UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:05

:doh: Sounds reasonable and not a mention of reliability of CVFs compared to TRIDENT - JOLLY GOOD SHOW OLD BEAN! :mrgreen:

Earlier in this now long running thread there was discussion/reporting of a lot of potential 'uses' for one and then two CVFs. It has not been all 'plane' sailing (coulda bin 'plane saleing' at one point) for use of two CVFs however the gubmint fairly recently committed to having the two (I'll have to get the exact wording now) & no mention of Tridents in regard to.

COMMITTED is an oft used word by Brits (but probably meaningless over time and the pollies know it):
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=300907&hilit=committed#p300907
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=276440&hilit=committed#p276440
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=277700&hilit=Cameron#p277700

2 page PDF of ARTICKLE BE LOW ATTACHED BeLow:
RULING THE WAVES AGAIN...
Dec 2015 Tim Ripley AirForces Monthly Magazine

"…In September 2014, Prime Minister David Cameron marked a key decision in the carrier programme when he committed
the Navy to standing up a “Continuous carrier capability”. The government had previously been unclear whether HMS Prince of Wales would enter service, leaving the Royal Navy taking ‘carrier strike capability holidays’ when HMS Queen Elizabeth had to go into dock for refit or repair. With both carriers in service one will always be ready to conduct operations with at least a squadron of F-35Bs embarked. The other ship could then be in refit, carrying out work-up training or employed as a commando carrier for the Royal Marines, with transport helicopters embarked.

The Royal Navy is making plans for a readiness cycle to synchronise this activity from the end of the decade, managing
availability and ensuring fixed-wing and helicopter squadrons are ready to operate from the vessels. According to Rear Admiral Blount, the carriers will always sail within a maritime task group including warships and support vessels. This protects them and makes them self-sustaining far out to sea, without support from land-based assets. This is the classic
embodiment of aircraft carriers, as mobile sovereign airfields that can be moved around the world unencumbered by the need to remain within range of land-based aircraft. He added: “The carriers will change the way the Royal Navy operates.”

The Navy is working on three main concepts of carrier operations to give future the UK a wide range of strategic options...."

Source: AirForces Monthly Magazine Dec 2015
Attachments
Ruling Waves Again AirForces Monthly DEC 2015 pp2 PRN.pdf
(57.1 KiB) Downloaded 22 times
Last edited by spazsinbad on 07 Dec 2017, 22:38, edited 6 times in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:20

steve2267 wrote:Frankly, I thought to keep one carrier at sea, ready to go to war at all times, one would need 3-4 carriers. One at sea, one doing workups. One undergoing maintenance. And one doing... ??? dunno. A spare, I guess. But I figggerred, the Brits could only afford two, so they will make do with what they can afford. Discussing CVF... floating base for F-35B. Hope that's OK? :mrgreen:


Well, during the Falklands War the British also and only had two active Carriers (HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible) and they managed to deploy both to the Falklands (they didn't have the need to leave one undergoing maintenance of sorts).
So I imagine that these news CVFs are more reliable (maintenance wise) than those older carriers and if or when needed both could be put into service without any major hurdle.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1139
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:22

It's a right shame Her Majesty's gubbermint scrapped the Invincible class. They would have made a nice light carrier for the Lightning. The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales along with Illustrious, Invincible, and Ark Royal all carrying F-35Bs would make a formidable fleet. I dare say they may have been able to sortie two carrier battle groups for two separate conflagrations. Too bad the Brits couldn't afford it.
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 22:26

Probably in this thread there is the rationale for not designing the F-35B for the Invincible Class. IIRC it was decided by the time the F-35Bs would be available the INVINCIBLES would be decommissioned - so they will not operate from same.

Once again 'pie in the sky' thinking ignores the cash strapped UK Gubmint coffers. How on earth can they operate all these carriers when we are apparently discussing 'how can they operate two CVFs'? "...Too bad the Brits couldn't afford it."? TOO BLOODY RIGHT - MATE. The same thing can be said by all countries about all things possible. You get what you can afford.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 00:32

Had time now to look for original article wot is here: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28108&p=309365&hilit=Ripley#p309365

CVFs&F-35Bs AFM-Dec2015.pdf
download/file.php?id=22176 (4 page PDF 1.39Mb)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

beepa

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2007, 22:36
  • Location: Aust.

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 04:44

As far as cakes go ...well this takes the cake. Can't help think that if that F35b was real the pilot would be watching it as he slowly floats down to the sea.
Attachments
cake.jpg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 06:47

MORE ON that CAKE! GOOD PICS 07 Dec 2017: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42254895
Queen Elizabeth commissioned as Royal Navy's new flagship
07 Dec 2017 Peter Felstead

"...Having recently completed a second stage of sea trials off the south coast of England, HMS Queen Elizabeth will now undergo final build activity [Bedford Array installed (or is it already installed)?] and prepare for helicopter trials in the new year. The ship will then head to the US East Coast in the autumn of 2018 for initial flight trials with the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) that will form its air wing."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/76243/quee ... w-flagship
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 23:01

Lots of links in this post then lots of links when links followed for more links for ancient history about CVFs and UK F-35Bs:

http://hrana.org/news/2017/12/britain-m ... issioning/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 00:35

steve2267 wrote:It's a right shame Her Majesty's gubbermint scrapped the Invincible class. They would have made a nice light carrier for the Lightning. The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales along with Illustrious, Invincible, and Ark Royal all carrying F-35Bs would make a formidable fleet. I dare say they may have been able to sortie two carrier battle groups for two separate conflagrations. Too bad the Brits couldn't afford it.



The carriers were getting a little long in the tooth. I'm not sure their hanger decks could accommodate F-35Bs. Even if they could their not buying enough Lightnings to outfit all those carriers. The bottom line is the brits just don't want to spend the money. They should have sold the Invincibles to Australia, Spain, Italy or some other country in the market for light carriers, or assault ships. Heck Egypt bought those two assault ships the French had been building for Russia. As long as they didn't sell them to Turkey it would have been ok.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 00:41

It is just a fantasy that Australia would want to buy the last Invincible with LHDs on the way - two of them & they are OK.

The F-35B WAS NOT designed for the INVINCIBLE CLASS - pure speculation that they could operate from them. The SHARs (Sea Harriers) were a tight fit and quite different to an F-35B in every respect except STOVL ops (unique to F-35B though).

It has been said time & again that the Harrier is NOT THE SAME as the F-35B - stop thinking that it is - it is easy to do that.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 12:19

spazsinbad wrote:It is just a fantasy that Australia would want to buy the last Invincible with LHDs on the way - two of them & they are OK.

The F-35B WAS NOT designed for the INVINCIBLE CLASS - pure speculation that they could operate from them. The SHARs (Sea Harriers) were a tight fit and quite different to an F-35B in every respect except STOVL ops (unique to F-35B though).

It has been said time & again that the Harrier is NOT THE SAME as the F-35B - stop thinking that it is - it is easy to do that.



It's no surprise sapaz that the hanger deck is too small. The America Class assault ships had to be modified to accommodate the F-35B. The Lightning is a good bit bigger, and heavier then the Harrier. The F-35B is 22 inches higher then the Sea Harrier FA-2, and has a greater empty weight then the FA-2's max take off weight. The F-35B is a little too big for the elevators, or lifts as the British would say. I doubt the lifts could handle the loaded weight of an F-35B. Remember if it doesn't fit the lift you have to omit.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4344
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 18:52

tincansailor wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:It is just a fantasy that Australia would want to buy the last Invincible with LHDs on the way - two of them & they are OK.

The F-35B WAS NOT designed for the INVINCIBLE CLASS - pure speculation that they could operate from them. The SHARs (Sea Harriers) were a tight fit and quite different to an F-35B in every respect except STOVL ops (unique to F-35B though).

It has been said time & again that the Harrier is NOT THE SAME as the F-35B - stop thinking that it is - it is easy to do that.



It's no surprise sapaz that the hanger deck is too small. The America Class assault ships had to be modified to accommodate the F-35B.


Not because of it's size. F-35Bs will be going on the earlier Wasp class as well (which F-35B testing has been done from).

http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircra ... s/wasp.htm
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 19:58

Jeepers size matters - from this forum (scale may not be accurate but compare the tonnage):

download/file.php?id=19115&mode=view

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

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4344
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 20:07

Yep. The Wasp class, at 40,000 tons and change, would be right there next to the America class. Probably want to throw in the Japanese Izumo class at something like 25-30,000 tons as well.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19387
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 20:09

Jeepers size matters - from this forum (scale may not be accurate - compare the tonnage - WASP similar AMERICA class):

download/file.php?id=19115&mode=view [not showing Japanese Izumo class - not operating HARRIERS]
Attachments
LHAinvincibleComparo.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: optimist and 7 guests