UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[marsavian]

Thread finally gets back on 'muddle' topic

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... keStrategy

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster) -

When it comes to ordering future aircraft, and the question of what type they should be—B, A or other variants—that is a decision we do not yet have to make. It is important to note that we are starting a journey. I will come back to this point when we talk about the strategy. Up to now, as I have described, we have been consolidating the three elements for carrier strike, and now we begin the operational phase. This is a new piece of work and, as that operational phase continues, we will see how effectively these squadrons work together and whether we need more Bs or whether in future we will buy As. That is not a decision we have to make right now, and in many ways it would be wrong to make it right now, before we have experience of operating this platform. It will be made in due course.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan -

In relation to our future purchasing of more jets, are the Government at all considering purchasing Cs rather than As, which clearly have a more bespoke outlook to them? We would then be able to fly the Cs off American aircraft carriers as well.

Mark Lancaster -

My hon. Friend makes an important point about interoperability. Of course, that is the whole point of the first deployment, when we will have US marine corps jets on our platform. We have an eye to ensuring that we have that interoperability, which is precisely why we keep our options open on what we will buy next. Narrowing our options right now on what future jets we will buy would be premature.

[spazsinbad]

Complete DEBATE of the masses on previous page PDF: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=412786&hilit=chat#p412786

Suggestion of F-35Cs - it makes less sense given the UK circumstances NOW than before CVFs - even if Cs for the RN only. Does one expect the RAF to fly F-35Cs that they may be called upon to operate from a CVN? You are kidding right? Those CRABS outside the Joint Force don't want the LIGHTNING in any form; let alone flying from ANY CARRIER in ANY VARIANT.

CAPICHE? It seems to me UK pollies mostly are just stupid beyond believe. Although some well informed got together for the debate cited - this fine group was infiltrated by NUMNUTS! The peanut gallery are well represented there sadly.

[marsavian]

These defence activist MPs generally hold a lot of sway amongst their peers especially the Defence Select Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Select_Committee

If they eventually recommend F-35C as the final F-35 top-up and the whole House agrees with them then that's what the RAF will have to swallow. After all to the RAF a F-35C is just an F-35A without a gun, it gives them the range and weapon capacity they want plus existing tankers can service them. The Committee could also make an argument that the Carriers could have traps fitted later in their life so the RN could also directly use them eventually. The Two QE Carriers currently have a lot of prestige in Parliament and it was their general outcry that forced the reversal of Cameron's decision to only use one. Don't be surprised if Carrier requirements trump RAF prejudices and dictate the ultimate UK F-35 composition buy. The RAF is getting Typhoon AESA upgrades and Tempest, they just may have to be satisfied with that rather than getting some F-35A too.

[weasel1962]

Just the other day, I was trying to figure out how UK's GDP was over US$3 trillion back in 2005 and US$2.7 trillion today. Judging by the convoluted analysis to comes up with a less than optimal solution, the reason becomes clearer.

What additional range and weapons capacity benefit does the F-35C have over the F-35A? The response is immaterial.

Once RAF has tankers, the issue of additional range between A and C is irrelevant. That especially when deployed from UK where there are no targets in that range differential to justify the "added" range.

The only reason why anyone wants an F-35C is to operate from an aircraft carrier. Whilst the UK has 2 aircraft carrier, neither can operate the F-35C as they were designed to operate the B variant. A change to operate the F-35C has already been rejected.

So the whole purpose of paying $20m more per plane is to enable plane to be able to operate from US carriers but which cannot operate from UK carriers? B variant can also inter-operate with US LHDs. So what's the point of buying 2 aircraft carriers in the first place?

[spazsinbad]

These defence activist MPs generally hold a lot of sway amongst their peers especially the Defence Select Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Select_Committee

If they eventually recommend F-35C as the final F-35 top-up and the whole House agrees with them then that's what the RAF will have to swallow. After all to the RAF a F-35C is just an F-35A without a gun, it gives them the range and weapon capacity they want plus existing tankers can service them. The Committee could also make an argument that the Carriers could have traps fitted later in their life so the RN could also directly use them eventually. The Two QE Carriers currently have a lot of prestige in Parliament and it was their general outcry that forced the reversal of Cameron's decision to only use one. Don't be surprised if Carrier requirements trump RAF prejudices and dictate the ultimate UK F-35 composition buy. The RAF is getting Typhoon AESA upgrades and Tempest, they just may have to be satisfied with that rather than getting some F-35A too.

MONEY LACK for DEFENCE is crippling the UK Armed Forces with BEAN COUNTERS devising all kinds of cutting schemes methinks. VERY CONVOLUTED thinking is par for the course at MoD so I'll not predict any outcome except the RAF CRABS will VERY MIGHTILY resist - IF they have F-35Cs - to learn how to DECK LAND for the sake of CROSS decking with USN.

[marsavian]

Just the other day, I was trying to figure out how UK's GDP was over US$3 trillion back in 2005 and US$2.7 trillion today.

The exchange rate peaked at $2.11 to a pound in 2007 and at $1.93 in 2005.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank- ... o-USD-2005

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank- ... o-USD-2007

Today it is $1.31 to a pound.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank- ... o-USD-2019

Once RAF has tankers.

They already have them ... Voyagers with drogues. Booms would be extra cost modification that you would weigh up against the extra cost and utility of F-35C and only half the Voyagers have the under fuselage space.

A change to operate the F-35C has already been rejected.

Only the full cat/traps as the technology existed then. They could just use traps in future and save most of the cost. Ultimately it's a compromise that could leave the RAF and RN both partially satisfied.

[weasel1962]

WOW - I did not know that.

[spazsinbad]

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... ur_web.jpg

[optimist]

They already have them ... Voyagers with drogues. Booms would be extra cost modification that you would weigh up against the extra cost and utility of F-35C and only half the Voyagers have the under fuselage space.

I think it was the private owner. That didn't want the drag messing up his profits on private work. The RAF get access on the first Tuesday afternoon of every month.

[spazsinbad]

Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft: Written question - 218778
Q Asked by Nia Griffith (Llanelli) Asked on: 08 February 2019
"Ministry of Defence | Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft 218778
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 7 February 2019 to Question 216198 on Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft, how many of the F-35B fleet do not meet the 8,000 hour service life requirement; and when the modifications of the early contract F-35B are planned to be completed.
A
Answered by: Stuart Andrew Answered on: 13 February 2019
A full testing programme for the F-35B is being developed by the Joint Programme Office, which will see all aircraft modified to bring them up to at least the 8,000 hour life and possibly beyond. Future aircraft and those in production will incorporate any relevant design changes as the programme progresses."

Source: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 08/218778/

[mixelflick]

The F-35C as I see it is a REAL long shot, but to make sure I understand...

The Brits propose to add traps to their carriers, but not cats? I wasn't aware the F-35C could take off from a ski jump, and even if it could - wouldn't it be compromised insofar as how much fuel/weapons it can carry? Clearly, they could tank up in the air but I was under the impression non-cat launches severely handicapped XYZ aircraft using such???

[spazsinbad]

I think you are confused; no one has suggested what you imagine. Let it be. CRABS appear to aim for F-35As - not at sea.

[hythelday]

BAE begins Meteor and SPEAR integration for F-35
https://www.janes.com/article/87285/bae ... n-for-f-35

The company announced on 18 March that it had been sub-contracted by Lockheed Martin to begin integrating the MBDA Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) and the Selected Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) 3 air-to-surface missile aboard the aircraft. Integration is expected to continue up to 2025.

As noted by BAE Systems, the Meteor and SPEAR 3 work is part of a wider package that includes further integration of the MBDA AIM-132 Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the Raytheon Paveway IV laser-guided bomb (LGB) in support of delivering initial operating capability (IOC) for the UK.

Meteor coming to F-35B no later than 2025, meaning A (and improbably C) should get it too.

[weasel1962]

Official announcement (same I think for both links) is here as a comparison to see what is added by journos.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/w ... f-35-fleet
https://www.mbda-systems.com/2019/03/18 ... -35-fleet/

[spazsinbad]

Meteor, Spear additions to give UK F-35s added punch
21 Mar 2019 Craig Hoyle

"...Cliff Waldwyn, MBDA's head of combat air, group business development, notes that in addition to boosting the capabilities of the UK's Lightning force, the future availability of the Meteor and Spear weapons with the US-built platform also represent "a positive step for the wider F-35 enterprise, as it adds additional capability choice for international customers".

Both weapons will be cleared for carriage by the stealthy type as part of a Block 4 package of capability updates, with in-service dates to be defined in co-ordination with the US F-35 Joint Programme Office and UK Ministry of Defence….

...The subject of a £400 million ($525 million) development programme launched in 2016, Spear will equip both the F-35B and Typhoon for the UK, with the types capable of carrying eight and 12 of the weapons, which weigh less than 100kg (227lb). With a turbojet engine and multimode seeker, Spear will offer a range performance greater than 75nm (140km).

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ch-456811/