Forum: Program and politics

RN opting for the Rafale Marine and Britain pulling out of this ridiculous F-35 project is very very realistic .. US/UK relations have reached all time low . Obama described France as the closest ally and supports Argentina in Falkland conflict.

F-16.net Sponsor

The F-35C will not be ready for the QE, so it either launches without or it uses a transitional choice like the Rafale or Rhino.

'duplex' have any proof for this statement? Thanks. "...US/UK relations have reached all time low . Obama described France as the closest ally and supports Argentina in Falkland conflict."

madrat wrote:

Perhaps they could lease it to the USN and have it manned by a joint US-UK crew. The USN could supply the F/A-18's and would save the UK the need to buy a transition capability.

Right because we have tons of extra aircraft and crew just lying around for this.

madrat wrote:

The F-35C will not be ready for the QE, so it either launches without or it uses a transitional choice like the Rafale or Rhino.

QE will not have CATOBAR equipment because it's too far along in construction to convert. Both Rafale and Rhino require CATOBAR operations on a carrier, or at least a larger ski jump carrier than QE. QE either can field F-35B, can field helicopters and be very expensive to operate for very little actual capability (but some shakedown and learning can take place ahead of Prince of Wales), they can restart the Harrier line and it can field new-build Harriers (probably more expensive and longer delay than waiting for F-35B), or they can leave out the actual mothballs and it can field a whole bunch of moths while it's mothballed.

I think the sensible choice is put it on shakedown cruises fielding only helicopters and periodically LRIP F-35B to work on STOVL and ship-handling operations until the F-35B is ready for service. Or if that's just too expensive for what amounts to a prolonged training cruise, mothball it until PoW puts to sea, by which time the F-35B and C will be ready. At which point the UK can decide whether to convert it to CATOBAR and put F-35C on it, scrap it, or keep it as an F-35B carrier with lesser capabilities vs. PoW. If they do have it at sea with F-35B onboard, and eventually it does get converted, both carriers can field mixed wings of B and C. B would have a mix of small advantages and small disadvantages for air superiority, while C would have huge advantages for strike. By that point they may have just decided it's cheaper to build PoW without CATOBAR and go with all F-35B.

'river_otter' OH NO! Not more choices. Please don't confuse them any further. Very Happy

I predict this kerfuffle about what to do will go on and on and on and on....

spazsinbad wrote:

'duplex' have any proof for this statement? Thanks. "...US/UK relations have reached all time low . Obama described France as the closest ally and supports Argentina in Falkland conflict."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... itain.html

Speculation about reverting to the F-35B contained in a letter to Defence Secretary Philip Hammond:

"In the letter, [Labour’s shadow defense minister Jim] Murphy asks whether the government is considering abandoning its decision, made in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), to introduce “the [F-35C] carrier variant of the JSF in 2020 and whether any consideration is being given to reversing the decision to abandon the short-takeoff and vertical landing [F-35B] version.”

Murphy said there had been “worrying suggestions” about the F-35C variant of the JSF and its possible impact on the construction of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier scheduled to carry them.

A spokeswoman at the MoD admitted a review of the carrier and other programs was underway as part of the planning round for the 2012-13 financial year, but didn’t directly address whether another JSF change was in the offing."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... CFRONTPAGE

Change to F-35B fueled by cost considerations over converting to CATOBAR:

"The UK may have to scrap plans to purchase the carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and instead revert to ordering the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant due to a lack of funds to redesign the decks of Britain's aircraft carriers, it has been reported."

"While the F-35C airframes are likely to be cheaper and more effective than the F-35B, the estimated £1bn cost of converting the flight deck of the carriers and purchasing EMALS equipment could be too expensive for the Ministry of Defence to afford, according to a report in The Guardian.

Although it has a greater range and the ability to carry a heavier payload, the F-35C design is also said to have suffered from some potentially significant design flaws early in its testing programme, which may push up costs. Late last year a Pentagon report cited concerns at the positioning of the F-35C's arrestor hook and its ability to withstand buffeting, amongst other problems, as a "concern".

Switching away from cat and trap system would also damage Britain's ability to interoperate from French aircraft carriers, as set out in a UK/France defence cooperation treaty and later agreed by the French President and UK Prime Minister David Cameron."

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=19037

The solution to the Royal Navy's problem is to go STOBAR like the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Vayarg, and the Vikramaditya.

There are three western jets for STOBAR operation, the Naval Typhoon(STOBAR only, no CATOBAR), the Super/Silent Hornet with upgraded EPE engines, or the Sea Gripen. Going STOBAR is more realistic and financially viable than to wait for either F-35B/C.

slowman2 wrote:

The solution to the Royal Navy's problem is to go STOBAR like the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Vayarg, and the Vikramaditya.

There are three western jets for STOBAR operation, the Naval Typhoon(STOBAR only, no CATOBAR), the Super/Silent Hornet with upgraded EPE engines, or the Sea Gripen. Going STOBAR is more realistic and financially viable than to wait for either F-35B/C.

Not one of the three exists as even a flying prototype, much less a production aircraft. LMAO

So "There are..." is a baldfaced lie. There are proposed concepts that maybe in the future there could be three western jets heavily modified, including components not yet even started in development, such that if everything worked exactly as advertised, maybe they could use STOBAR operations. They're farther behind on that than the F-35C by far, and will be grossly inferior to the F-35 even if produced exactly as designed. Plus no guarantee they won't rack up the same cost overruns and delays as every jet since before even the F-111, and wind up even farther behind by the time the F-35B and C reach IOC. The Typhoon at least will be more expensive than the F-35C (it is already), and the Silent Hornet might be as well. The Sea Gripen might be cheaper, but it's the clearest example of "you get what you pay for" out of the three. Not to mention there's a reason CATOBAR carriers are the world's platinum standard. Using more of the deck as a runway means using less of the deck for staging operations, and thus slower operational tempo.

And STOBAR mods, while clearly cheaper than CATOBAR mods, are still not free or instantaneous. By the time they could retrofit the QE with arresting cables, a second work crew could have installed catapults in the other end. All that money and downtime in the dock, to still wind up with no capability to fly the E-3C or inter-operate with French Navy Rafales or USN Hornets, Super Hornets, and Lightning II-Cs.

river_otter wrote:

Not one of the three exists as even a flying prototype, much less a production aircraft.

The Super Hornet does short takeoff just fine, and the EPE would cut the take-off distance further. The EPE engine swap requires no airframe shape modification and was indeed offered to the Indians as a part of Boeing MRCA bid package for a delivery in 2015.

The fact that the four Royal Navy aviators embedded to the US Navy to preserve the British naval aviation skills currently fly Super Hornets also helps.

'duplex' history URL link describes why the UK govmnt/RN have agreements (mentioned in this thread) with USN about developing their carrier capability (I guess these will include either/or options for either/or F-35B/Cs if needed).

If the carriers they already have are big enough for a catapult and arresting cables, why weren't they built with them in the first place?

'delvo' the history of CVF development is long and tortuous. Probably the BEEDALL website has the most comprehensive overview. Needless to say some years ago a decision was made to purchase the F-35B to continue STOVL ops on CVFs with ski jumps with the capacity for future change as described. It seems clear that conditions changed along with the political winds including a change of government that took a new tack. Now it looks like another tack into the wind of change. Very Happy

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-01.htm

Forum: Program and politics

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C