UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[spazsinbad]

Don't know what can be gleaned from this F-35 simulator view of the fuel quantity in a scenario. The website makes a note about the JP-4. Anyway here it is: http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012 ... ockpit.jpg

Touch screen, voice activated commands, portal. A new smartphone or tablet? No, the Lockheed Martin F-35?s glass cockpit. January 19, 2012 by David Cenciotti

http://theaviationist.com/2012/01/19/sneak-preview-f35/

Just to be clear here are some definintions for words seen (perhaps not totally accurate but good enough):

http://www.christianfighterpilot.com/fi ... .htm#joker

"Joker: Pre-briefed fuel state above bingo at which maneuvering should be terminated or separation/bug-out begun. Joker may be understood as a 'pad' above bingo that allows for a certain amount of maneuvering before finally reaching bingo.
&
Bingo: The pre-briefed fuel state at which an aircraft needs to begin its return to base in order to land with the pre-planned fuel."

[spazsinbad]

Words have appeared above - MAGIC!

[johnwill]

Uh, where is the other 400 pounds? The totalizer shows 18200 pounds, but summing the individual tanks gives 17800 pounds. Maybe the "Feed' designation means two engine feed tanks with 200 pounds each.

[neptune]

... the U.K. will go back to F-35B.... taking into account that the catapult carrier can launch E-2D Hawkeyes ....:

Brits, "Go Figure??" ;

Bees-

- Will the Brits go back to the "Bee", yes. Do they want a helo-carrier, emphatically "NO!" ; it brings no prestige and no national prominenece.
- Will they fly the "Bees" STOVL off the QE, undoubtedly.
-Will they fly both "Bees" STOVL and "Seas" CV, yes ; but off different carriers.

Seas-

- Will they convert the PW to CV, yes.
- Will both the "Seas" and Rafaels fly CV off the PW, yes.
- Will the Brits/ French joint venture require a new ship name, yes.
- Will the French share ship conversion cost to CV, yes.
- Will the E-2 fly CV off the PW, yes.

Bees & Seas-

In the end, the Brits will initially buy fewer of each type until the LM production cycle produces the "cheaper" sticker price. Buying both types benefits from the common design/ parts. Having CV allows them to share the cost of the PW with the French and thus retain the image of a "CARRIER NAVY"!

We have bantered-about in this web site on the subject of the Brits F-35s, but recently there has been strong discussion about the Brits sharing equipment/ sites with the French. This sharing seems to be the least expensive approach to both the Brit and French economic difficulties. My only question is that since aviation is predominantly common English, will the ship's signs be bi-lingual??

[spazsinbad]

Cost of refitting Royal Navy aircraft carrier trebles By Thomas Harding, Def Corr 12 Mar 2012

"The costs of refitting a Royal Navy aircraft carrier so it can be used by a new generation of fighter jets have more than trebled, defence sources have told The Daily Telegraph."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ebles.html

"Estimates for adapting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter are understood have risen from £500 million to £1.8 billion.

Millions have already been spent on studies to look at how to convert the ship after ministers decided to scrap the jump-jet variant of the plane in favour of a conventional take-off and landing model. But so great is the rise in total costs, ministers are considering abandoning the plan and reverting to the Ministry of Defence’s original proposals.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, believes there is not enough money in the budget to afford the £300 million a year to carry out the work over six years....

...The MoD has earmarked up to £80 million for the conversion feasibility study and half the money has been spent.

Pressure is mounting on ministers to make a decision because of the time it will take to refit the carrier. More than 200 Navy sailors and fliers are about to begin training on US and French carriers to ensure the British ships have qualified crews when launched. Mr Hammond’s decision, expected at the end of this month, could be helped after manufacturers said technical problems with the jump-jet fighter were largely resolved."

Much more babble at the URL JUMP!

[spazsinbad]

Lots of speculative 'what ifs' in this article that may not happen for UK but anyway interesting twist as some have suggested already that UK may go F-35A/F-35B mix similar to Italian Air Force/Navy mix perhaps. And it is back to Expeditionary Ops in Med for UK in near future most likely (with the possibility of Falklands as required)....

The UK, Allies and Re-thinking the F-35C by Robbin Laird

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-uk-allies-an ... the-f-35c/

"...The Brits are not likely in any case to follow the con-ops of the Carrier Battle Group; they will be evolving the con-ops of the ESG. Whether with their own ships and air assets, or those of allies – American or not – the Queen Elizabeth with F-35Bs on board can operate as an ESG focal point. And because of the deck flexibility, they will be able to mix and match helos with airplanes, unmanned and manned or whatever evolves over the next 40 years of the life of the ship.

