Forum: Program and politics

slowman2 wrote:

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.

Problem is, can the UK afford to fund the development of EPE (possibly only for themselves), since USN apparently is only interested in the EDE?

F-16.net Sponsor

maus92 wrote:

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

Some thoughts on the above:

First, I believe that until USMC was directed to buy some F-35Cs instead of some of the Bs it wanted, the C was more expensive than the B.

The range difference s isn't as big as you'd think, because a CTOL has to carry a much larger fuel reserve in shipboard operations than a STOVL a/c. The CTOLs also wear out faster. The B and C have the same avionics, but the C can carry, ~3,000 lbs. more weapons for a max loadout. OTOH, the B has a better thrust/weight ratio.

I don't see how going to the F-35B would prevent the British from operating from French carriers, but it sure would prevent the French from operating from British ones.

AS far as the costs of converting, they were known at the time of the SDSR, but part of the objective of that exercise was to have an excuse to push the carriers out into the future (and maybe get rid of RN fixed wing altogether). After all, it was known that the UK ships would have no organic tanker capability, a must-have for full deep water operations with CTOLs.

aaam wrote:

Problem is, can the UK afford to fund the development of EPE (possibly only for themselves), since USN apparently is only interested in the EDE?

GE renamed EDE to EPE. They are the same thing.

There are three possible applications for the EPE engine.

Super/Silent Hornet : The optional engine available to customers right now.
Gripen E/F :
KFX : The EPE is competing against the EJ230. A design win would mean an order of at least 700 engines minimum + spare engines, so the competition for this contract is fierce.

aaam wrote:

First, I believe that until USMC was directed to buy some F-35Cs instead of some of the Bs it wanted, the C was more expensive than the B.

That's for the airframe cost only. F-35B's propulsion is a killer at more than $100 million each right now, which makes F-35B much more expensive than even the F-22.

Guys, can we just stop giving this article about switching back to STOVL any credence? It's driven by a singularly misinformed letter by the shadow defence minister to the actual people in charge of the country.

There's *nothing* at all of any substance in the article or the letter, by anyone with access to any of the decision making process. All that's happened is that a member of the opposition party has written to the incumbent government asking for clarification on progress with the carrier program.

That clarification will centre around which of the carriers will be fitted out with EMALS/AARG (almost certainly the Prince of Wales) - and to confirm that the existing arrangements will proceed as discussed.

There's no chance at all of the UK withdrawing from the F35 program - F35 is in the air, it's flying, it's meeting targets, the test pilots are very enthusiastic about it, and we've got a very healthy workshare in it.

The only question marks are around how expensive the UFR cost for the airframes we end up buying will be, now that the LRIP phases have been "moved to the right" by displacing 120 of the US buy into the future, and what impact that will have on delivery schedules.

aaam wrote:

maus92 wrote:

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

Some thoughts on the above:

First, I believe that until USMC was directed to buy some F-35Cs instead of some of the Bs it wanted, the C was more expensive than the B.

The range difference s isn't as big as you'd think, because a CTOL has to carry a much larger fuel reserve in shipboard operations than a STOVL a/c. The CTOLs also wear out faster. The B and C have the same avionics, but the C can carry, ~3,000 lbs. more weapons for a max loadout. OTOH, the B has a better thrust/weight ratio.

I don't see how going to the F-35B would prevent the British from operating from French carriers, but it sure would prevent the French from operating from British ones.

AS far as the costs of converting, they were known at the time of the SDSR, but part of the objective of that exercise was to have an excuse to push the carriers out into the future (and maybe get rid of RN fixed wing altogether). After all, it was known that the UK ships would have no organic tanker capability, a must-have for full deep water operations with CTOLs.

The article is junk - the reference to damaging the ability of the UK to operate from French carriers is a nonsense in that the B model would in fact be far easier to operate off the CdG than F35C, which would almost certainly be unable to operate from the French carrier at anything like a combat weight due to the shorter deck, and the shorter, less powerful cats.

Range difference on the C for the UK is, in RAF hands, considerable - and it's important to recognise that the F35 will end up being a significant chunk of the UK's strike capability - both from land and sea.

From the carriers, yes, we need to sort out something for tanker support - Cobb do something that works, and the F35 has two wet hard points easily capable of taking their kit so it's just a case of clearing the kit for use on F35, not inventing anything new.

aaam wrote:

slowman2 wrote:

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.

Problem is, can the UK afford to fund the development of EPE (possibly only for themselves), since USN apparently is only interested in the EDE?

There's no need for us to do anything of the sort - going STOBAR with SH makes no sense - we've ordered long lead items for at least one launch and arresting gear set, work is underway to convert both carriers to angle deck configuration at launch, the ski jump required to support STOBAR has been deleted and in short, we're too far down the line to switch to "worst of all worlds" STOBAR work for no good reason.

If F35 died a death then there are at least two proven CATOBAR aircraft available, off the shelf, and which are combat proven.

STOBAR on a 65Kt carrier is just a daft situation.

slowman2 wrote:

aaam wrote:

Problem is, can the UK afford to fund the development of EPE (possibly only for themselves), since USN apparently is only interested in the EDE?

GE renamed EDE to EPE. They are the same thing.

There are three possible applications for the EPE engine.

Super/Silent Hornet : The optional engine available to customers right now.
Gripen E/F :
KFX : The EPE is competing against the EJ230. A design win would mean an order of at least 700 engines minimum + spare engines, so the competition for this contract is fierce.

aaam wrote:

First, I believe that until USMC was directed to buy some F-35Cs instead of some of the Bs it wanted, the C was more expensive than the B.

That's for the airframe cost only. F-35B's propulsion is a killer at more than $100 million each right now, which makes F-35B much more expensive than even the F-22.

The F414 EDE and EPE are not the same thing, although they share a common core and Genesis. The EDE has a new high-pressure turbine and new six-stage, high-pressure compressor. These will increase the durability of the engine (hence the name) and reduce life cycle costs. USN is very interested in this and is funding development (if it doesn't get cut). The EPE, which GE itself differentiates, adds a new fan design featuring greater air flow to the EDE core which gives you the up to 20% increase in thrust at higher speeds, and that's what the customer has to fund, because apparently USN is satisfied with the F414 thrust as it is. Note that in the MMRCA competition India did not give credit to SH for the performance it might achieve with EPE specifically because EPE was not a funded development and would require India to foot the bill for its development.

I'd like to see where it says that the lift mechanism on the F-35B adds an additional $100 million per aircraft. The F-35B is essentially an A with the lift mechanism (same basic airframe, same wings, same aft control surfaces, etc.), whereas the C incorporates significant changes (wing and empennage, strong hook and support structure, new nose gear and strengthening to transmit catapult load, reinforced main gear, stronger structure). Prices advertised (for what they're worth) don't have, AFAIK, an asterisk after the B with a footnote that says "doesn't include lift system", but I'm willing to be convinced.

stobiewan wrote:

aaam wrote:

maus92 wrote:

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

Some thoughts on the above:

First, I believe that until USMC was directed to buy some F-35Cs instead of some of the Bs it wanted, the C was more expensive than the B.

The range difference s isn't as big as you'd think, because a CTOL has to carry a much larger fuel reserve in shipboard operations than a STOVL a/c. The CTOLs also wear out faster. The B and C have the same avionics, but the C can carry, ~3,000 lbs. more weapons for a max loadout. OTOH, the B has a better thrust/weight ratio.

I don't see how going to the F-35B would prevent the British from operating from French carriers, but it sure would prevent the French from operating from British ones.

AS far as the costs of converting, they were known at the time of the SDSR, but part of the objective of that exercise was to have an excuse to push the carriers out into the future (and maybe get rid of RN fixed wing altogether). After all, it was known that the UK ships would have no organic tanker capability, a must-have for full deep water operations with CTOLs.

The article is junk - the reference to damaging the ability of the UK to operate from French carriers is a nonsense in that the B model would in fact be far easier to operate off the CdG than F35C, which would almost certainly be unable to operate from the French carrier at anything like a combat weight due to the shorter deck, and the shorter, less powerful cats.

Range difference on the C for the UK is, in RAF hands, considerable - and it's important to recognise that the F35 will end up being a significant chunk of the UK's strike capability - both from land and sea.

From the carriers, yes, we need to sort out something for tanker support - Cobb do something that works, and the F35 has two wet hard points easily capable of taking their kit so it's just a case of clearing the kit for use on F35, not inventing anything new.

The C unquestionably has a substantially greater range when operating from land, but it narrows considerably when operating from sea, which is what the discussion is addressing--unless you're of the RAF camp that would be happiest if Britain builds the world's largest helicopter carriers.

Regarding the tankers and the F-35, yes you could set up a a buddy refueling operation, the development of which the UK would have to fund and for which the USN would definitely be grateful. To set it up as on the SH where the a/c itself can draw from this fuel or give part of its own fuel away would add even more R&D costs for a semi-unique version of the -35C. You got the bucks (pounds, euros, whatever)?

'aaam' I'm not following your last sentence: "...To set it up as on the SH where the a/c itself can draw from this fuel or give part of its own fuel away would add even more R&D costs for a semi-unique version of the -35C. You got the bucks (pounds, euros, whatever)?"

