UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Parliamentary Answers – to 21 August 2011 August 21, 2011

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/08/p ... Defence%29

"Question
Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of when the first Future Carrier will be operational; and when it will be able to deploy fast jet aircraft from its deck.

Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The date that the operational Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier enters service with the Royal Navy will depend on which ship will be converted to operate the carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter. This in turn will inform when fast jets will be deployed from the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. We expect firm decisions to be taken on carrier conversion in late 2012 and it remains our intent to deliver a carrier strike capability from around 2020.
______________________________________________

Question
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether planned adjustments to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will make them compatible with French Rafale aircraft.

Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The conversion of the operational Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier will allow the more capable carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter to be operated. The change in aircraft launch and recovery equipment will offer improved levels of interoperability with our allies’ aircraft, including the French Rafale. Further work on interoperability will be undertaken as part of our conversion investigations, which are expected to conclude in late 2012."

UK launches carrier conversion studies 18 August 2011

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... te?page=53
&
http://www4.janes.com/subscribe/idr/doc ... QueryText=

"The UK's Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) - comprising BAE Systems, Babcock, Thales and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) - has commenced an incremental 18-month Conversion Development Phase (CDP) to explore options for the adaptation of at least one of its Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to a 'cats and traps' configuration to enable the operation of the F-35C Carrier Variant (CV) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Seed funding of about GBP5 million (USD8 million) is covering activity through to the end of October, with further contracts to be let in the near future to the ACA and the MoD-led Naval Design Partnering (NDP) team ."

first posted to http://idr.janes.com - 18 August 2011

NUFF said:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/08/arse-meet-elbow/

NUFF said:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/08/****-meet-elbow/

Royal Navy's reaction to the switch from B to C model. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09rqkY0 ... ideo_title

Aaaaaaahh the old 'spit the dummy' trick. Sharkey is good at that (have not read pt.1 yet)

http://www.sharkeysworld.com/search/lab ... %20Fighter

Is it just me (with my lack of understanding "spit the dummy") or did Sharkey make all those factual errors and flat out bad assumptions on purpose (to make a point), or does he actually think that way?

Come on dude, go easy on us Americans. I had to look up what "spit the dummy" meant. I thought it was actually putting an idiot on a spit and roasting him. Anyways, I thought you would find it funny.

Yeah I used to get into trouble for telling youse USians that I was pissed when I was not angry - just drunk. OK?

SWP, Sharkey has become notorious for his selective or incorrect stating of 'facts'. He does this probably intentionally to make a point but I don't know one way or other. He was once sharp as a tack and argumentative as you can imagine but these days getting older has probably diminished his 'debating' skills that probably are not suited to online. Verbal arguments he would win every time as every good AWI (Air Warfare Instructor) would - by using the 'dummy spit' tactics as seen in the video. I believe a Marine argument means standing toe to toe with one's face pressed against the face of the other with both screaming obscenities and 'Sir, Yes, Sir' at one another.

So if one can go with the Sharkey flow (although as you point out we probably won't agree with him on some points) he does make a good 'argument'. Probably his broader point is to highlight the mendaciousness of the RAF and how they have managed to mess with the RN FAA far too much over the last few decades. I have already given an example of how the RAF are devious in their propaganda. Sharkey's website will give you any number of other recent or old examples.

It is good that we have on this forum good sources of information and even criticism to help us 'see the light'.

And remember Sharkey says he is the 'devil's advocate' some of the time but sometimes he is not sure (or we are'nt).

It is always good to think for oneself and what others may think is less interesting. Facts are good however.

Some SDSR 'wasting money to save money' info here:

SDSR write-offs to cost £6.3bn 30 August 2011

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=17281

"...The biggest losses outlined in the documents are still to come, however, with £6.6bn still to be written off.

The bulk of the total comes as a result of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, with the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4, Harrier jump jet and various Royal Navy ships costing billions of pounds.

Nimrod alone will result in an estimated write off of £3.6bn, with the Harriers losing the MoD £1.8bn...."

