RN F-35

[Foo Fighter]

OK, I have seen statements suggesting the RN is buying the standard F-35 rather than the VTOL version but then again some statements suggets otherwise. Anyone have a definitive answer? I so hope they are NOT getting the VTOL for their new bath toys.

 

[Thorvic]

OK, I have seen statements suggesting the RN is buying the standard F-35 rather than the VTOL version but then again some statements suggets otherwise. Anyone have a definitive answer? I so hope they are NOT getting the VTOL for their new bath toys.

Its the RAF who own the F-35's and the initial requirement is for 48 F-35B to full fill the Carrier Strike capability. The Government have confirmed they are committed to the full requirement of 138 F-35's .

However some interest has been expressed that some of those 90 aircraft may be F-35A variants to replace the early model Typhoon aircraft.

I would suspect that at least 24-48 or those 90 will still be F-35B to ensure the full complement for both QEC carriers can be fulfilled along with the addition spare/attrition aircraft.

 

[Foo Fighter]

That is a shame, a less effective aircraft is not what the navy needed for those carriers and the point of having these large ships was to carry more effective aircraft. Yet another snafu.

 

[Dragon029]

It's unofficial but very heavily indicated that while at least half of the UK's buy will be of B variants, the RAF also wants some A variants to more directly replace the Tornado (due to the A variant having a longer range and having a heavier internal weapons carriage).

 

[Foo Fighter]

Perhaps there could be a change of option?

 

[Hood]

Depends by what you mean as less effective? Its the same aircraft and systems but trading some range for V/STOL.

The alternative would be an F-35A and F-35C mix which would probably be less efficient, at least you can pool a common RAF/RN F-35B fleet and operate it from land or sea as the situation demands. Also you can embark USMC F-35Bs too in times of co-operative operations. The F-35C fleet would be fixed to carrier operations only and be of little interest to the RAF and wastefully gives you the same capability of the F-35A. However, I've never been convinced of the need for a V/STOL F-35. The success of Harrier rather masked the blind-alley of the V/STOL fighter and diverted the JSF (and predecessor programmes) into trying to replicate its success.

 

[CJGibson]

Dissing V/STOL! Down with that sort of thing.

Chris

 

[Mike Pryce]

Blind alley?

 

[kitnut617]

Considering the QE Class CVF is almost as big as a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier, I find it completely baffling that they weren't built with CTOL in the first place

 

[Hood]

Taking alternative history paths further; if the USMC had never decided to operate fixed-wing aircraft from its Tarawa Class amphibs and the RN had never been adamant about getting some kind of air defence aboard the Illustrious Class then the Harrier would have had a sole operator.
Its interesting that the initial plans foresaw Harrier GRs aboard the Illustrious Class for strike rather than a defensive interceptor. In this scenario if the RN retained the Sea Harrier, its no certainty Spain and Italy (who acquired US AV-8s) would have brought them, they could have quite happily and perhaps more profitably operated ASW helicopter carriers. Harrier filled a very niche light carrier role but you can count on the fingers of one hand how many of those there were and its interesting their replacements are bigger and much more multi-purpose air/amphibious operation vessels with Britain and India targeting the high-end in size and capability.

Looking through the few AST.396 and 403 files now available at Kew, its clear experience of Harrier operations in the field was lacking in 1972-74 and there were no firm conclusions. Remote basing and the threat from runway cratering weapons were the main drivers, the RAF wanted a super-Harrier with the speed of a Jaguar and more advanced avionics but this caused many design limitations. I would agree though the P.1216 was probably the pinnacle of what could have been achieved.

I assume when the studies were done in the 1990s for the JAST/JSF the MOD must have had more operational data that made V/STOL still rational, but I suspect the USMC's need to operate from small decks was what secured V/STOL for JAST/JSF. If the USMC had never operated Harriers, I'm not so such the Americans would have bothered to listen to the RAF's desires for a Harrier replacement, they couldn't convince any European nation from 1969 either. The small deck operation requirement has driven the F-35B more than any land-based tactical role. I don't think its feasible for an advanced and support-hungry, data-fused aircraft to operate from a shady tree hangar, some PSP and a farmer's track (or a dusty Wadi). Look at the scale of the RAF Marham rebuilding to operate the type as an indication of what kind of infrastructure is required. Notably the RAF will probably be the only land-based user of the F-35B.

