Forum: Program and politics

Now they're saying the Brits "may" get a mix including F-35A? I thought it was the obvious choice to make all along. Why would their Air Force ever have even momentarily considered anything else?

If getting some CTOL models for their on-land operations is a new change they're just now considering for the future, maybe the price difference will save them the money they need to get that carrier ready for F-35C (and other catapultable planes)... Whistle

F-16.net Sponsor

Who are 'they' though. The Brits have not been saying this yet. Only youse SLDyanks have been saying it as a possibility. It is important who 'they' are.

The latest news is on basing.

In their strongest hint yet, the Government has pointed towards RAF Marham as being the main operating base for the F35 in uk service. Originally this was going to be Lossiemouth in Scotland however, with the announced of the closure of Leuchars, half the Typhoon fleet will move to Lossiemouth. The gov have stated it is impractical to collocate the two types on one base.

Interestingly one of the reasons cited for using Marham is its close proximity to Lakenheath and the 48th FW for shared maintenance. Is this also the clearest indication yet that the USAF intend to re-equip the 48th? It would Make sense that the DoD have kept the UK appraised of future plans for it and the 'Hall next door. Perhaps replacing the Grim Reapers C Eagles? Or Spangdalem being closed following the disbandment of the A10s with the remaining Viper unit moving to LN and re-equipping?

Andy

Further to 'popcorn' 'on previous page statement / question' on building 'CVF to commercial standards'. Here is more information about that (already posted some earlier info on this).

The Future Aircraft Carrier 20 March 2007
- the engineering and technical challenges of designing and building the largest ever warships for the Royal Navy

Speaker: John D Coles, CB FREng, Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)
Integrated Project Team Leader, Ministry of Defence

http://www.raeng.org.uk/events/pdf/Tran ... _Coles.pdf (155Kb)

"...CVF design standards and key technical issues
Let me say something about a few of the standards and general principles before talking about the ships themselves.

General design standards and policies
We have used, as much as we can, Lloyds’ rules for structures and systems, and also for commercial equipment – very much like the cruise liner industry – and, where we need to, defence standards for military features. The transversals, across the ship, noise, environmental – these, again, are based upon commercial standards. We have tried to put a lot of the work from the cruise liner industry into these ships as well, where we have specific standards, for magazines, ability to withstand shock and noise signatures. Although it sounds like a commercial ship, it is still a warship, because it has all these features in it and, where we need military features, it has those too. In any case, it is also painted grey!..."

spazsinbad wrote:

Further to 'popcorn' 'on previous page statement / question' on building 'CVF to commercial standards'. Here is more information about that (already posted some earlier info on this).

The Future Aircraft Carrier 20 March 2007
- the engineering and technical challenges of designing and building the largest ever warships for the Royal Navy

Speaker: John D Coles, CB FREng, Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)
Integrated Project Team Leader, Ministry of Defence

http://www.raeng.org.uk/events/pdf/Tran ... _Coles.pdf (155Kb)

"...CVF design standards and key technical issues
Let me say something about a few of the standards and general principles before talking about the ships themselves.

General design standards and policies
We have used, as much as we can, Lloyds’ rules for structures and systems, and also for commercial equipment – very much like the cruise liner industry – and, where we need to, defence standards for military features. The transversals, across the ship, noise, environmental – these, again, are based upon commercial standards. We have tried to put a lot of the work from the cruise liner industry into these ships as well, where we have specific standards, for magazines, ability to withstand shock and noise signatures. Although it sounds like a commercial ship, it is still a warship, because it has all these features in it and, where we need military features, it has those too. In any case, it is also painted grey!..."

Thanks, reassuring to know..

spazsinbad wrote:

Further to 'popcorn' 'on previous page statement / question' on building 'CVF to commercial standards'. Here is more information about that (already posted some earlier info on this).

The Future Aircraft Carrier 20 March 2007
- the engineering and technical challenges of designing and building the largest ever warships for the Royal Navy

Speaker: John D Coles, CB FREng, Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)
Integrated Project Team Leader, Ministry of Defence

http://www.raeng.org.uk/events/pdf/Tran ... _Coles.pdf (155Kb)

"...CVF design standards and key technical issues
Let me say something about a few of the standards and general principles before talking about the ships themselves.