The RAF buying F-35As makes inherently good sense because it will be the cheapest of the F-35s and be produced in large numbers over the course of the program. And the shared combat systems means that the F-35Bs operating off of the carrier can work inseparably with the RAF or ANY other land-based F-35s which the Brits will need to work with.

The implications for the UK’s coalition approach are significant. The inherent flexibility of the F-35B enabled deck means that the British can lead an operation, can contribute to an operation, or support an operation. A distributed sea base is made up of a variety of platforms, ranging from patrol boats, frigates, destroyers, submarines, etc. The F-35B can put a cover over the distributed seabase, providing air cover, seamless transition from air-to-air to close combat support, and can connect through MADL with whatever F-35 assets are available from the RAF or allies. Remembering that allies in Europe and the Middle East are buying F-35As in decent numbers, this means a significant expansion of what the F-35Bs aboard the carrier CAN DO. No platform fights alone in the F-35 world.

It also means that the Royal Navy can operate Special Forces off of the Queen Elizabeth along with the Bs. Deck spotting and deck management are an important part of mission management and mission success. This means as well, that coalition assets can land on the carrier and leverage the sea-base while the F-35B is flying its C4ISR D mission sets.

There is also a special relationship, which can be developed with the Italians, and their new F-35B enabled carrier. In discussions with Italians, it is clear that their carrier not only is built for F-35Bs as the enabler but that the way ahead is a mix of Bs and As. And the Italians are starting down the road thinking of some innovative approaches to combing them into an integrated strike force for operations throughout their areas of interest...."

Best to read the entire long article at the URL above. PLUS another good STO Harrier pic here: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... /03/14.jpg

Cropped variation below from same source: "The USMC operated 16 Harriers off of the Large Deck Amphib the USS Kearsarge presaging what they intend to do when they have the F-35Bs. In this picture, An AV-8B Harrier takes off from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) during Bold Alligator 2012. Credit: USN"

[maus92]

Lockheed could accommodate UK reversal on F-35 variant
Craig Hoyle | London

"A possible UK decision to reverse a variant switch on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would not cause a problem for Lockheed Martin, according to one of the company's senior programme officials."

"While deferring any comment on the likelihood of a reversal of the decision to the company's UK customer, Lockheed vice-president F-35 programme integration and business development Stephen O'Bryan says: "We have the [production] capacity if the UK went B. We are agnostic on the platform and our supply chain could handle a switch back.""

"Defence secretary Philip Hammond will announce the outcome of this [budget / review of programs] process before Parliament's Easter recess starts on 27 March, but the MoD says the government remains committed to fielding a new carrier strike capability as part of its "Future Force 2020" plans."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-369443/

[spazsinbad]

Long list of various issues to do with changing from F-35C to B on CVFs on this blog post. One day it will get sorted. Then resorted. Then resorted sorted resorted. I think I want to go to a resort... This is a long post with only some of it excepted here below.

Forward to Plan B March 14, 2012

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/f ... Defence%29

"...Depending on your view point you might see the Short Take off and Vertical Landing capability of the F35B to be operationally useful or a gimmick but it is really not the issue, it’s a pros and cons type situation with no right or wrong answer, there are implications though.

Regardless of the performance benefits, what were these extra costs and risks associated with going back to having ‘proper carriers’

Deck Crew; estimates vary but a solid assumption is that conventional carrier operations need more deck crew that STOVL; shore accommodation, welfare, pensions, pay and all the other capitation costs we know about. Some of these can be mitigated with sharing arrangements but fundamentally, it is an additional cost.

Flight Crew; although synthetic environments and the F35’s flight control systems hold a great deal of promise, the assumption must be that maintaining carrier qualifications will require more aircraft, more aircrew and more time. This drives up cost or reduces availability. Where that relationship settles is open for discussion but the basic assumption should be we will need more time/crew or accept less mission availability and reduce the ability to rapidly surge in a crisis.

Catapults and Arrestor Gear; no sensible option exists other than the US EMAL’s and associated recovery equipment which is an additional capital cost and significant through life cost. Certainly cheaper than steam but still a considerable extra cost although the risk of it failing to deliver seems remote.

Doubts on the second carrier; by putting additional costs and delay into the programme something had to give and that something was the second carrier. Operating one carrier with F35C’s might provide a performance uplift over F35B’s but if our loan carrier is in refit or has an accident it doesn’t matter what performance advantage there is. Relying on the French might seem a reasonable option if one’s head is firmly in the sand but does anyone else think will see Rafale’s providing cover for a UK only operation?