Do you mean use the Super Hornet (SH) as a tanker for F-35C? Or something else that is not clear to me. Thanks.

Gents, what was painfully overlooked in the SDSR -- and to some degree in this thread -- is the cost of converting the ships to cats and traps (something on the order of $3B US). Anything that requires a launch bar and a tailhook to get off the ship and back aboard imposes those costs. Thus, particularly in this economic climate, we now see consideration of previous alternatives. The other unspoken piece is that F-35A range/radius is very comparable to the 'C' for land-based operations and thus an A/B UK mix will likely get some scrutiny.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Mar 05, 2012 - 01:31 AM; edited 2 times in total

'quicksilver' I don't believe the cost of converting CVF(s) has been overlooked but perhaps minimised [on this thread] because that cost is not known yet. Yes there are guesses. I believe cost will be known later this year. Though like everything to do with CVF and F-35s everything moves to the right - unknown - constantly. One day it will be sorted - then unsorted - then sorted. Hence the title of this thread. Very Happy

Another factor to consider are the extra personnel required for cat/traps (or 'flaps' as so quaintly described by a funnyarseBrit) and the tankers of whatever persuasion and so on. It is clear that the RAF cannot help but meddle in the RN FAA. It is a pity the RN does not better deal with this interference. Apparently the British PM is aware now of the false last minute brief he was given by RAF at SDSR eve that made such dramatic change to RN/FAA to their detriment.

AND I forgot to add the extra maintenance cost of the cat/'flap' gear to be included over a long time of use one presumes.

The question is do you want to spend the money up front to enable full interoperability with French and American CVs - with the tankers and AEW platforms that it brings to the table - or live with STOVL ops for the next 50 or so years.

There is already a question mark about what 'full interoperability' means in regard to the CdeG F-35C ops by USN/RN FAA. Perhaps they will do lightly loaded ops but yes the French aircraft can cross deck it would seem OK.

Yeah those tankers and AEW aircraft are a cost and so on and so on. Lotsa variables there and still not sorted by the goodly MoD.

Last edited by aaam on Mar 05, 2012 - 09:17 AM; edited 1 time in total

spazsinbad wrote:

'aaam' I'm not following your last sentence: "...To set it up as on the SH where the a/c itself can draw from this fuel or give part of its own fuel away would add even more R&D costs for a semi-unique version of the -35C. You got the bucks (pounds, euros, whatever)?"

Do you mean use the Super Hornet (SH) as a tanker for F-35C? Or something else that is not clear to me. Thanks.

You are exactly right, sir. The USN plan is to use the F/A-18E/F, which is apparently supposed to do everything ever envisioned for an aircraft (I'm still waiting for the CF/A-18 and the VF/A-1 Cool

as its tanker. I hope SH does go beyond the normal buddy refueling role in that it can draw on is external fuel or give its internal fuel away.

'buddy refuelling' has always meant that the tanker can give away as much fuel as it can spare. A-4s were the first to buddy refuel. There are several old Naval Aviation News amongst other sources about this development in the mid-1950s. The easiest to access online would be Wikipedia or Skyhawk Association so here is one example: [to be clear 'the same type' also means other drogue/probe aircraft].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

"...The A-4 pioneered the concept of "buddy" air-to-air refueling. This allows the aircraft to supply others of the same type, eliminating the need of dedicated tanker aircraft—a particular advantage for small air arms or when operating in remote locations. This allows for greatly improved operational flexibility and reassurance against the loss or malfunction of tanker aircraft, though this procedure reduces the effective combat force on board the carrier. A designated supply A-4 would mount a center-mounted "buddy store", a large external fuel tank with a hose reel in the aft section and an extensible drogue refueling bucket. This aircraft was fueled up without armament and launched first. Attack aircraft would be armed to the maximum and given as much fuel as was allowable by maximum takeoff weight limits, far less than a full tank. Once airborne, they would then proceed to top off their fuel tanks from the tanker using the A-4's fixed refueling probe on the starboard side of the aircraft nose. They could then sortie with both full armament and fuel loads. While rarely used in U.S. service since the KA-3 Skywarrior tanker became available, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet includes this capability...."
______________

Depending on internal fuel that could be transferred (say 3,000lbs of 5,200lbs) an A-4 with three external 2,000lb drop tanks (one being the centreline buddy store) could give away 8-9,000 lbs depending on requirements/conditions.

There are many photo examples of A-4s 'buddy refuelling' much larger aircraft such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A4_RF8A_1960.jpeg
__________________

More A-4 Buddy Store info here: http://a4skyhawk.org/2c/a4parts/html/buddy-store.htm

Forum: Program and politics

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C