So my answer to Foo Fighter's question is; no its not less effective than the F-35A and is the best mix for what the UK can afford and get the best use out of. Yes, the F-35B is an oddity and with foresight the RAF and RN should have gone with an F-35/C mix.
Sorry for upsetting the V/STOL fan club at this festive time though, have another mince pie on me! ;D

 

[Mike Pryce]

The CVF requirement was driven by the need to generate sorties in a Bosnia-type operation. That favoured STOVL as it got away from the 'deck cycle' of a strike carrier, which was not the role. The ship size grew as it gave space to move aircraft around efficiently, generating more sorties.

Earlier studies had looked at smaller ships for blue water ops. CTOL was considered, but again STOVL won out on a ship with 20 aircraft normal/30 surge to allow for fighting off Backfires. The better sortie rates of STOVL won the cost argument. EMALS etc. were looked at in detail. In many ways the QE's are still these smaller ships, with big sponsons added for more deck area.

The RN were trying to avoid a big cost 'hump' where new carriers were bought alongside new aircraft, and the early promise of JSF seemed to allow that - it was due to 'bed in' on the Invincible class (hence size limits for the CVS lift). Then reality bit.

Of course, the type of STOVL design is very important. It is not a 'bolt on' technology. Doesn't stop people trying that though...!

UPDATE: Flight article that covers highlights of a conference that led to RINA's 'Warship '97 - Airpower at Sea' that mentions much of the above:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/invincible-ideas-13709/

 

[red admiral]

Main decision point was 2002/2003 when deciding what variant of CVF to build, and FOAS/DPOC strike requirement got lumped together with JCA. There'll be plenty of good stuff for the historians to go through in a few years about the various fights that went on.

STOVL might be a good solution for a small carrier, but as soon as the deep strike requirement got added then this isn't the case, and there is plenty of evidence to support this. Massive cost and effectiveness disparity.

Really the issue is that in 2003 we decided on an "adaptable" CVF design which was meant to postphone the aircraft variant decision, but we didn't actually build an "adaptable" ship and got boxed into a corner.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Will be interesting to see the light/dark blue scrap redux. 100 year experiment and all that.

Sounds a lot like the debates over STOVL in USN late 70s/early 80s. Using STOVL on super carriers was seen as giving a flexible air defence/responsive ground attack force alongside the CTOL deep strike/support aircraft, which were still locked to a deck cycle that the STOVL force could operate between. STOVL proponents had lost the small ship argument by that point, although studies into a STOVL A6/F14 replacement were made (BAe P.1218/MDC 279-4).

 

[Thorvic]

The FOAS/DPOC requirement remained independent of JCA until 2010, in fact it had a nominal £1 billion budget that got chopped in SDSR10.

Agree regard the carrier design. Ultimately the 2010 carrier conversion decision should have been the right one, had it been taken a decade earlier.

That would never have happened mostly due to the Government and interdepartmental politics, the RAF would never sanction a CATOBAR carrier as that would have seen the RN taking over their Tranche 3 Typhoons to become Sea Typhoons and find themselves relegated to to the European theatre. The Government of the day were looking at options for change whilst tying up the purse strings and it was only the Afghanistan and the Iraq War where overflights provide difficult to arrange and the limitations of Tornado to friendly air bases out of range of the war zone that prompted the 2003 agreement to go with the CVF and JCA (The F-35 was still supposed to be on budget and on time to start replacing Sea Harriers and Harriers by 2012, and the B would match the A for performance and payload all be it at slightly less range due to lift engine in place of fuel tank).

It helps to follow these programmes from the start, you get a lot clearer understanding of the events, decisions and BS spouted than trying to judge them in hindsight without any decent background on the topic.

The CVF designs were intended to accommodate additional, catapult and arrestor gear spaces and the option for an independent steam plant if required or generating plant for EMALS. Unfortunately those provisions whist still officially listed were quietly dropped when Gordon Brown played silly beggars with the Ship builders in forcing them to merge and then cut the price which they told them to design and build on a STOVL only platform despite the JCA requirement still being open to selection between the F-35B and F-35C until 2011/12. In 2010 the F-35B was failing badly to meet testing targets and the US SecDef had it on probation for cancellation the following year at the expected budget cuts which is why the Coalition government switched to the F-35C and CATOBAR as the F-35B was expected t be canned, to do this with a crippled budget they rolled in the FOAS requirement to cover some of the additional cost. That's when they discovered the difference between the official MOD line on there being a choice for JCA and CVF when it had already happened and the building programme would have to be halted and returned to the drawing board to incorporate the CATOBAR features. Thankfully LM realised using the first F-35B as the STOVL test bed wasn't that clever and added additional airframes which got them back on track, and a change of SecDef who was swayed by the USMC and LM lobbyists dropped the cancellation threat allowing the UK choice to switch back to the more affordable option.

A pity Richard Breedal gave up on his Navy Matters website as that gave a great in-depth tracking of the whole CVF/JCA programme and the impact of petty politics on it, but he got so fed up with the Naval re-equipment programme being complete loused up to fund pointless wars that he just gave up on it and walked away rather than get wound up by morons anymore.

 

[red admiral]

The FOAS/DPOC requirement remained independent of JCA until 2010, in fact it had a nominal £1 billion budget that got chopped in SDSR10.

Agree regard the carrier design. Ultimately the 2010 carrier conversion decision should have been the right one, had it been taken a decade earlier.

Mindset changed back in 2002/3, when F-35 became choice for both JCA and Tornado replacement base on cost effectiveness OA. Variant decision notionally postphoned, but realistically locked into B at that point.

Change to C in 2010 done on lots of evidence. Juch cheaper than B through life, and more capability. But turned out to cost too much in short term for conversion costs.

 

[Mike Pryce]

My understanding is that chosen CVF design was intended to be convertible to CTOL. However the spaces and bulkheads intended to be left for pipe runs etc. to enable conversion were not built in as it was cheaper to build without provision for these.

Someone forgot to tell top neddies it seems, hence 2010/2012 flip flop. They thought provision had been built in.

 

[Foo Fighter]

It seems to me that government departments spend years talking about a project, volleying opinions back and forth and then, not realising that they have spent ten years talking carp, make decisions based on outdated information and wonder why it is all messed up. If they were in the private sector it would be done and dusted in half the time for half the cost with a better product because basically, governments are staffed by numpties.

 

[sferrin]

It seems to me that government departments spend years talking about a project, volleying opinions back and forth and then, not realising that they have spent ten years talking carp, make decisions based on outdated information and wonder why it is all messed up. If they were in the private sector it would be done and dusted in half the time for half the cost with a better product because basically, governments are staffed by numpties.

Yep. Look what Boeing was able to accomplish with their T-X.

 

[Thorvic]

It seems to me that government departments spend years talking about a project, volleying opinions back and forth and then, not realising that they have spent ten years talking carp, make decisions based on outdated information and wonder why it is all messed up. If they were in the private sector it would be done and dusted in half the time for half the cost with a better product because basically, governments are staffed by numpties.

Basically that's what happened to the Royal Navy, the Labour Government selected the winner in 2003 and based the price as predicted then, but then used it as a carrot and then beat the shipbuilders to merge together as it shit canned the remaining 6 type 45, kicked the MARS RFA requirement into the long grass and put the follow on frigate programme into a rolling case study so their was effectively nothing to build. Then then had the cheek to complain in 2008/9 when then finally ordered the ships because the price had gone up due a 5 yrs delay keeping the manpower in limbo, steel prices going up and economy going south. That's why 2010 was such a mess as the Shipbuiders had got a guaranteed workload agreement off the Government after being well and truly screwed over but we had no designs ready to go, which is why the Type 26 is still awaiting its first formal order. This is why we have ordered 5 half arsed River class patrol ships as they are the only design we have that can be ordered off the shelf at a ridiculous price as half the cost is just going on keeping a shipyard manned ready for the Type 26 work to start.

 

[red admiral]

Interesting to see different peoples' interpretations of events; I got a very different view. There'll be plenty for the historians to go through in time.

@Foo Fighter

Bear in mind that its the senior military staff who make the decisions and the politicians who sign off on this (usually). The faceless civil servants don't stand much chance when they produce evidence up the ying yang that is then ignored.

Its a joke to think that the private sector would be better at this. The main part in government is in understanding what is actually needed, then you involve the private sector as to how to go about getting a good solution. Private sector involvement in requirements setting will result in just a list of their current products, or things you can pay them to develop. The private sector is far removed from the end user.

 

[RyanC]

There was also a scheme for UK F-35Cs to operate from the French CdG which had to be abandoned on security grounds, that killed one of the main planks behind the conversion scheme which was that UK aircraft could operate from CdG and French aircraft the UK ship thus creating an Anglo-French two-ship carrier fleet.

How would the FRENCH be a security risk?

 

[Foo Fighter]

OK, what I mean would be a team running outside government control with a brief to provide defensive systems expediently and cost effectively but with a research brief along the line of DARPA. A team that can prevent either end of the system having an impact on the process like currently happens. Neither politicians nor management can constrain themselves when there is a budget to acquire an interest in. In the UK, politicians tell the military what they can have and then are told what they have to do with it. The two large carriers were to secure jobs in the shipbuilding industry here but the then labour government did not trust the military to spec it so went with the same system already in use while ensuring the hulls could not be easily converted. Show me a military high up willing to castrate carriers like that.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I shall qualify my last statement, a military high up with a sense of honour and integrity. Reaching a bit I admit.

 

[Rickshaw]

There was also a scheme for UK F-35Cs to operate from the French CdG which had to be abandoned on security grounds, that killed one of the main planks behind the conversion scheme which was that UK aircraft could operate from CdG and French aircraft the UK ship thus creating an Anglo-French two-ship carrier fleet.

How would the FRENCH be a security risk?

Sir Humphrey explains why the French are the "traditional enemy" of the UK.

 

[red admiral]

@Foo Fighter

Some things like that are already being done e.g. new delivery office for Successor that is separate from DE&S.That's a fairly fixed problem though.

 

[mrmalaya]

Yes I think it's more the US/LM concerns about the F35 being stroked by the French rather than the broader intelligence sharing arrangement.

 

[phil gollin]

.

It is highly unlikely whether the true story behind the mess regarding the supposedly convertible design of the CVF will ever be made public - too embarrassing.

As for what the last few Lightning II's for Britain will be built as, I have doubts whether they will be "A" versions as that will indicate that the "purple" B's will just be built in numbers sufficient to mostly fill the two carriers in time of war. THAT will take away the RAF's argument that they should be the lead for the dual use B version. Instead, whilst using Marnham, the RAF would use the A's, whilst the RN would run the B's (with "mixed" manning).

Inter-service politics is even more stupid than ordinary politics.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Perhaps treason as a method of control, is under utilised. Then again, pay per view for the hangings would make a decent boost to national income.

 

[SteveO]

I've posted this before but here is an interesting piece on the UK's plans for the F-35B - http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/f-35-and-carrier-enabled-power.html

Ten years ago I would have been interested, but the whole CVF/F-35B saga and UK defence spending/planning in general has become too tiring to debate! V/STOL is cool and that's a good enough reason for it's existence ;D

 

[mrmalaya]

The B is already revolutionising what we will do at sea. I don't think we will be looking to the A however. By the time there is money to think about supplementing the original B fleet, an upgraded version will be far more attractive.

 

[Arjen]

How would the FRENCH be a security risk?

At a guess, they aren't five eyes, potential concerns about classified parts of the F-35.

The Dutch - Level 2 JSF partners - aren't five eyes. Neither are the Italians, with their assembly facility. Watching 'Yes Minister', the security risk would be FOR the French.

 

[Hood]

I'm not sure the Anglo-French carrier sharing scheme was anything other than political fluff, I don't anyone on either side of the Channel thought that was a practical proposition. Probably another Whitehall attempt to snuff out the joint "EU Army" rather than an attempt to save some pennies.
I wonder though what the French are planning to do beyond the current Rafale? The BAe/Dassault UCAV programmes are probably not going to produce anything viable for carrier use much before 2040. The Airbus 6th gen fighter seems a pipedream too.

I feel the dollar expenditure will curb F-35 numbers, it wouldn't surprise me if just enough to equip one carrier expeditionary force were eventually acquired and maybe a few extra to replace Tornado, say 50-60 aircraft in total.

 

[F.L.]

I hope I'm not off-topic , but I found this illustration of an RN F-35B exfiltrating two downed pilots with under-wing pods.
Does this image refer to a real project ?

 

[Hicks]

A remake of the Exint pods

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/g-r-i-e-r-pods-ground-resupply-insertion-extraction-rescue-pods-for-vtol.1476/

 

[F.L.]

A remake of the Exint pods

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/g-r-i-e-r-pods-ground-resupply-insertion-extraction-rescue-pods-for-vtol.1476/

Like that.