General design standards and policies
We have used, as much as we can, Lloyds’ rules for structures and systems, and also for commercial equipment – very much like the cruise liner industry – and, where we need to, defence standards for military features. The transversals, across the ship, noise, environmental – these, again, are based upon commercial standards. We have tried to put a lot of the work from the cruise liner industry into these ships as well, where we have specific standards, for magazines, ability to withstand shock and noise signatures. Although it sounds like a commercial ship, it is still a warship, because it has all these features in it and, where we need military features, it has those too. In any case, it is also painted grey!..."

Thanks, reassuring to know..

Animation video of how CVF is slapped together - sort of. (see NOTE)

The blocks that make up the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUxyl4R1KRo

"Published on Oct 18, 2012 by QEClassCarriers
See the process the Aircraft Carrier Alliance is using to assembly the largest and most powerfuil warships ever constructed for the Royal Navy.

Note; This is designed to outline the modular build approach. It is not an engineering animation, so may not match the final process or design in every detail."

What's with the weird distortions in the video?

It is not reality.

spazsinbad wrote:

It is not reality.

Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Agreed Approach to Carrier Jets October 23, 2012

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/4060 ... c539ee48c5

"An article in the latest Sunday Times entitled 'Naval carriers face being without jets for most of year' claims that the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers may regularly be without aircraft because of a 'row' between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force over how to operate the jets.

This article misrepresents the reality. Both Services have a long-agreed approach to the joint operation of this highly capable, fifth-generation stealth aircraft. Lightning II will be operated by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as part of the UK's carrier strike capability and as a replacement for the GR4 Tornado. The first UK test aircraft have been delivered and are undergoing flight trials in the US.

The aircraft will conduct initial flights off HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2018, which will routinely deploy with Lightning II jets embarked with pilots from both Services, providing a step-change in capability compared to the Harrier fleet.
----
Official Blog of the UK MOD"

spazsinbad wrote:

Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Agreed Approach to Carrier Jets October 23, 2012

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/4060 ... c539ee48c5

"An article in the latest Sunday Times entitled 'Naval carriers face being without jets for most of year' claims that the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers may regularly be without aircraft because of a 'row' between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force over how to operate the jets.

This article misrepresents the reality. Both Services have a long-agreed approach to the joint operation of this highly capable, fifth-generation stealth aircraft. Lightning II will be operated by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as part of the UK's carrier strike capability and as a replacement for the GR4 Tornado. The first UK test aircraft have been delivered and are undergoing flight trials in the US.

The aircraft will conduct initial flights off HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2018, which will routinely deploy with Lightning II jets embarked with pilots from both Services, providing a step-change in capability compared to the Harrier fleet.
----
Official Blog of the UK MOD"

This still makes no sense to me at all.

Buy the RN the number of F-35B's they need for their role.

Buy F-35A's for the RAF or just let them keep running out Typhoon if that is what you want to do.

I see no reason in the present defense environment for the RAF to operate VTOL aircraft at all.

The F-35B aircraft are STOVL - Short Take Off Vertical Landing - not VTOL Vertical Take Off Landing. The last UK Harrier force was combined RN/RAF nominally - Joint Force Harrier was one name with the RAF at the top. So really the RAF will not be operating VTOL aircraft nor will the RN.

[quote="bigjku...I see no reason in the present defense environment for the RAF to operate VTOL aircraft at all.[/quote]

Unlike the Harrier,

The "Bee" has full CTOL capability with only a "slight?" range, performance, weapons bay penalty from the lift fan.

Otherwise it flies the same as the "A" and would be a suitable a/c for runway operations. Todate, no vertical landings have been performed from the 13 "Bees" at Eglin.

The 33rd FW has flown more than 100 JSF sorties; 12Jul2012
The 33rd FW has flown more than 200 JSF sorties; 7Oct2012
Smile

'neptune' good point about conventional landing capability of the F-35B, which as mentioned on another thread specifically about this issue, will likely be the majority of F-35B runway landings. Why? Because the F-35B is so easy to land vertically (and we hope SRVLerly) that to reduce wear and tear on aircraft most landings will be runny ones. There is much less requirement to practice vertical landings compared to the Harrier as mentioned recently several times by various pilots including Col. Tomassetti.

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... tches.html

Forum: Program and politics

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C