat/Trap Deck Graphics from BAE:
I guess if you're only going to build two aircraft carriers, you might as build real ones!
Last edited by stereospace on 13 Oct 2011, 01:00, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post13 Oct 2011, 00:59

Wow. Those are really beautiful renderings! Kudos to the CG folks in the UK who put them together, top quality work. I'm guessing the RN FAA are salivating over the idea of those becoming reality.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23155
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Oct 2011, 09:45

F-35 Makes First Carrier Landing; BAE Wins Alternative Helmet Contract 10 Oct 2011

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-ne ... t-contract

"...Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin UK market development manager Paul Livingston told AIN that the company is confident that the F-35C version can operate from the UK’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier without modifications...."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post13 Oct 2011, 12:30

stereospace wrote:Wow. Those are really beautiful renderings! Kudos to the CG folks in the UK who put them together, top quality work. I'm guessing the RN FAA are salivating over the idea of those becoming reality.


And i'm guessing our government are salivating over the thought of how much they can sell them off for too, afterall they've already done untold damage to the UK armed forces so selling the carriers off is the next logical step for them.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23155
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Oct 2011, 13:37

Nah - buying 'Mystical Norse' Sea Gripens for 'em is the next step in this sorry UK 'SAGO'. :D
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post14 Oct 2011, 01:23

madrat wrote:No E-2 means carting around AEW on helicopters which was a failing proposition.


What about a V-22 AEW variant? http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 790
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post14 Oct 2011, 02:07

madrawrt
No E-2 means carting around AEW on helicopters which was a failing proposition.
1st503rdsqt replied
What about about a V-22 AEW variant? http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm

My guess is that it's cost prohibitive. :shrug: But it's definitely a better option than helicopter A.W.A.C.'s I would like to see that option explored further (but I'd be surprised to see that move past the concept phase).
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

geogen

Banned

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

Unread post14 Oct 2011, 05:16

1st503rdsgt wrote:
madrat wrote:No E-2 means carting around AEW on helicopters which was a failing proposition.


What about a V-22 AEW variant? http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm


I'd rather advocate for an CH-53K AEW variant. Meet your new boss. Whatever the avionics an hypothetical V-22 AEW could lift, add 50% for the -53k. Then you would begin to have some competition for an E-2D+.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests