UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

‘OLD’ 20Mb CGI Video of intended F-35B Ops aboard CVF with AfterBurner Ski Jump Takeoffs which must have been an 'old' idea a decade ago. Anyway this video shows a night time SRVL recreation which most likely is accurate including touching down more toward centre of deck as shown in screenshot (AFT Island in view). Video clip and screenshot(s) of (near) touchdown point is from the 20Mb .MP4 video:

Right mouse clicking on the video to select 'ZOOM' then 'Full Screen' view is useful

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/pub ... dition.mp4

NOW on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnB4lBltLAA

The UK, unlike the US has some sort of defense against sea skimming missiles in the T45. So if the US wants to attack Syria, Iran or Russia it would have to to be defended by UK or french ships.

CIWS & RAM don't count? http://youtu.be/Zdp9llrBLnA

No. CIWS is useless against even subsonic and especially if there is any interference from other ships/helicopters/chaff. Hypersonic swarms tats change direction and come from all angles, while bypassing the escorts and going straight for a Carrier. No chance.

The USN and government has expressed the explicit fear that the carriers and completely vulnerable against Russian missiles. Syria and Iran have then, seen any chance of a US carrier going near their shore?

Or better yet, a SM-6 fired in Launch-On-Remote mode cued by offboard sensors and nailing the incoming cruise missile hundred of kilometers distant.

Yeah, good luck with catching a mach 5 or mach 7 missile with a mach 3.5 missile.
And I hope you can fire six at once and hit every incoming target.

If the Navy has identified the SM-6 as the basis for its Sea-Based Terminal BMD capability, why do you think it would have any difficulty dealing with an incoming airborne missile, hypersonic or otherwise? Why would firing on multiple targets pose a problem? Intercepting incoming threats has nothing to do with luck.

If the Navy has identified the SM-6 as the basis for its Sea-Based Terminal BMD capability, why do you think it would have any difficulty dealing with an incoming airborne missile, hypersonic or otherwise? Why would firing on multiple targets pose a problem? Intercepting incoming threats has nothing to do with luck.

Sorry, I meant probability, not luck.

The F-35B fly's farther, faster, better (more missions), carries more, and has a better change of survival than the Sea Harrier which they were using up to this point.

How is this a bad thing?

Because for all intents and purposes, they're not replacing the Invincibles and Sea Harrier, they're replacing Ark/Eagle and the Phantom/Buc combo. A cruiser hull with a handfull of Harriers is not not something much of anybody cares about, its not much of a threat. 66,000 tons with supersonic stealth fighters (whether they actually work right or not) receives a lot more notice and the UK is doing their best to make them as easy to sink as possible.

NO other country on the planet has the capacity to operate a single equivalent US Carrier Battle Group - so get over it.

Go for it!

Making Sense of the F35 Decision Think Defence | May 15, 2012

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/05/m ... -decision/

UK MoD admits rush job on overturned F-35 recommendation By Tim Fish 14 May 2012

http://defencereport.com/uk-mod-admits- ... ndation-2/

"...Explaining carrier strike cost increases The MoD has outlined four areas where they say programme cost increases originated:

installation of ‘cats and traps’ was more invasive than originally thought with 290 major modifications required instead of the original estimate of 80

the number of systems that were needed to be brought over from the US to operate the catapult and arresting gear was more than expected

the routing of the procurement process through the US’ Foreign Military Sales programme instead of direct from manufacturers has added to ancillary costs

production and manufacturing time delays have inflated original cost projections..."

"...Now, with no conversion costs for cats and traps, the country is holding out the prospect of having a continuous presence, with the second carrier providing capability while the first vessel is in maintenance.

The MoD admits there is no decision on budgeting for the crew or support for a second carrier, and said the next strategic defense and security review planned for 2015 would decide the issue....."

It seems that cooler heads and more rational minds have prevailed. Cheers!

An 11th May 2012 Briefing Note (an update from the previous one).

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Standard Note: SN06278
Last updated: 11 May 2012 Author: Louisa Brooke-Holland
Section: International Affairs and Defence Section

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06278.pdf (225KB)

Timetable
The Government expects to have operational military capability of the Carrier strike in 2020. This is in line with previous statements to deliver carrier strike capability from around 2020. Mr Hammond laid out the following timetable in his announcement on 10 May 201213:

July 2012 Delivery of first test aircraft

2016 Delivery of first production aircraft

2017 Queen Elizabeth begins sea trials

2018 Aircraft begin flying from Queen Elizabeth

2020 Operational military capability of carrier strike

'istobie' might post on this forum already so I hope he does not mind that 'I steal his thunder'?

istobie said here 21 May 2012:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... te?page=89

"I've just watched the commons select committee meeting covering the carrier decision. The summary of the conclusion would be that :

Costs of the EMALS system had been underestimated - the first estimate given in 2010 had been based simply on taking the price of a set for a Ford and halving it as we need two rather than four catapults - it turned out that in fact there were substantially more common kit in there and the price was rather higher than half.