The notion that MoD decided to go with the C before undertaking a carrier conversion study and thus having a clue what the true cost differential might be is really rather stunning. At the time of the decision various numbers were thrown around without detail but the main talking point was saving money by going with the C. It appeared that the "savings" were almost entirely due to simply planning to purchase fewer aircraft and the extra costs of conversion and operations ignored. Now it's clear they had little notion what these costs were as well.

It's fine if the whole matter rested on various capabilities of the B vs C but that's not exactly how the discussion was really framed in terms of cost. Going for the C was something that really should have decided years ago and changing this late in the game is rather problematic. One would be forgiven for thinking the whole thing is a charade to vastly cut down total buy for F-35 and cutting out one operational carrier after two were paid for.

Yep, it is all a charade until UK has some money - even then the ups and downs will be as dramatic as recent past. When carriers 'finished' with some aircraft bought then things might settle down.

Is it just me (with my lack of understanding "spit the dummy") or did Sharkey make all those factual errors and flat out bad assumptions on purpose (to make a point), or does he actually think that way?

It's a howl a minute I loved the line "It should be noted that US$1.6 billion could be used to procure 27 F-18 Super Hornet fighter aircraft to cover all the operational requirements required."

Someone should tell that to the Australians as they've just bought 24 SH for $3 billion, boy did they get ripped off...

Or " if a task force is opposed by a fighter air threat, the F-35 will have to use its air-to-air radar to detect and destroy enemy fighters and/or sea skimming missiles launched against the fleet. In such circumstances of radar usage, the aircraft’s stealth cover will be broken."

LPI radar, discuss...

This is all pants - we're converting both carriers to cat and trap, are buying at least 40 modern 5G aircraft. That's a *good* thing.

Ian

Excellent discussion points, lb. Well summed up. Indeed, the strategic decisions should have been better calculated and adjusted by all sides of the pond years ago... instead of the tragic 'finger pointing, it wasn't me', last minute type policymaking charade.

The day there will be both career-advancement incentives (carrot) and career-accountability (stick), derived either from prudent long-range policymaking (or strategically miscalculated policy therein), there will finally be the day of more prudent, cost-effective acquisition processes.

More 'howls' from Sharkey at the URL but I'm more interested in 'facts' so to speak and this titbit is intriguing. Snippet will be posted on the F-35C 'approach speed/Optimum AoA' thread also.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Project: Part 3. Thursday, September 1, 2011

http://www.sharkeysworld.com/2011/09/f- ... -part.html

“...Operations from a flat flight deck
58. The flight characteristics and landing speed of the F-35C Lightning II appear to have been designed specifically for operation from United States Navy nuclear powered strike carriers. These warships are capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots. The design approach speed for the F-35C Lightning II aircraft returning on board in a typical combat configuration, with all its original weapon load, is understood to be such that in ‘still air conditions’ the carrier will need to maintain a speed of at least 32 knots through the water during deck-landing operations.

59. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers have a design top speed of 27 knots which is insufficient for recovery of the F-35C Lightning II aircraft in a combat configuration in ‘still air conditions’ or when the natural wind is ‘light and variable’. If there is any doubt that the wind may fall to less than 5 knots, planned aircraft operations might be restricted. This therefore represents an unacceptable shortfall in operational availability and an unacceptable cost in weapons that have to be ditched before attempting landing.

60. It is understood that attempts to reduce the landing speed of the aircraft by 5 knots utilising such devices as spoilers on the wing would have an unacceptably detrimental effect on the stealth qualities of the aircraft – and would increase costs significantly.

61. If this limitation proves to be correct, the F-35C will not be a sensible option for operation from our carriers. The matter requires very early clarification.

62. ‘Buddy-buddy’ Air-to-Air Refuelling Capability. As discussed in Part 1 and 2, the F-35C Lightning II is not fitted with a ‘buddy-buddy’ air-to-air refuelling system. Safe carrier deck operations rely upon the availability of this capability and should not be conducted without it. An embarked air-to-air refuelling capability is essential."

@ spaz.: to your stated "facts":
The USN publicly released the speed of the nuclear carriers in June 1999:
Enterprise 33.6 knots after last refit
Nimitz 31.5 knots
Theodore Roosevelt 31.3 knots
Harry S Truman 30.9 knots
"Source": http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm