UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[ricnunes]

The idea of loading a piece of tres cher ordnance knowing there is a high likelihood of having to dump it in the drink in order to recover/land doesn’t pass the sniff test, particularly for the RN.

Yes, I agree that this is also very strange and even "fishy" even because and as opposed to bombs (like Paveways) for example, AMRAAMs are very advanced and quite expensive missiles while being relatively light weighted, so why would anyone set it in a way that they would need to be jettisoned just before a (vertical) landing?
This also puzzles me, indeed.

[ianh]

Best I can find, outside of my own knowledge (ex-GR Harrier groundcrew), is a small section in this link which mentions jettisoning the AMRAAM but as part of a post take-off emergency so not really covering the exact thing I'm referring to TBH -

https://www.key.aero/article/aeroplane- ... er-service

but the limitations of the FA2’s performance became all too evident when flying from a carrier deck in high ambient temperatures, which affected the aircraft’s weapons bring-back. If it had to return to the ship soon after take-off when still heavy with fuel and armament, its pilot had no option but to dump fuel and jettison armament in order to reach an acceptable weight for a vertical recovery.

The Sea Harrier, remember, could take off from a ski-jump at a considerably higher weight than it could land vertically with. This problem was not new to the FA2; the equation has always been the same for Harriers, but with missiles such as AMRAAM the value of the weaponry carried (and which might need to be ditched at sea) had risen appreciably.

I'd done a few boat tours on HMS Invincible in the late 90's with GR7s (pre-Joint Force Harrier) and hated every minute of it but by 2003, which is when I remember this being a "pitch point" (in the Gulf, hot temps, high weights, lots of jettisons etc) I'd moved over to AWACS so I've not got direct 1st hand knowledge, just passed down from friends still on the Harriers (by now JFH).

[noth]

Re: the Bedford Array: HMS Prince of Wales is equipped with it, so it was logical to have it on HMS Queen Elizabeth as well, which the current refit was meant to do, amongst other things. It helps with SRVL (presumably for when avionics fail but not just) and enables more bring back. No one was saying drop AIM-120s from the bays into the sea to land, the F-35B even in tropical areas has been able to bring those back. It's more for air to ground munition hung under the wings that it's required for. Both the 2018 & 2023 SRVL tests were done on Prince of Wales by the way. Penny pinching some £350k and ending up with two ships with different capabilties really is a sign of desperation at the MoD, if not incompetence.

There's a whole different thread on this forum about SRVL, explaining all the advantages for the F-35B. It's meant to increase carry back by some 2000lbs iirc.

[weasel1962]

PAC report highlighting RAF management issues on its F-35 program. Nothing wrong with the plane itself.

https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... ort-finds/

12 F-35As to be used as training aircraft besides its nuke role. 15 Bs to be bought bringing total to 75 (12As, 63 Bs).

[hornetfinn]

Not exactly the first time this has happened... This bring to my mind an old Finnish tale about "The Simpleton folks" who bought too short blanket and then had serious trouble sleeping because their feet were cold as the blanket could not cover the feet. Their solution was to cut a strip from the head end "the long end" and sow it to the "short end to cover their feet...

[ianh]

I like that story - regarding the RAF and its poor "management" (rant incoming!!! ) -

I've never seen such a large number of 1* (1 Star Rank i.e General, Admiral, Air Commodore) and above ranking Officers ever in the UK military with the number increasing every year, with the biggest problem being that the only people who can create/remove jobs are the same people who stand to lose most by removing jobs, and gain the most by creating them.

As an example, the UK military has around 500 1* Level Officers whilst Israel, for roughly the same number of overall military members, has less than 20 - thats a HUGE mismanagement by the UK. Additionally, once you start increasing the number of high level officers, they all to be found a job to do, so the upper officer corps becomes a "job creation scheme" where those who've advanced up the ranks to 2* or 3*, create lower level 1* jobs for their friends, adjutants, supporters etc to fill, even if the job is virtually meaningless like someone in the RAF who created a 1* job to "Head of promoting RAF sport"! Thats someone whose paid over £130k a year ($172k+) out of the RAF budget just to promote sport within the armed forces, who are very fitness aware!!!

Just recently the RAF also, again as a job creation scheme IMHO, decided that every airbase needed 2 high ranking officers (one level below 1*) to run the airbase and aviation side, whereas for over 100 years just one was enough despite having far more bases and planes - see what I mean about job creation schemes, because you 100% know that these new additional high rank officers will now also need new jobs once they get promoted, so the 500+ 1* jobs increases yet again - and its never ending.

In my experience I'd say, in a wartime situation, you could easily drop the numbers from 500+ down to <100 without any degradation in force ability, and likely it could drop to below that too - so if we could do that in war time, why is the UK military still very, very happy to pad out the numbers with wasteful roles - and the answer always comes back to this, only those with those jobs can create/remove them, and they'll never get rid of their own (or their friends) jobs, not ever.

Sorry, rant over

[noth]

Capability punted to the right, not cancelled... still pathetic. And "future weapon" is probably the Franco-British future cruise missile, to replace Storm Shadow / SCALP:

The Ministry of Defence’s latest written answer provides a clearer sense of direction for Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing, even if some uncertainty over timing remains.
In response to concerns raised after the MoD’s annual report referred to a ‘Rolling Vertical Landing’ upgrade cancellation, the Minister of State noted that “Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) for the UK’s F35B Lightning aircraft to Queen Elizabeth Class carriers has not been cancelled; it has been reprofiled as a Defence Choice so that fitting the capability aligns with the introduction of a related complex weapons programme.”

A second line in the same answer added that this shift is “not expected to have an adverse impact on overall Carrier Strike or F35B capability.”

Taken together, the explanation more likely suggests a realignment due to budget concerns rather than a withdrawal. The carriers’ current configuration backs up that reading. HMS Prince of Wales retains several features installed for the early SRVL trials. HMS Queen Elizabeth, however, has not received the Bedford Array landing aid during her ongoing refit, even though that had once been expected for this maintenance period. That omission reflects a deliberate decision to pause near term integration while leaving the option in place for a later phase.

SRVL’s advantage becomes more relevant when planning for heavier and more complex long range stores. These were part of the original concept of operations, but their development and introduction have moved to the right. If SRVL is now intended to line up with the arrival of a future, heavier and expensive weapon, the sequencing is consistent with the operational logic. But only if.

I strongly suspect the Bedfor Array for QNLZ will be used as spare parts for PWLS.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/whats-happening-with-srvl/

[quicksilver]

IMO, the ease and precision of Mode 4 flight in the F-35B render the BA a ‘nice to have.’

Seems the reporting to this point has conflated Bedford Array with SRVL; the BA is not a requirement for SRVL unless the RN chooses to make it so by policy. Given UK liability laws I wouldn’t be surprised if that were to occur. But…