UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5394
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 08:32

spazsinbad wrote:Another look at the speech, I'm hoping USMC F-35Bs aboard CVFs does not let the UK NOT BUY required number of Bees.

U.K. Royal Navy to Establish Permanent Squadron in Middle East; QE to Deploy with U.S. F-35s 11 Feb 2019
http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20190211-RN.html



I honestly doubt the US would allow that to happen. As USMC F-35B's will be in very high demand from US Regional Commanders. In short we have our own commitments for the STOVL version of the Lightning II.

Personally, I could see that demand become so high. That the US increases the orders for the type! :wink:
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 13:34

element1loop wrote:
marsavian wrote: ... An equivalent action would be a Chinese Carrier sailing a couple miles off the disputed Falklands/Malvinas in the name of freedom of navigation, it's just bizarre provocation. ...


On the contrary Mars, the "bizarre provocation" is the nine-dash line and island reclamation, which was decades in the planning and building up for it. Then weaponizing them immediately and calling the whole of the international waters of the SCS and regional airspace Beijing's. And on the flimsiest and most laughable of grounds too. And then persistently harassing and ramming shipping and issuing military threats to aircraft. If China ends up "militarily and economically contained", and counterbalanced, and then some, it's been entirely a self-inflicted injury and outcome. And comes on top of many other egregious offenses and behaviors. They did it knowing what could happen, it was entirely premeditated, and they fully accepted the risks and repercussions that could come of it. And so they should. So why take the UK to task for vocally and materially supporting both allies and SEA as a whole? And supporting mutually accepted norms of planetary civilization rather than letting a Chinese Communist Party military dictator-for-life, to get away with any "bizarre provocation" that he wants to embark upon.

The region thanks you, United Kingdom.


These territorial claims were actually first put forward by Taiwan in 1947 based on a 1935 map and is a joint claim by China and Taiwan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line

The US Department of State's view on the matter

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf

Conclusion

China has not clarified its maritime claims associated with the dashed-line maps in a manner consistent with international law. China’s laws, declarations, official acts, and official statements present conflicting evidence regarding the nature and scope of China’s claims. The
available evidence suggests at least three different interpretations that China might intend, including that the dashes are (1) lines within which China claims sovereignty over the islands, along with the maritime zones those islands would generate under the LOS Convention; (2) national boundary lines; or (3) the limits of so-called historic maritime claims of varying types.

As to the first interpretation, if the dashes on Chinese maps are intended to indicate only the islands over which China claims sovereignty then, to be consistent with the law of the sea, China’s maritime claims within the dashed line would be those set forth in the LOS Convention, namely a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf, drawn in accordance with the LOS Convention from China’s mainland coast and land features that meet the definition of an “island” under Article 121 of the Convention.74 Because sovereignty over South China Sea islands is disputed, the maritime zones associated with these islands would also be disputed. In addition, even if China possessed sovereignty of the islands, any maritime zones generated by those islands in accordance with Article 121 would be subject to maritime boundary delimitation with neighboring States.

As to the second interpretation, if the dashes on Chinese maps are intended to indicate national boundary lines, then those lines would not have a proper legal basis under the law of the sea. Under international law, maritime boundaries are created by agreement between neighboring States; one country may not unilaterally establish a maritime boundary with another country.
Further, such a boundary would not be consistent with State practice and international jurisprudence, which have not accorded very small isolated islands like those in the South China Sea more weight in determining the position of a maritime boundary than opposing coastlines that are long and continuous.Moreover, dashes 2, 3, and 8 that appear on China’s 2009 map
are not only relatively close to the mainland shores of other States, but all or part of them are also beyond 200 nm from any Chinese-claimed land feature.

Finally, if the dashes on Chinese maps are intended to indicate the area in which China claims so-called “historic waters” or “historic rights” to waters that are exclusive to China, such claims are not within the narrow category of historic claims recognized in Articles 10 and 15 of the LOS Convention. The South China Sea is a large semi-enclosed sea in which numerous coastal States have entitlements to EEZ and continental shelf, consistent with the LOS Convention; the law of the sea does not permit those entitlements to be overridden by another State’s maritime claims that are based on “history.” To the contrary, a major purpose and accomplishment of the Convention is to bring clarity and uniformity to the maritime zones to which coastal States are entitled. In addition, even if the legal test for historic waters were applicable, the dashed-line claim would fail each element of that test.

For these reasons, unless China clarifies that the dashed-line claim reflects only a claim to islands within that line and any maritime zones that are generated from those land features in accordance with the international law of the sea, as reflected in the LOS Convention, its dashed-
line claim does not accord with the international law of the sea.

Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 390
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 14:53

element1loop wrote:
marsavian wrote: ... An equivalent action would be a Chinese Carrier sailing a couple miles off the disputed Falklands/Malvinas in the name of freedom of navigation, it's just bizarre provocation. ...


On the contrary Mars, the "bizarre provocation" is the nine-dash line and island reclamation, which was decades in the planning and building up for it. Then weaponizing them immediately and calling the whole of the international waters of the SCS and regional airspace Beijing's. And on the flimsiest and most laughable of grounds too. And then persistently harassing and ramming shipping and issuing military threats to aircraft. If China ends up "militarily and economically contained", and counterbalanced, and then some, it's been entirely a self-inflicted injury and outcome. And comes on top of many other egregious offenses and behaviors. They did it knowing what could happen, it was entirely premeditated, and they fully accepted the risks and repercussions that could come of it. And so they should. So why take the UK to task for vocally and materially supporting both allies and SEA as a whole? And supporting mutually accepted norms of planetary civilization rather than letting a Chinese Communist Party military dictator-for-life, to get away with any "bizarre provocation" that he wants to embark upon.

The region thanks you, United Kingdom.


This may be an uncommon opinion, but I really want the Chinese to continue these behaviors. It is better to have this conflict now, while their diplomatic, economic, and military power is still lower than the West, rather in 15-20 years when they're top dog. The West needs this, they need China to turn their neighbors against them, and they need to expose the Chinese now. Show the One belt, One road initiative is a scam, and put your own systems in place. Sow discord in China whenever possible, and take advantage of their economic and social vulnerabilities, because now's our chance.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22824
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 04:36

Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft: Written question - 218778
08 Feb 2019 UK Parliament

"Q: Nia Griffith To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 7 February 2019 to Question 216198 on Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft, how many of the F-35B fleet do not meet the 8,000 hour service life requirement; and when the modifications of the early contract F-35B are planned to be completed.

A: Stuart Andrew A full testing programme for the F-35B is being developed by the Joint Programme Office, which will see all aircraft modified to bring them up to at least the 8,000 hour life and possibly beyond. Future aircraft and those in production will incorporate any relevant design changes as the programme progresses."

Source: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 08/218778/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 15:06

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47264476

Chancellor Philip Hammond's visit to China not going ahead

A visit to China by Chancellor Phillip Hammond has been called off amid reports a speech by the UK's defence secretary angered Beijing.

There were plans for trade talks between Mr Hammond and senior Chinese government figures during the brief visit next week.

But a Treasury spokesperson said: "No trip was ever announced or confirmed."

Earlier this week, Gavin Williamson had indicated the UK's intention to send an aircraft carrier to the Pacific.

Unconfirmed newspaper reports claimed the Chinese government was unhappy about Mr Williamson's speech on Monday.

In it he announced the HMS Queen Elizabeth would be deployed to the region, as well as the Middle East and the Mediterranean, on its maiden voyage.

China is currently involved in a dispute over territorial claims in the Pacific. Six countries have competing claims over the South China Sea islands.

Mr Williamson also said that China was "developing its modern military capability and its commercial power".

Meanwhile, former Chancellor George Osborne said he found it "very difficult" to work out the UK government's policy on China.

He told BBC Radio 4's Week in Westminster: "You've got the defence secretary engaging in gunboat diplomacy of a quite old-fashioned kind.

"At the same time as the chancellor of the exchequer and the foreign secretary are going around saying they want a close economic partnership with China.

"Ultimately it's the responsibility of Theresa May to sort this out. At the moment it looks all at sea.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ip-hammond

The Financial Times reported that British officials said the Chinese ambassador had raised Williamson’s apparent threat in a “scheduled call” with the Foreign Office. The paper said that Downing Street had not denied that Beijing had expressed its displeasure with the minister’s speech.

A government official was reported to have branded Williamson’s speech, in which he also claimed Brexit represented an opportunity for Britain to enhance its military threat, as “idiotic”
Offline

noth

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 03:38

The UK is buying the AIM-120D (some 200 for the time being) and is also buying the MBDA Meteor. AIM-120D appears to have a longer range (160 vs 100km (I'll leave you to convert that to nm)) and is presumably ready to go in the Block 3F, so why does the UK need Meteor for the F-35B? Especially as that missile needs to be adapted for the air-air rails, although not the air-ground ones.

Or are the AIM-120Ds going to be used on the Typhoons as well? At least the carriers will have proper Fleet Defence with a missile of that range...
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 12:52

I doubt the Meteor has less range than a AIM-120D especially as its NEZ is very similar to its ultimate range due to the ramjet engine throttle control. We discussed this before and it's true that the 200 AIM-120D are probably for the F-35B* and the AIM-120D full functionality i.e. 2-way link should be available in early Block 4 software release in a year or so however there are two reasons why Meteor will ultimately find its way to UK F-35.