Deck Handling and the CEPP; carrier strike has morphed into Carrier Enabled Power Projection (who thinks these up by the way, is there a training course one attends?) which is a blend of carrier borne fast jets, helicopters and in the future UAV’s, supported by other capabilities and force elements. The Royal Navy openly admit that the move to conventional aircraft handling will complicate matters in this regard, noting in evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee that no other maritime force will be doing this and that the challenges are significant. With STOVL aircraft the deck movement challenges are much fewer and we have a deep well of experience from which to draw.

Recovery Refuelling; if we operate the CTOL F35C we need a means of safely providing emergency recovery refuelling but given that no customer exists for the F35C except the USN and they have plenty of other options we would have to fund that ourselves. This would not be an insurmountable problem but at what cost?

Interoperability; the SDSR made great play of interoperability but this only means the US and French maritime forces, the F35B allows us to work with the USMC, Italian and Spanish forces, maybe Australians in the future, in addition to the US and French Navies, plus a number of other prospective F35B buyers and at the very least we would be able to carry out an emergency recovery of an F35B on almost any vessel in the fleet.

I would also ask whether the performance difference between the F35C and F35B is in a REALISTIC operational context are really that significant.

I personally don’t think they are so in light of the extra costs and other risks; simply don’t think it was worth it...."

There is a lot more of the total blog post at the URL.

[popcorn]

Is the extra range and internal payload afforded by the C really worth the conversion cost, specially if this means that in all likelihood that the 2nd carrier goes to waste? By going STOVL, the 2 carriers provide mutual backup capability. A mixed force comprising F-35 CTOL and STOVL jets seems appealing.

[spazsinbad]

Agree popcorn! Not certain if the ski jump has not already been removed from the first in class. I guess it can be done without if the ski jump can be added later in more cashed up times. Politics will decide the situation most likely rather than our good ideas.

[popcorn]

The timing of BA2012 may turn out to be fortuitous for the proponents of the B and how it could contribute in an ESG environment. The UK carriers may yet morph into LHAs on steroids..

[spazsinbad]

'Sharkey' Ward is not happy. Britain has to decide what ConOps are appropriate for whatever reason (it seems to me that short term budget issues drive their policy nowadays). There is a new twist (to me anyway) reason why F-35Bs were chosen in the first instance. Have not see that theory before.

Reversion to the F-35B would be wrong for Britain. March 15, 2012
Short-Term Expediency could destroy Britain's ability to Project Power and Influence

http://www.sharkeysworld.com/2012/03/re ... g-for.html

"...Moving F-35 Goal Posts – Vested Interest and Short Term Expediency.
2002 - Vested Interest.
12. The initial choice of variant of the F-35 was driven by the strong voice of MoD/RAF who insisted that the STOVL F-35B version should be selected - countering the advice of the then Chief Scientific Officer to select the Carrier variant . The RAF view was contrary to the wishes of the Royal Navy but the latter were overruled in Committee. The reason behind the RAF choice had nothing whatsoever to do with operations from an aircraft carrier. It was because they, the RAF, had a private agenda which was referred to as the Deep Penetration Offensive Craft (DPOC).

13. DPOC was envisaged as a long-range, land based bomber and would have provided the RAF with a deep strike capability that could not be achieved by either Tornado the Eurofighter Typhoon.

14. Of the three F-35 variants, the STOVL ‘B’ version had the shortest strike range and the RAF could see therefore that if the land-based ‘A’ version or the carrier-based ‘C’ version was chosen, the deep strike capability of either aircraft would mitigate against any thought of approving the DPOC project...."

LONG Post at URL above and excerpt is only a small part of it.

[popcorn]

The article overstates the combat radius of the C as 760 nautical miles. It also seems to portray the B as being more problematic than it's successes over the past year culminating in the lifting of probation. It will be a relief to hear which jet finally gets the nod.

I need clarification though on what roe the RAF will play, if any, when the F-35 is acquired. Will they jointly operate the jet along with the RN?

[delvo]

What's this about a second ship going to waste if they get C? Is conversion for C too expensive or impossible for that ship, so it's stuck with B or nothing? If so, why couldn't they get B for one ship and C for the other(s)?

(It would become a great case study for comparing the implications of the two methods of launching & landing.)

[spazsinbad]

Until final decision made the question about 2nd CVF (first in class) being converted to cat/trap is not certain and of course the actual aircraft type and numbers are also undecided.