There were also additional items relating to landing and retrieval which had not been costed, further driving up the price.

Stunningly, of course, the bulk of the costs were driven by the invasiveness of the changes - and in questions it transpired that the "can be converted" claim was not in fact reflected in any contractual arrangements. There were no requirements in the contract to provide any such capability and no pricing structure had been agreed. Given this, no work had been carried out since around 2002 and onward to support any such future rework.

Bit of an eye opener.

On the bright side, all three aircraft we're buying as part of testing will be F35B, and firm agreements regarding support for training with the USAF and USMC have been reached, and Lockmart have capacity to build the B model during the time frame we require and have no interest as to which model we select."
______________

And an excellent pic from here: http://www.fleetairarmoa.org/Content/si ... _large.JPG

No problems at all - I should have been taking notes as it was an interesting meeting to watch, even made me abstain from beer for an hour so I had my wits about me.

It was revealing - hopefully there'll be a written transcript available someplace as I'd love for other folk to pick over what I've understood from it all in case I've misreported any exchanges.

£500m jump jets may melt the decks of aircraft carriers: Latest MoD plan shambles By James Lyons 24 May 2012

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo ... ips-845478

"Tests found the fumes which blast out of the £500million Joint Strike Fighters when they land damage the ships’ decks.

NEW Harrier-style jump jets set to fly from Navy aircraft carriers could melt their decks, US trials show.

Tests found the fumes which blast out of the £500million Joint Strike Fighters when they land damage the ships’ decks.

Now the UK will have to go cap in hand to the Americans, who are developing a new super-tough, heat resistant deck coating to deal with the problem. [THERMION BABY!]

The flaw is the latest problem to hit the Ministry of Defence’s shambolic plan for two aircraft carriers, costing £6.2billion.

David Cameron intervened to cancel the Harrier-style jets that can land and take off vertically.

But he was forced to make a U-turn after adapting the carriers with “catapult and trap” technology for normal Joint Strike Fighters proved too costly.

The blunder cost Britain £250million.

An MoD spokesman said: “the cost of deck paint was relatively small”. [PHEW!]

The UK will be without aircraft carrier cover for a decade after the Harriers were sold and Ark Royal scrapped in 2010.

"The new carriers will carry 12 jump-jets from 2020.

Shadow Defence minister Kevan Jones said: “Only this Government could melt aircraft carriers.” [A comedian.]

Youse can see where the Canuks get their 'newspaper training'... or their 'NOT newspaper training'...

New £500 million Joint Strike Fighters set to cost taxpayers even more... because jump jets may MELT ships' decks By James Titcomb, 24 May 2012

"MoD must pay for heat-resistant paint on new warships
Exhausts from jet takeoff can damage aircraft carriers
News comes two weeks after £250m U-turn on new jets
Latest embarrassment in £6.2bn 'omnishambles'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

"The controversial replacements for the Harrier jump jets may cost taxpayers even more than their £500million asking price - because the heat from take off could melt aircraft carriers' decks.

The fumes from the U.S. Joint Strike Fighters are so hot that special heat-resistant paint will be required to protect the take-off strip.

But American military experts are still developing the coating [QUE?], which the Britain will now have to beg for as well as the new planes....

...The new heat-resistant 'Thermion' coating has been developed in America after U.S. tests showed that exhausts from the jets could melt ships' decks.

An MoD spokesman said the cost of the new paint would be 'negligible' and were 'greatly offset' by the savings from not fitting the £2billion 'cats and traps' to the aircraft carriers.

'Work to identify a suitable deck coat is ongoing so exact costs are not yet available,' the spokesman said...."

This is so sad. 'BEG' mind you. 'Beg'! Almost saved by the last paragraphs.

Do these people know what a credible source is? I don't remember reading anywhere that testing showed the deck would melt (BS and APA would have been all over it had there been any mention of it in a credible source).

This is pathetic.

Sufa Viper

They could solve that problem by switching to model C...