Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
323 thoughts on “Open Thread – Rumble in the CVF Jungle I”
DominicJ
mark
but the typhoon had funding problems, not technical ones didnt it?
Theres nothing overly complicated, beyond the computers that can keep it level
Gabriele
Can’t we be a little bit patient, allow the testing to continue and see what happens with the revised tailhook design without panicking?
The cost, for now, is US bound. If the problem is solved, as expected, by a different tailhook design, it is little problem.
If it can’t be fixed, it will go down in history as the most unbelieable screw up ever.
But there will still be options, in that case, for the UK, that might even be cheaper, namely the Super Hornet International, which is offered with significant improvements.
Much worse is the position of the Italian Navy which is currently facing the prospect of a F35B very possibly incapable to fly from Cavour without a chance of converting her to catapults.
I believe the F35C tailhook issue will be solved.
Rupert Fiennes
@Mark: I was referring to the engine, rather than the aircraft. Given that the parent F119 has a thrust/weight ratio of 9:1, the F135 ratio of 6.6:1 (for the A and C variants!), you can see how much the B variant has skewed the aircraft and engine design priorities
Mark
Domj
No there was plenty of problems as with every a/c but as should have been the case with this they were kept confidential i can remember typhoon turning up to an airshow and got slammed because it couldnt out turn a passanger airliner for example. Also gripen flight testing started 1988 entered service 1997 three hull loses in the process. Even a400m first flight 2009 entry into service raf 2015. This takes time let the teams work as there supposed to.
Mark
Rupert
The f119 produces 35000lbs thrust at a dry weight of 3900 lbs
The f135 produces 43000lbs thrust at a dry weight of 3750 lbs
Both figures according to wiki for a ball park
Rupert Fiennes
@Mark: the F135 weighs 6504lb, not 3750. If it did weigh 3750, it would have a quite remarkable T/W ratio
I suspect the poor T/W ratio is because the B variant requires maximum thrust at sea level without using afterburner, which dictates a high bypass ratio, while in actual use, rather than landing, you would normally look for thrust to be maximised at the tropopause at higher mach numbers
IXION
I’m not panicking.
I am however concerned that the story of this particular ‘Quart in a pint pot’ is going to struggle.
Topman
Sorry to go way OT, but gabby has your blog changed in some way? I can’t post there anymore.
Aussie Johnno
The F-35 tail hook problem is more a consequence of the stealth design requirement for internal carrage. The result is a hook which extended is only 7.1 ft behind the main wheels. By comparison the T45 trainer (navalised Hawk) has 14.6 ft and a Hornet (all types) has over 18 ft. Sounds like wishful thinking on someones part.
The simplist fix would be a lengthened semi exposed hook at some cost to stealth. Trying to move the hook foundations further aft would add more weight aft from the centre of gravity and would be a big deal.
All this is simply a demonstration that the JSF is a work in progress. Unfortunately that work in progress is unlikely to produce a mature aircraft before 2018.
Bad news for Aust as our oldest F-18A/B’s are due for the junk yard in 2018.
Another thought, if the F-35C cannot take a wire would a F-35A, with effectively a lighter version of the same hook, be able to take a wire in an emergency/bad weather landing on a conventional airfield?
Maybe some airforces would be interested in the answer to that one?
Mark
Rupert yes because someone on another forum states that great for them much like me arguing here I hear you say. These numbers are classified after all but they may have inside knowledge on the power plant I used wiki as a public source for the engine data on both power plants maybe wrong maybe not, but 6750lbs for the basic engine sounds heavy to me and may include adds on specific to the b version. Will also add for stovl the B version only uses 18000 thrust from the main engine as the fwd lift fan must produce the most thrust in vertical flight to stop hot air ingestion in the inlet so not necessarily relevant thought it does require an additional turbine stage to power the lift fan. And while t/w of the engine is a parameter the t/w of the a/c in combat configuration is more relevant and it is comparable to the a/c it will replace in that regard.
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Johnno,
I remember reading about this “Another thought, if the F-35C cannot take a wire would a F-35A, with effectively a lighter version of the same hook, be able to take a wire in an emergency/bad weather landing on a conventional airfield?
Maybe some airforces would be interested in the answer to that one?” as in Norway they have considered the requirement all along (icier than most places as for the runways, and they use chutes on their current F-16s).
There seems to be a wide-spread opinion on the web that the Canadians have actually ordered their a/c with such a hook, using BAK12/14 land system that stops the a/c in less than a kilometer. (I don’t know the end result of the deliberations in Norway, might still be on-going after 6 years from expressing the requirement.)
This type of land tail hook is much lesser of a lump (RE:your centre of gravity concern)not meaning that the strength requirement would be much less, but as it is only for emergencies it only needs to go down (which deletes a lot of the extra gear that would otherwise have to be placed with it, fairly far aft).
Aussie Johnno
ACC, you are right an F-35A hook would be much lighter than the F-35C arrangement. As far as I am aware both the F-35A and F-35C have arrestor hooks as standard. The structure would be significantly different but in both cases they fit within a doored enclosure beneath the rear fuselage. The official F-35 web site (JSF.mil) has some photo’s of the F-35C at roll out and one gives a good look at the hook extended. There is not much space or scope to move the hook further aft which is what as really needed (as the rear of the enclosure is already close to the support ring for the engine nozzle.
As to a breaking chute I remember it was on Norway’s list of wants, but I think Lockheed’s position was that it was a non standard change, if required Norway was to pay for. I am too far removed to know what the outcome was.
The constant revelations òn the F-35 is an issue out here because, in theory at least, the RAAF are supposed to decide on orders for another 56 aircraft this year (in addition to the 2 ordered and 12 authorised at the moment).
US deliberations over the next couple of weeks on the F-35 will be interesting indeed.
Gabriele
@Topman
Nothing changed on my blog, as far as i am aware. I’m surprised to hear that you have problems commenting: i dunno what could cause that. Comments seem to work normally.
Topman
Me neither, still on the blink.
Mark
Two totally different hooks for two totally different situations and 2 totally different wire systems. But apart from that there the same. An just because these revelations are in the public domain doesn’t mean they havent been known inside the program and governments for some time.
You get a much increased length on c version if it pivots about its aft point as approsed to its fwd point thats an option there are a lot of options and it’s quite complicated due to the dynamics people always jump from option a to option z let’s just wait and see
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Mark,
Surely we can only wait and see as A is not an option, B has been rejected, so C it will be.
But is the root cause of the problem not as simple as:
-because of the quoted minimal distance from the main landing gear to the tail hook
- the wire simply does not have enough time to come up again, after the landing gear passing over it has depressed it flat onto the deck
- approach speed, speed once on deck, “springiness” of wire…all known for ages and good stuff for an Excel simulation model (if it had been deemed worthwhile)?
McZ
“Russia & China have new prototype superfighters.”
Russia has after years finally a flying prototype with a prototype radar. Too bad they can’t afford many, too bad India with it’s extraordinarily bad procurement record will not help either. RCS will be a dot above Typhoon, not comparable with F-22 or F-35, not to mention all these software-extravaganza called sensor-fusion.
Chinas J-20 is no fighter at all.
ArmChairCivvy
Sure “not comparable with F-22 or F-35, not to mention all these software-extravaganza called sensor-fusion.”
- but put in range, weapon load and manoeuvrability, so what is the total score?
Not that it matters hugely, the PAK-FA (especially the Indian 2-seater version) and the J-20 will be counterbalances to each other (mainly)
- and Vietnam can’t wait to get a few from India (that will make a huge dent on the available GDP per capita)
Monty
I think the latest JSF report is a precursor to the project being cancelled. The F-35 has failed across so many parameters that it has become an embarrassment for all concerned.
All is not lost, however, because many of the component technologies would be relevant to an alternative design. The requirement for the US Navy and USAF (the F-35A and C versions) is a strike aircraft that can serve double duty as a fighter when required. I think a new and more focused design should be developed to perform just this role. For that a new version of the existing airframe may emerge, pheonix-like from the ashes of JSF. If I were LM, I would take the existing airframe and lengthen it, abandon the need for stealth technology (because it is largely irrelevant) and therefore abandon the need for internal weapon stowage. I’d use the internal volume gained for larger fuel tanks and redesign the wings.
For the F-35B, I would start with a completely clean sheet. I might even put the Harrier back into production with a more powerful engine.
As far as the UK is concerned, we need four basic combat aircraft types:
1. Fighter. Air superiority aircraft for home defence of UK skies (our absolute top priority); if it can also strike ground targets, that’s great but any extra capability should be at the expense of its primary role. I think we essentially have exactly this aircraft with the Typhoon.
2. Bomber. Strike aircraft capable of carrying a large weapon load long distances. This is an F-111 or TSR2 type aircraft. I think it is fair to say that this role is fulfilled in a fairly average way by the Tornado.
3. Fighter bomber. This is a medium range duel role aircraft that provides both fighter cover and strike capabilities. This is the role that the Tornado performs quite well and the F-35A/ C in only an average way.
4. Close air support / ground attack aircraft. This is essentially a short to medium range aircraft with a reasonable payload capacity designed to provide ground troops and ships with air cover. This is the role that the Harrier has fulfilled very well for many years and which the F-35B has so far proved itself incapable of fulfilling.
The F/A-18 Hornet performs role 3 very well. Is it considerably better than the Tornado to justify the latter’s replacement? I don’t know.
Gabriele
The F35 is not at all being cancelled. Even with the new US Defense Strategy (read cuts) the US officers said they are still planning for the same numbers of planes as before.
At most they will delay some 120 airplanes out of over 430 they planned to buy between 2013 and 2017 into later fiscal years.
Unless current issues prove unsolvable, and i don’t think it is the case, there is no F35 cancellation on the horizon at all.
Phil
There’s a poster on Warships1 that has described how every US carrier had to be re-designed and modified to operate the F18 un-expectantly when the catapult would, in some circumstances, rip the central fuel tank open on launch.
Many others have said it, this is an immensely ambitious and complicated engineering programme that is beset by problems, which is NORMAL for an immensely complicated engineering programme. Other planes that have done decades of sterling service had terrible problems at this stage of their development.
The bloody plane is in testing, it is tested precisely because problems are anticipated.
Having access to every little nitty detail of the programme is just giving people with an agenda against the plane, and those easily convinced by internet arguments grist to the mill that this particular engineering programme is somehow totally flawed.
What seems to be happening is that people who have a philosophical problem with the plane as a concept are using development problems to bad mouth it. Doesn’t matter what the damn thing looks like or can do, they don’t like it because of reasons other than engineering problems.
Topman
@ Monty
‘This is the role that the Tornado performs quite well and the F-35A/ C in only an average way.’
It doesn’t perform both roles well, it only performs one. The Tornado carries the ASRAAM but that’s not the same as being dual role. F35 isn’t even in service so no-one can say how good it really is yet at a specific role.
SomewhatRemoved
F18 isn’t really an option, is it? It has very short legs – exactly the problem F35 was supposed to counter by carrying a higher internal fuel volume. Why buy an aircraft that has to be refuelled right after takeoff, tying up another asset (another F18)? Rafale is worse off still.
x
“‘This is the role that the Tornado performs quite well and the F-35A/ C in only an average way.’”
Substitute Buccaneer for Tornado, and Tornado for F35……….
Topman
A Buccaneer providing fighter cover ? well you live and learn
x
I am still thinking about how both Tornado and FA18 are short legged. I am only interested in dropping bombs.
Mark
This video maybe of interest
Topman
Seems to be the way, not many a/c are long ranged compared to the Buccaneer, F111 maybe not very many others that I can think of.
Rupert Fiennes
@Mark: the thing that worries me about F35 is that the design is so compromised (primarily by STOVL), that there is really no margin. No weight or volume margin, so limited stealthy weapons fit. No margin for 2 seaters, so nothing too difficult and a reliance on non-stealthy platforms for EW for example. No plumbing for external tanks, so self deployment or extreme long range missions are impractical. No margin for “fill in what might be needed in 10 years time”…
F35 is trying to be all things to all people, and not satisfying anyone. I suspect we will end up with the A model only which will be a perfectly respectable F16 replacement, if not all it could have been. The B will go (no loss for the US, whatever the USMC thinks, it would be better off buying another couple of CVGB’s), and the C will be replaced by more F18′s and X47′s.
In the meantime, we will wave goodbye to the 2 billion and buy the F18, which we should have done to begin with . CVF would have been entering service now as the trial platform for EMALS, with 3 squadrons of F18′s already in service with crews trained on US CV’s…and they would have done so within a greatly reduced and fixed budget.
Mark
Rupert I agree there was comprises for stovl in the overall design. I would agree also there is limited weight growth in the b version. However there is more room for weight growth on the other two. 2 seater was never a requirement and it has the capacity for 3 external tanks in non stealth configuration. Indeed the f135 has been bench tested at over 50000 pounds thrust so margin for future integration. On onboard processing better info management and better off board capabilty will allow single seat role in all envisaged capabilities.
I would not have developed all three simultaneously or concurrently to the extend they have.
John Hartley
RF
Sorry about the fowl/foul typo. Long day, lack of a holiday, usual bleats.
F-18E would be lovely for RN if it came in service this year, but we are talking 2020. Will it still be credible in 2040? That is what we need from a new fighter.
You can laugh at the Chinese at your peril. 20 years ago, their main combat fighter was the Mig-19, now the SU27/J-20 combo. How far will they be in another 20? Will the F-18E still be good enough?
RAF should not get F-35. They should replace Tornado with a 2 seat conformal tank Typhoon + some long range regional bombers in the mix.
x
Two engines (less stressed) in a larger structure (more lift, less wing load, less stress) allowing bigger internal weapons bays (not just for a bigger weapon but simpler operation too) and simpler STEALTH.
Topman
RAF should not get F-35. They should replace Tornado with a 2 seat conformal tank Typhoon + some long range regional bombers in the mix.
Only problem then is what would the faa get?
Rupert Fiennes
@John Hartley: we get F18 by 2020 if we do things the MOD way. The Aussies bought off the shelf with minimal mods, and got them in service in three years. This is a platform in production, not vapour-ware. As for the 2040 assertion, I find it a little silly to be grandly worrying about that with an aircraft with a likely 6000 hour lifetime. If we stick to plan A of waiting for F35, we will likely end up with nothing, and the F18 is a lot better than nothing
Rupert Fiennes
And I’m not laughing at the Chinese either. Late nights can make for some light relief!
John Hartley
Topman
The FAA would get the F-35 B & C to my way of thinking.
Old designs will not cut the 20 year minimum service life with any credibility.
John Hartley
RF
If we got the F-18 for the FAA in 2015, what would it fly from?
PoW will not have cats & traps till 2020.
Mark
We’re constrained by money and no carrier until 2018 anyway. Tornado an typhoon meet uk fastjet needs until then. F35 spend will be post 2015 any purchase prior to that date which f18 has to be requires something else to be cut now in the order of 1.5b upwards just to buy 24 no support Or weapons integration so what’s it to be. Even Boeing considers superhornets obsolete post 2025 as is marketing a 6th generation jet for that time frame. There is only two real choices go with f35 or scrap it and carrier air increase typhoon numbers and gap the interdiction strike requirement for 20 years until possible ucav technology matures.
Gabriele
“RAF should not get F-35.”
Amusingly, the RAF wants it. Really really really wants it. Specifically, they wanted the F35C all along.
Guess what is being acquired…
“No plumbing for external tanks, so self deployment or extreme long range missions are impractical.”
On growth margin, people tend to forget that electronics trend is to get smaller and lighter. Bombs have also gotten smaller and smaller due to collateral damages worries, improved accuracy etc. And engines tend to grow lighter and more powerful at the same time with each year that passes.
Yes, the F35 is likely to be a bit complex to upgrade and change due to stealth.
But it has growth margin.
And besides, as technology progresses, the weight of components actually tends to go down, not up, which helps.
IXION
Gabs
Can’t say as I can agree about technology getting lighter. EVERY aircraft ever built has only ever got heavier and heavier in service to the point where it is one of the drivers of the next design.
Can’t think of a single aircraft ever replaced in the same role by a lighter aircraft. (Ok I am sure there was one, smart arsses please post here).
The harrier is an classic example of weight gain.
Every radar etc is lighter than the last, or it would be if the opportunity was not taken to increase capability, add an optoelectronic sensor, a new network enabled communication system etc etc..
My real concern with f35 b in particular is that it is too close to the current edge.
Think Defence
Whilst individual components benefit from technology derived reductions in size the overall package takes advantage of that by cramming more and more ‘stuff’ in, most of these require power and cooling and therefore drive growth in other areas.
The more I think of what is happening with The CVF/JCA project the more I think it is rapidly becoming a millstone around the neck of a declining in real terms defence budget. Once you get over the emotion and actually look at what it delivers compared to what we either need or use most often (depending on your view) the more it becomes incredibly distorting, shockingly poor value for money, destructive of other more useful/used capabilities, divisive amongst the services and adversely impact the welfare arrangements, training and general conditions of all service/civilian personnel past, present and future.
CVF/JCA has turned into a defence vanity/industrial benefits project that serves the UK’s defence needs very poorly but no doubt lots of directorships, back handers and inflated egos all round mean that it will continue and leave a trail of wreckage far behind that one day will cost a British solder, airman or sailor his or her life.
Will look good in Navy News or Flypast Monthly though
ArmChairCivvy
RE “External fuel tanks are an option. And guess what, Israel is already coming up with designs for Conformal Fuel Tanks, F16-style, for the F35″
- there is even talk of them coming up with a two-man cockpit
- if there is any truth to being close to the margin, what comes off then (to accommodate not only more weight but the cubic volume take-up, a lot of it internal)?
Gabriele
TD, i think you are entirely out of reality and time when looking at CVF and JCA. All you say punches the UK strategy and requirements in the face and goes exactly against the trend that, also thanks to the new US defense strategy, is affirming withing the alliance.
But i won’t lose time in a posts war on here, i’ve done it more than enough times already.
People may have already seen this but just in case:
“UKIP estimates suggest it would cost £1.4bn to develop a naval typhoon, with unit costs of around £80m.
In a statement the party said that the development costs would be similar to the cost of converting the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to use the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to be used with the F-35C. A naval Typhoon would take off from a ‘ski jump’ deck.”
Hi TD – are you really Jon Lake by any chance, as his piece in this months combat aircraft monthly echoes your opinion quite closely.
Gabriele
“A naval Typhoon would take off from a ‘ski jump’ deck.””
And it would land on an angled deck with AAG wires costing a few hundred millions, but this is not publicized as much, curiously.
CVF then would be compatible with Mig 29K and Su33 of Russia.
What a wonderful idea!
ArmChairCivvy
“CVF then would be compatible with Mig 29K and Su33 of Russia.
What a wonderful idea!”… and then sold to India
Just joking (or am I?)
Gabriele
“and then sold to India”
Already tried.
India does not want it: they want to build their ships at home and their first indigenous carrier is already being built.
With italian shipyards help.
About India, it would be nice if the UK finally managed to sell them something. Other than the Hawks, it is not going well if you think about Rafale, Scorpene, nuclear reactors, MICA missiles, Mirage modernization… Or C17, C130 and P8I.
Biggest defence market for the next years, and the Uk already appears to be losing that little grip it had on it.
This is the real worrisome thing. And you can bet that the white paper released today will change positively nothing of this situation.
Gabriele
“UKIP estimates suggest it would cost £1.4bn to develop a naval typhoon, with unit costs of around £80m.”
I had missed this one… Very funny.
Development costs are almost certainly a wild guess, and 80 millions per unit…
Well. A non-naval Typhoon costs 80 millions or more.
How can they say it will cost the same once airframe is strenghtened, software changed, undercarriage changed, arresting hook added and all that?
A few years ago Typhoon naval was expected to cost 125 million per unit.
You tell me which figure you deem more likely responding to the truth.
mark
but the typhoon had funding problems, not technical ones didnt it?
Theres nothing overly complicated, beyond the computers that can keep it level
Can’t we be a little bit patient, allow the testing to continue and see what happens with the revised tailhook design without panicking?
The cost, for now, is US bound. If the problem is solved, as expected, by a different tailhook design, it is little problem.
If it can’t be fixed, it will go down in history as the most unbelieable screw up ever.
But there will still be options, in that case, for the UK, that might even be cheaper, namely the Super Hornet International, which is offered with significant improvements.
Much worse is the position of the Italian Navy which is currently facing the prospect of a F35B very possibly incapable to fly from Cavour without a chance of converting her to catapults.
I believe the F35C tailhook issue will be solved.
@Mark: I was referring to the engine, rather than the aircraft. Given that the parent F119 has a thrust/weight ratio of 9:1, the F135 ratio of 6.6:1 (for the A and C variants!), you can see how much the B variant has skewed the aircraft and engine design priorities
Domj
No there was plenty of problems as with every a/c but as should have been the case with this they were kept confidential i can remember typhoon turning up to an airshow and got slammed because it couldnt out turn a passanger airliner for example. Also gripen flight testing started 1988 entered service 1997 three hull loses in the process. Even a400m first flight 2009 entry into service raf 2015. This takes time let the teams work as there supposed to.
Rupert
The f119 produces 35000lbs thrust at a dry weight of 3900 lbs
The f135 produces 43000lbs thrust at a dry weight of 3750 lbs
Both figures according to wiki for a ball park
@Mark: the F135 weighs 6504lb, not 3750. If it did weigh 3750, it would have a quite remarkable T/W ratio
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-11547.html
I suspect the poor T/W ratio is because the B variant requires maximum thrust at sea level without using afterburner, which dictates a high bypass ratio, while in actual use, rather than landing, you would normally look for thrust to be maximised at the tropopause at higher mach numbers
I’m not panicking.
I am however concerned that the story of this particular ‘Quart in a pint pot’ is going to struggle.
Sorry to go way OT, but gabby has your blog changed in some way? I can’t post there anymore.
The F-35 tail hook problem is more a consequence of the stealth design requirement for internal carrage. The result is a hook which extended is only 7.1 ft behind the main wheels. By comparison the T45 trainer (navalised Hawk) has 14.6 ft and a Hornet (all types) has over 18 ft. Sounds like wishful thinking on someones part.
The simplist fix would be a lengthened semi exposed hook at some cost to stealth. Trying to move the hook foundations further aft would add more weight aft from the centre of gravity and would be a big deal.
All this is simply a demonstration that the JSF is a work in progress. Unfortunately that work in progress is unlikely to produce a mature aircraft before 2018.
Bad news for Aust as our oldest F-18A/B’s are due for the junk yard in 2018.
Another thought, if the F-35C cannot take a wire would a F-35A, with effectively a lighter version of the same hook, be able to take a wire in an emergency/bad weather landing on a conventional airfield?
Maybe some airforces would be interested in the answer to that one?
Rupert yes because someone on another forum states that great for them much like me arguing here I hear you say. These numbers are classified after all but they may have inside knowledge on the power plant I used wiki as a public source for the engine data on both power plants maybe wrong maybe not, but 6750lbs for the basic engine sounds heavy to me and may include adds on specific to the b version. Will also add for stovl the B version only uses 18000 thrust from the main engine as the fwd lift fan must produce the most thrust in vertical flight to stop hot air ingestion in the inlet so not necessarily relevant thought it does require an additional turbine stage to power the lift fan. And while t/w of the engine is a parameter the t/w of the a/c in combat configuration is more relevant and it is comparable to the a/c it will replace in that regard.
Hi Johnno,
I remember reading about this “Another thought, if the F-35C cannot take a wire would a F-35A, with effectively a lighter version of the same hook, be able to take a wire in an emergency/bad weather landing on a conventional airfield?
Maybe some airforces would be interested in the answer to that one?” as in Norway they have considered the requirement all along (icier than most places as for the runways, and they use chutes on their current F-16s).
There seems to be a wide-spread opinion on the web that the Canadians have actually ordered their a/c with such a hook, using BAK12/14 land system that stops the a/c in less than a kilometer. (I don’t know the end result of the deliberations in Norway, might still be on-going after 6 years from expressing the requirement.)
This type of land tail hook is much lesser of a lump (RE:your centre of gravity concern)not meaning that the strength requirement would be much less, but as it is only for emergencies it only needs to go down (which deletes a lot of the extra gear that would otherwise have to be placed with it, fairly far aft).
ACC, you are right an F-35A hook would be much lighter than the F-35C arrangement. As far as I am aware both the F-35A and F-35C have arrestor hooks as standard. The structure would be significantly different but in both cases they fit within a doored enclosure beneath the rear fuselage. The official F-35 web site (JSF.mil) has some photo’s of the F-35C at roll out and one gives a good look at the hook extended. There is not much space or scope to move the hook further aft which is what as really needed (as the rear of the enclosure is already close to the support ring for the engine nozzle.
As to a breaking chute I remember it was on Norway’s list of wants, but I think Lockheed’s position was that it was a non standard change, if required Norway was to pay for. I am too far removed to know what the outcome was.
The constant revelations òn the F-35 is an issue out here because, in theory at least, the RAAF are supposed to decide on orders for another 56 aircraft this year (in addition to the 2 ordered and 12 authorised at the moment).
US deliberations over the next couple of weeks on the F-35 will be interesting indeed.
@Topman
Nothing changed on my blog, as far as i am aware. I’m surprised to hear that you have problems commenting: i dunno what could cause that. Comments seem to work normally.
Me neither, still on the blink.
Two totally different hooks for two totally different situations and 2 totally different wire systems. But apart from that there the same. An just because these revelations are in the public domain doesn’t mean they havent been known inside the program and governments for some time.
You get a much increased length on c version if it pivots about its aft point as approsed to its fwd point thats an option there are a lot of options and it’s quite complicated due to the dynamics people always jump from option a to option z let’s just wait and see
Hi Mark,
Surely we can only wait and see as A is not an option, B has been rejected, so C it will be.
But is the root cause of the problem not as simple as:
-because of the quoted minimal distance from the main landing gear to the tail hook
- the wire simply does not have enough time to come up again, after the landing gear passing over it has depressed it flat onto the deck
- approach speed, speed once on deck, “springiness” of wire…all known for ages and good stuff for an Excel simulation model (if it had been deemed worthwhile)?
“Russia & China have new prototype superfighters.”
Russia has after years finally a flying prototype with a prototype radar. Too bad they can’t afford many, too bad India with it’s extraordinarily bad procurement record will not help either. RCS will be a dot above Typhoon, not comparable with F-22 or F-35, not to mention all these software-extravaganza called sensor-fusion.
Chinas J-20 is no fighter at all.
Sure “not comparable with F-22 or F-35, not to mention all these software-extravaganza called sensor-fusion.”
- but put in range, weapon load and manoeuvrability, so what is the total score?
Not that it matters hugely, the PAK-FA (especially the Indian 2-seater version) and the J-20 will be counterbalances to each other (mainly)
- and Vietnam can’t wait to get a few from India (that will make a huge dent on the available GDP per capita)
I think the latest JSF report is a precursor to the project being cancelled. The F-35 has failed across so many parameters that it has become an embarrassment for all concerned.
All is not lost, however, because many of the component technologies would be relevant to an alternative design. The requirement for the US Navy and USAF (the F-35A and C versions) is a strike aircraft that can serve double duty as a fighter when required. I think a new and more focused design should be developed to perform just this role. For that a new version of the existing airframe may emerge, pheonix-like from the ashes of JSF. If I were LM, I would take the existing airframe and lengthen it, abandon the need for stealth technology (because it is largely irrelevant) and therefore abandon the need for internal weapon stowage. I’d use the internal volume gained for larger fuel tanks and redesign the wings.
For the F-35B, I would start with a completely clean sheet. I might even put the Harrier back into production with a more powerful engine.
As far as the UK is concerned, we need four basic combat aircraft types:
1. Fighter. Air superiority aircraft for home defence of UK skies (our absolute top priority); if it can also strike ground targets, that’s great but any extra capability should be at the expense of its primary role. I think we essentially have exactly this aircraft with the Typhoon.
2. Bomber. Strike aircraft capable of carrying a large weapon load long distances. This is an F-111 or TSR2 type aircraft. I think it is fair to say that this role is fulfilled in a fairly average way by the Tornado.
3. Fighter bomber. This is a medium range duel role aircraft that provides both fighter cover and strike capabilities. This is the role that the Tornado performs quite well and the F-35A/ C in only an average way.
4. Close air support / ground attack aircraft. This is essentially a short to medium range aircraft with a reasonable payload capacity designed to provide ground troops and ships with air cover. This is the role that the Harrier has fulfilled very well for many years and which the F-35B has so far proved itself incapable of fulfilling.
The F/A-18 Hornet performs role 3 very well. Is it considerably better than the Tornado to justify the latter’s replacement? I don’t know.
The F35 is not at all being cancelled. Even with the new US Defense Strategy (read cuts) the US officers said they are still planning for the same numbers of planes as before.
At most they will delay some 120 airplanes out of over 430 they planned to buy between 2013 and 2017 into later fiscal years.
Unless current issues prove unsolvable, and i don’t think it is the case, there is no F35 cancellation on the horizon at all.
There’s a poster on Warships1 that has described how every US carrier had to be re-designed and modified to operate the F18 un-expectantly when the catapult would, in some circumstances, rip the central fuel tank open on launch.
Many others have said it, this is an immensely ambitious and complicated engineering programme that is beset by problems, which is NORMAL for an immensely complicated engineering programme. Other planes that have done decades of sterling service had terrible problems at this stage of their development.
The bloody plane is in testing, it is tested precisely because problems are anticipated.
Having access to every little nitty detail of the programme is just giving people with an agenda against the plane, and those easily convinced by internet arguments grist to the mill that this particular engineering programme is somehow totally flawed.
What seems to be happening is that people who have a philosophical problem with the plane as a concept are using development problems to bad mouth it. Doesn’t matter what the damn thing looks like or can do, they don’t like it because of reasons other than engineering problems.
@ Monty
‘This is the role that the Tornado performs quite well and the F-35A/ C in only an average way.’
It doesn’t perform both roles well, it only performs one. The Tornado carries the ASRAAM but that’s not the same as being dual role. F35 isn’t even in service so no-one can say how good it really is yet at a specific role.
F18 isn’t really an option, is it? It has very short legs – exactly the problem F35 was supposed to counter by carrying a higher internal fuel volume. Why buy an aircraft that has to be refuelled right after takeoff, tying up another asset (another F18)? Rafale is worse off still.
“‘This is the role that the Tornado performs quite well and the F-35A/ C in only an average way.’”
Substitute Buccaneer for Tornado, and Tornado for F35……….
A Buccaneer providing fighter cover ? well you live and learn
I am still thinking about how both Tornado and FA18 are short legged. I am only interested in dropping bombs.
This video maybe of interest
Seems to be the way, not many a/c are long ranged compared to the Buccaneer, F111 maybe not very many others that I can think of.
@Mark: the thing that worries me about F35 is that the design is so compromised (primarily by STOVL), that there is really no margin. No weight or volume margin, so limited stealthy weapons fit. No margin for 2 seaters, so nothing too difficult and a reliance on non-stealthy platforms for EW for example. No plumbing for external tanks, so self deployment or extreme long range missions are impractical. No margin for “fill in what might be needed in 10 years time”…
F35 is trying to be all things to all people, and not satisfying anyone. I suspect we will end up with the A model only which will be a perfectly respectable F16 replacement, if not all it could have been. The B will go (no loss for the US, whatever the USMC thinks, it would be better off buying another couple of CVGB’s), and the C will be replaced by more F18′s and X47′s.
In the meantime, we will wave goodbye to the 2 billion and buy the F18, which we should have done to begin with . CVF would have been entering service now as the trial platform for EMALS, with 3 squadrons of F18′s already in service with crews trained on US CV’s…and they would have done so within a greatly reduced and fixed budget.
Rupert I agree there was comprises for stovl in the overall design. I would agree also there is limited weight growth in the b version. However there is more room for weight growth on the other two. 2 seater was never a requirement and it has the capacity for 3 external tanks in non stealth configuration. Indeed the f135 has been bench tested at over 50000 pounds thrust so margin for future integration. On onboard processing better info management and better off board capabilty will allow single seat role in all envisaged capabilities.
I would not have developed all three simultaneously or concurrently to the extend they have.
RF
Sorry about the fowl/foul typo. Long day, lack of a holiday, usual bleats.
F-18E would be lovely for RN if it came in service this year, but we are talking 2020. Will it still be credible in 2040? That is what we need from a new fighter.
You can laugh at the Chinese at your peril. 20 years ago, their main combat fighter was the Mig-19, now the SU27/J-20 combo. How far will they be in another 20? Will the F-18E still be good enough?
RAF should not get F-35. They should replace Tornado with a 2 seat conformal tank Typhoon + some long range regional bombers in the mix.
Two engines (less stressed) in a larger structure (more lift, less wing load, less stress) allowing bigger internal weapons bays (not just for a bigger weapon but simpler operation too) and simpler STEALTH.
RAF should not get F-35. They should replace Tornado with a 2 seat conformal tank Typhoon + some long range regional bombers in the mix.
Only problem then is what would the faa get?
@John Hartley: we get F18 by 2020 if we do things the MOD way. The Aussies bought off the shelf with minimal mods, and got them in service in three years. This is a platform in production, not vapour-ware. As for the 2040 assertion, I find it a little silly to be grandly worrying about that with an aircraft with a likely 6000 hour lifetime. If we stick to plan A of waiting for F35, we will likely end up with nothing, and the F18 is a lot better than nothing
And I’m not laughing at the Chinese either. Late nights can make for some light relief!
Topman
The FAA would get the F-35 B & C to my way of thinking.
Old designs will not cut the 20 year minimum service life with any credibility.
RF
If we got the F-18 for the FAA in 2015, what would it fly from?
PoW will not have cats & traps till 2020.
We’re constrained by money and no carrier until 2018 anyway. Tornado an typhoon meet uk fastjet needs until then. F35 spend will be post 2015 any purchase prior to that date which f18 has to be requires something else to be cut now in the order of 1.5b upwards just to buy 24 no support Or weapons integration so what’s it to be. Even Boeing considers superhornets obsolete post 2025 as is marketing a 6th generation jet for that time frame. There is only two real choices go with f35 or scrap it and carrier air increase typhoon numbers and gap the interdiction strike requirement for 20 years until possible ucav technology matures.
“RAF should not get F-35.”
Amusingly, the RAF wants it. Really really really wants it. Specifically, they wanted the F35C all along.
Guess what is being acquired…
“No plumbing for external tanks, so self deployment or extreme long range missions are impractical.”
External fuel tanks are an option. And guess what, Israel is already coming up with designs for Conformal Fuel Tanks, F16-style, for the F35. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-to-boost-range-of-future-f-35-fleet-220748/
On growth margin, people tend to forget that electronics trend is to get smaller and lighter. Bombs have also gotten smaller and smaller due to collateral damages worries, improved accuracy etc. And engines tend to grow lighter and more powerful at the same time with each year that passes.
Yes, the F35 is likely to be a bit complex to upgrade and change due to stealth.
But it has growth margin.
And besides, as technology progresses, the weight of components actually tends to go down, not up, which helps.
Gabs
Can’t say as I can agree about technology getting lighter. EVERY aircraft ever built has only ever got heavier and heavier in service to the point where it is one of the drivers of the next design.
Can’t think of a single aircraft ever replaced in the same role by a lighter aircraft. (Ok I am sure there was one, smart arsses please post here).
The harrier is an classic example of weight gain.
Every radar etc is lighter than the last, or it would be if the opportunity was not taken to increase capability, add an optoelectronic sensor, a new network enabled communication system etc etc..
My real concern with f35 b in particular is that it is too close to the current edge.
Whilst individual components benefit from technology derived reductions in size the overall package takes advantage of that by cramming more and more ‘stuff’ in, most of these require power and cooling and therefore drive growth in other areas.
The more I think of what is happening with The CVF/JCA project the more I think it is rapidly becoming a millstone around the neck of a declining in real terms defence budget. Once you get over the emotion and actually look at what it delivers compared to what we either need or use most often (depending on your view) the more it becomes incredibly distorting, shockingly poor value for money, destructive of other more useful/used capabilities, divisive amongst the services and adversely impact the welfare arrangements, training and general conditions of all service/civilian personnel past, present and future.
CVF/JCA has turned into a defence vanity/industrial benefits project that serves the UK’s defence needs very poorly but no doubt lots of directorships, back handers and inflated egos all round mean that it will continue and leave a trail of wreckage far behind that one day will cost a British solder, airman or sailor his or her life.
Will look good in Navy News or Flypast Monthly though
RE “External fuel tanks are an option. And guess what, Israel is already coming up with designs for Conformal Fuel Tanks, F16-style, for the F35″
- there is even talk of them coming up with a two-man cockpit
- if there is any truth to being close to the margin, what comes off then (to accommodate not only more weight but the cubic volume take-up, a lot of it internal)?
TD, i think you are entirely out of reality and time when looking at CVF and JCA. All you say punches the UK strategy and requirements in the face and goes exactly against the trend that, also thanks to the new US defense strategy, is affirming withing the alliance.
But i won’t lose time in a posts war on here, i’ve done it more than enough times already.
Just posting to let people know that in the second quarter of this year the revised F35C tailhook goes on trials on land and carrier trials remain planned for summer 2013. The problems are not only known, a solution is not being designed, and is already close to being rolled out for trials.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120117/DEFREG02/301170010/Design-Blamed-F-35C-Tailhook-Issues?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
People may have already seen this but just in case:
“UKIP estimates suggest it would cost £1.4bn to develop a naval typhoon, with unit costs of around £80m.
In a statement the party said that the development costs would be similar to the cost of converting the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to use the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to be used with the F-35C. A naval Typhoon would take off from a ‘ski jump’ deck.”
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18574
Another piece of the jigsaw here on the RN website:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/January/25/120125-Leave-the-landing-light-on
Hi TD – are you really Jon Lake by any chance, as his piece in this months combat aircraft monthly echoes your opinion quite closely.
“A naval Typhoon would take off from a ‘ski jump’ deck.””
And it would land on an angled deck with AAG wires costing a few hundred millions, but this is not publicized as much, curiously.
CVF then would be compatible with Mig 29K and Su33 of Russia.
What a wonderful idea!
“CVF then would be compatible with Mig 29K and Su33 of Russia.
What a wonderful idea!”… and then sold to India
Just joking (or am I?)
“and then sold to India”
Already tried.
India does not want it: they want to build their ships at home and their first indigenous carrier is already being built.
With italian shipyards help.
About India, it would be nice if the UK finally managed to sell them something. Other than the Hawks, it is not going well if you think about Rafale, Scorpene, nuclear reactors, MICA missiles, Mirage modernization… Or C17, C130 and P8I.
Biggest defence market for the next years, and the Uk already appears to be losing that little grip it had on it.
This is the real worrisome thing. And you can bet that the white paper released today will change positively nothing of this situation.
“UKIP estimates suggest it would cost £1.4bn to develop a naval typhoon, with unit costs of around £80m.”
I had missed this one… Very funny.
Development costs are almost certainly a wild guess, and 80 millions per unit…
Well. A non-naval Typhoon costs 80 millions or more.
How can they say it will cost the same once airframe is strenghtened, software changed, undercarriage changed, arresting hook added and all that?
A few years ago Typhoon naval was expected to cost 125 million per unit.
You tell me which figure you deem more likely responding to the truth.