Firstly when the Meteor was conceived it was said to have 3 times the NEZ of the late model B/early model C AMRAAM variants of the time. Even if AMRAAM performance has doubled in terms of range since then, which may not be directly applicable to NEZ, that still leaves Meteor at least 50% better in NEZ. Secondly and more importantly the UK along with Japan is developing a super Meteor for the F-35 which will have a GaN AESA seeker and is due in the mid 2020s. This missile will be extra potent against 4th generation and be able to more effective/discriminating against the 5th gen opposition like J-20/Su-57. So in conclusion the UK will no doubt keep its current stock of C5 and new stock of D AMRAAM until they are out of date but the future replenishment stock will almost certainly be Meteor for both aircraft of current and future versions.

* viewtopic.php?p=401835#p401835
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22824
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 13:10

In the Oz thread there is a 46 page PDF about the F-35 with the last four pages about weapons - this is attached below.
KILL CHAIN
Nov-Dec 2018 MAX BLENKIN

"...Andy Watson, managing director of MBDA Australia, the local subsidiary of the European missile firm, said once the RAAF's F-35A aircraft are bedded in, it would be natural to look for the next step in air-to-air missile capability.

One option is the MBDA Meteor, a BVR air-to-air missile which has been integrated onto the Saab Gripen, Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale, and is being integrated onto the UK's F-3SB. Meteor would appear to do what the much-vaunted AIM-54 Phoenix promised as a long-range interceptor but never actually demonstrated....

...The 190-kilogram 3.7-metre Meteor features active radar homing and ramjet propulsion. The actual range is classified, but is reportedly more than 300 kilometres. Watson said Meteor's advantage is its ramjet which can be throttled to optimise the flight profile.

With other missiles which are rocket powered, once the solid fuel sustainer motor runs out after a few seconds, the missile is coasting and decelerating. Thus at longer ranges, the target has a better chance of escaping.

"Once you have the ramjet going, you are powering all the way to the target; Watson said. "Meteor has over three times the no-escape zone compared to current BVRAAM's. We are not talking about a 10 per cent difference here - it is a significant game changing capability at range."

The UK and Japan are also jointly researching an even more advanced version of Meteor which would add a Japanese-developed AAM-4B seeker to the airframe. In the meantime, the UK is specifying three European weapons as its baseline loadout for the RAF's 138 planned F-35Bs - Meteor, the MBDA ASRAAM, and SPEAR, a 100-kilogram precision surface attack missile.

MBDA regards ASRAAM as a superior alternative to t he AIM-9X, while SPEAR roughly compares to the SDB. But SPEAR is powered which not only gives it greater range but with sufficient power for a sophisticated radio-frequency/semi-active laser (RF/SAL) seeker.

Watson said the UK was buying MDBA's weapons not just because it liked having UK products. "What we have tried to do in the UK is broaden the utility and gain overmatch through having more capable weapons. This allows us to stand off further and make the jet more survivable."

Watson said that was certainly the case with Meteor and SPEAR, and to an extent ASRAAM. In terms of weapon maturity, ASRAAM is in service with the UK and is so far the only non-US weapon integrated to F-35. It is also in service with the RAAF, having been acquired in the early 2000s to replace the older version of the Sidewinder, the AIM-9M on the classic Hornet.

While Meteor is in service on other types, so far it has only undergone fit trials on the F-35, while SPEAR is still undergoing development which will conclude in early the 2020s. So, if Australia opted for a non-US weapon for the RAAF's F-35A, most of the integration work with the F-35's combat system is likely to have already been done by the JSF program.

Watson said the principle with the JSF block upgrade program was that integrating a weapon onto one F-35 variant meant it was effectively integrated into the mission systems of all three versions. There will, however, likely need to be a weapons clearance test program as the F-35A's weapons bay is larger because it lacks the lift fan of the B model, and therefore has different airflow characteristics...." [more in the PDF four pages]

Source: ADBR Nov-Dec 2018 Volume 37 No.6
Attachments
KILL CHAIN weapons Aust RAAF F-35A ADBR Nov-Dec 2018 PRN pp4 TextReadable.pdf
(757.22 KiB) Downloaded 220 times
F-35B 8 SPEAR, 2 Meteor & 2 ASRAAMs wing rails MBDA.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

noth

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 06:43

Thanks for the answers, most informative as usual guys!
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22824
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 06:17

Brits have a mass chat about CARRIER STRIKE! UK Parliament 28 Feb 2019 HANSARD text 68 page PDF attached below.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... keStrategy
Attachments
Carrier Strike Strategy - UK Hansard 28 Feb 2019 Vol 655 pp68.pdf
(203.93 KiB) Downloaded 193 times
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 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22824
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 10:56

What'll THEY think of next: THE MUDDLE CONTINUES - OR Perhaps NOT - depends on so many rumours/misunderstandings.
MPs debate Carrier Strike strategy amidst rumours HMS Prince of Wales could be mothballed
01 Mar 2019 SaveTheRoyalNavy

"On 28 February, Robert Courts MP led a Parliamentary debate held in Westminster Hall to “consider carrier strike strategy and its contribution to UK defence”. Here we look at the highlights of this constructive two and a half hour discussion held by a small cross-party group of MPs.

During the speeches, Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP, a dedicated advocate for the navy, asked the Minister for reassurance that recent “rumours emanating from Treasury sources about plans to mothball or sell HMS Prince of Wales” were unfounded. Speaking at the end of the debate, the Armed Forces Minister, Mark Lancaster did not reply directly to the question, although continued to describe the ongoing delivery of the QEC carrier project on track as expected. Anne-Marie Trevelyan is well connected to Treasury officials as a member of the Commons Public Accounts Committee but there is no way to verify this story further at this stage.... [it begins - ever wonder why RAF want F-35As? Only one CVF?]

...In refreshing contrast to so much of what goes on in Westminster, this debate was conducted by participants who knew their subject and was held in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation across party lines. The MPs involved should be commended and let us hope their influence on policy can outweigh their small numbers...."

Source: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mps-de ... othballed/


"Carrier strike strategy and its contribution to UK defence" - Westminster Hall debate https://www.youtube.com/v=9KODuYVgn6Y

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

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2125
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 16:38

An opportunity for the RAN to acquire a proper carrier at fire sale prices?

Britain oughta crank up their marketing machine... and go about trying to sell QE-class carriers abroad.... Japan, Singapore, Ozzieland...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 00:29

spazsinbad wrote:Brits have a mass chat about CARRIER STRIKE! UK Parliament 28 Feb 2019 HANSARD text 68 page PDF attached below.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... keStrategy


I am delighted that the Crowsnest platform to provide airborne early warning is being brought forward. Ever since the lack of one in the Falklands, it has been clear that there simply must be a carrier-borne, organic, airborne early warning capability. However, let us think about stores and supplies. We have talked about the littoral role.

I suspect that it is likely that carriers will be kept out at sea, simply to reduce their vulnerability. In that case, lift capability will be required by helicopters, which have limited range, payload, speed and load-carrying capability. Otherwise, we are looking at ship-to- ship transfers at sea. I would merely observe that the V-22 Osprey, which is used by the US marines and navy, is very expensive and has been built to hold an F-35 engine. What is more, it can do so with speed, lift and range. We ​currently do not have that capability. I note that Lord West in the other place has made the same suggestion. It is something that we should consider.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 02:13

steve2267 wrote:An opportunity for the RAN to acquire a proper carrier at fire sale prices?

Britain oughta crank up their marketing machine... and go about trying to sell QE-class carriers abroad.... Japan, Singapore, Ozzieland...


Can take Singapore out of the equation. Their biggest vessel currently (LPD) has a crew of 65. Their biggest crew is 70 for the frigates. LHD (crew 160-240) are only possible if LPD numbers cut in half ie 2 LHDs replacing 4 LPDs. 679 crew for a QE is way out of the Singapore navy league.

Japan probably can't take it because its really too difficult to find another designation for "helicopter destroyer" to fit their constitution. At least a LHD still has an amphibious role to justify "multi-role". The only other role I can think of for a CV, other than being a CV is "casino".
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5394
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 03:53

marsavian wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Brits have a mass chat about CARRIER STRIKE! UK Parliament 28 Feb 2019 HANSARD text 68 page PDF attached below.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... keStrategy


I am delighted that the Crowsnest platform to provide airborne early warning is being brought forward. Ever since the lack of one in the Falklands, it has been clear that there simply must be a carrier-borne, organic, airborne early warning capability. However, let us think about stores and supplies. We have talked about the littoral role.

I suspect that it is likely that carriers will be kept out at sea, simply to reduce their vulnerability. In that case, lift capability will be required by helicopters, which have limited range, payload, speed and load-carrying capability. Otherwise, we are looking at ship-to- ship transfers at sea. I would merely observe that the V-22 Osprey, which is used by the US marines and navy, is very expensive and has been built to hold an F-35 engine. What is more, it can do so with speed, lift and range. We ​currently do not have that capability. I note that Lord West in the other place has made the same suggestion. It is something that we should consider.



The problem is the Royal Navy appetite is far larger than their stomach.....

That said, I don't see the UK Treasury increasing the budget much. Nor, do I see them canceling the New SSBN Program.

So, honestly I see the service continuing to decline in the coming years. :(
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests