The F35B is making progress on its trial programme and some of the more grandiose claims of its general crapness being slowly knocked off one by one.
I still think the F35B is the most sensible and pragmatic choice for the UK for a sustainale aircraft fleet with location flexibility, a lower overall cost across the joint force and we will rue the day we made the switch to CTOL but that ship has sailed and we are now running around like blue arse flies wondering how much it will all cost beyond the back of a fag packet claculations we did prior to SDSR.
F-35B test aircraft completes its first landing aboard USS Wasp
H/T Paul G
Sorry TD can’t agree, IMHO we are well rid if this abortion. I am not saying the C version is ideal either but it is way better than than then version.
I would still like to see the Harrier flown off a UK LPHD as well as a conventional carrier.
How about selling the QE class to the Indians along with a Sea Typhoon and use the proceeds to build to decent carriers?
Why would you want this thing over the C version? It has less range, less payload, less performance, is more complex and would have in practice, operated from exactly the same bases and carriers as the more powerful C version.
I’m glad this thing died for the RAF/FAA.
VSTOL really is a pretty pointless thing on a fixed wing aircraft.
Yes on paper there are a few justifications re basing and ships but in practise few of them are realised, especially since the end of the Cold War. And I wonder just how dispersed the Harrier fleet could have been AND have maintained a sortie rate higher than operating CTOL a/c from smaller, defended and hardened bases like the USAFE A10 fleet.
You seem to get not much more utility for a great cost in capability.
And if someone mentions the bloody Falklands!
I did post a link to this on the open thread but to be fair the video is better!
I agree with TD, the basing options of STOVL aircraft make up for any individual extra cost or less capability; D K Brown in Future British Surface Fleet was quite disparaging about the (Sea) Harrier but wanted to maximise its main strength by including landing decks/ski-jumps through out the fleet.
Solomon has some pic’s over at his site.
Wonderful stuff.
“I agree with TD, the basing options of STOVL aircraft make up for any individual extra cost or less capability”
When have they EVER been used in real life other than on a carrier? And they were going to operate from the same carrier anyway but with reduced performance. On paper the options seem attractive but they are never used in practise and do not justify the loss in capability. These things will be able to go EVERYWHERE the B model, in practise, ever would, with increased payload and performance and less complexity.
@ Phil – Individually they are less capable and expensive but if take the holistic view including extra costs of CATOBAR carriers, crew, buddy refuelling, etc, they should end up being cheaper than the C.
I’m also more optimistic than you that they would have been used in basic forward bases.
Let’s see the flight deck after several hours of F35b landings. Still not convinced this bloody thing does not destroy everything it lands on!
I think we made the right choice going with the C Version, no how much I hate the F35. Its hard for the MOD to stomach spending for an aircraft, let alone pay for a version which quite frankly isn’t doing so well.
While over its life time there will be improvements, currently it runs too hot, range is lower. I don’t expect it to melt the deck, they should know by now, they’ve done ground tests.
I wonder if they’ve sorted out the general engine problems.
“I’m also more optimistic than you that they would have been used in basic forward bases”
Harrier across the RAF and USMC, to my knowledge has been used from a forward operating base on operations precisely once, in San Carlos. But if we had been operating higher performance fixed wing aircraft there would have been no need for that base.
It’s a neat trick but other CTOL a/c can operate from austere airbases and strips of road without the loss of performance. In practise, the C will be able to go everywhere the B can.
I just don’t see the point in paying for sub optimal aircraft for the frankly faddish trick of VSTOL. It was a pretty pointless exercise even in the Cold War.
we simply cant tell if this a/c will have an adverse affect on the deck from this landing this would not have been the most demanding case to be tested. We also dont know what mods were done to the wasp for these test.
While vstol has some advantages in some unique cases they are in the round not relevant to the UK. Across the balance of capabilities fielded by the UK the C versions offers the best compromise. We see again from the nato lessons learned in libya that aar capabilty was sadly lacking in european inventories and most likely affected operations there more than has been publicized. This will only get worse also with the reduced buy likely in RAF/RN service it makes sense to get maximum range and payload capacity out of each a/c.
The B versions remains the most technically challenging and comprised version but is often quoted as being the cheapest all round option. While indeed the carrier conversion may add 600-800 to its price this would be instead compensated with the reduced price of the engine a 5m difference saves 500m from say 110 engines (you need more engines than planes over its life). Then we have training. I would add a note of caution here dont try and compare this a/c training requirement with previous ones. Why simulators will play a much greater role and indeed the care free nature of this a/c will be a step up as is the reason for no 2 seater trainer. Also the recover mode the uk wanted to use for the B version will have required more training than typical harrier ops the difference will be less than imagined.
“@ Phil – Individually they are less capable and expensive but if take the holistic view including extra costs of CATOBAR carriers, crew, buddy refuelling, etc, they should end up being cheaper than the C.”
How is that? C has more range, thus LESS need for (buddy-buddy) refuelling in the air.
C requires also less maintenance due to less tech, thus requiring LESS maintenance crew.
@ S O
The switch to the C meant that blue water operations on the Carriers become more risky as a catobar requires a better sea state to land than a VSTOL aircraft. A pitching deck is less of a problem when landing vertically rather than trying to catch a cable. Therefore, to mitigate against this risk you need an organic air to air refueling capability to ensure that your airborne assets that are boltering (missing the cables) in bad weather can get fuel and try again rather than ditching. With the B model the RN would not have required organic tankers as it’s not as high a risk.
The USN do what is called ‘buddy buddy tanking’ ie, they get an F18 with fueling pods airborne to refuel the other F18s. They will still use F18 to refuel F35s as the F35 will not have the buddy buddy tanking capability. Therefore, as we are now getting the C model, we now need a carrier based tanking capability in order to use it in the same sea states as we would have used the B model in.
@ jack, hear what your saying, but wasn’t there some clause in the air tanker contract stating that ALL air to air refueling will be done by the PTSA team.
I bet they would push that, not to do the refueling, but squeeze some pennies out of the MOD to change the terms of the contract.
The deck was never going to melt, but the high temperature on landing may, over time, cause metal fatigue. It’s a real problem encountered with the use of Osprey and something that needs to be managed, and is one of the cost unknowns associated with the F35B.
Buddy refueling didn’t matter before we ditched the B, and doesn’t matter to the US as they have that covered already. It’s not an insurmountable problem, but is one of the cost unknowns associated with the UK’s F35C.
No one knows which of these will be cheaper for the UK, and I expect that in 10 years time we still won’t.
Mark said: “…We also dont know what mods were done to the wasp for these test….” Amy Butler enquired to get this response: “…DellaVedova says that no special matting or coatings have been put down for the F-35B’s shipboard trials. The only items added to the deck are sensors that are used to collect test data, he says.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad957b620-82bf-4b0c-aa36-c440b0703b94&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Mark also said: “…Why simulators will play a much greater role and indeed the care free nature of this a/c will be a step up as is the reason for no 2 seater trainer. Also the recover mode the uk wanted to use for the B version will have required more training… (not certain what last phrase was about).”
There are many quotes from real test pilots without – any Harrier experience – saying that making a vertical landing in the F-35B was easier than they thought. Of course they had extensive time in the simulator, as will all new F-35 pilots.
The SRVL would have been relatively simple also given the F-35B control via computer, as simple as the VL but will probably will never know about the SRVL unless the USMC are allowed to take it to a CVN for trials. Perhaps this will happen with USMC F-35Bs aboard a CVF instead? Maybe the two RN F-35Bs will be used one day for that purpose?
Add ‘Bedford Array installed on CVF’ to comment about ‘ease of SRVL on CVF’ immediately above.
I’m not able to verify this quote from a recent October 2011? issue of ‘Aviation Week’ magazine, that may be of interest?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad957b620-82bf-4b0c-aa36-c440b0703b94&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
“Tasks also included evaluations of two areas of potential concern to F-35B shipboard operations: measurement of the impact of the hot exhaust on the landing pad and deck environment, and hot gas ingestion into the inlet. Vertical landings at Pax River have been conducted on two pads made from standard extruded AM-2 aluminum-tile mats measuring 120 ft. and 150 ft. square, respectively.
We’ve been recording the points on the pad where the nozzle is pointed and, after initial landings, removed the specific tile and tested it for strength. There was no loss of strength, Wilson says. Now we’re waiting for 10 vertical landings on one specific tile before we do the next strength test. As of late September, fewer than half of the required number of landings on the particular tile had occurred. Overall, results of the testing to-date give no cause for concern for AM-2 compatibility, Wilson says.
Additionally, ground personnel have gradually moved closer to the pad for each vertical landing, as part of systematic efforts to determine the safest proximity to the touchdown area. Wilson says that so far these tests indicate safe distances similar to those of current Harrier operations.”
Confirmation of last AvWeek quote above is from:
‘Vertical Validation’ by Guy Norris/Los Angeles
Aviation Week & Space Technology/October 3, 2011 top of page 31
Same article has mention of how easy it is for pilots to transition to the F-35B with details about hover abilities etc.
Hi Mark,
I agree with your overall argument, but let’s be clear: this ” indeed the carrier conversion may add 600-800 to its price” is per carrier
- assuming that both will be converted, as has been hinted, but the timing for the 2nd conversion still very much in the mist
- the reason why I believe the F35s will be purchased in two batches, far apart in timing
I hope the RAF/ FAA distinction will get us over this one: ” wasn’t there some clause in the air tanker contract stating that ALL air to air refueling will be done by the PTSA team.”
If the “B” is ditched…
“No one knows which of these will be cheaper for the UK, and I expect that in 10 years time we still won’t.”
Acc
Yeah ino but when you add the extra maintenance cost the for b goes up further. I would add the 800m may also include the engineering work require to fit the extra equipment it may not be just the purchase cost the cost for the second set maybe lower we don’t know yet.
Buddy buddy I wonder how often the French use it. Will uk carriers operate away from land base aar cover considering the range of a330 I think the risk would be manageable.
Mark, as said we agree on the broad point.
800 is probably the figure for the first one. Getting the 2nd set cheaper is possible, but it will be put in through a refit so the increased structural works will be a counterweight to that.
- funnily enough, when the Parlimentarians on the Defence Committee suggested that 800 might be the best guess, the MoD side went: oohh, don’t recognise that number
A330s aren’t supersonic so even if the range in theory might suffice, getting them there when needed is another matter.
You would pre position a tanker during take offs and landings to a race track close to the carrier. Even in current operations tanker a/c would deploy first. Fitting a aar pod to the f35 centre line or wet wing station is no more difficult than integrate a weapon. This is not exactly an urgent day 1 carrier operation capability requirement
The french use buddy tanking an aweful lot, actually, on both Super Etendard and Rafale…
I just like how its a nice clear ships’ deck, nice sunny day when the ships not moving nor rolling…then the bigger challenge for the B’s sea trials begins. Its got a fair way to go yet.
I am not sure, B or C – C has the greater capability but B was what we chose after a good deal of *thinking* about it, the C decision was more rash and quick… The B’s lesser capabilities I think will actually limit the USMC.
As for tankers, I once suggested to gabs finding surplus E2 airframes, gutting them and useing them as tanker/COD (the C2 airframes are too precious to the USN)…would have commonality if we bought a couple of E3D’s for carrier AEW work.
But thats just musings, no idea on cost.
Mike
French use buddy buddy for as tankers for actual missions I’m getting at how often is it used for missed traps. Has it become less due to improvement in a/c and ship glide slope control systems ect. The thinking about the b had more to do with we need a harrier replacement only.
“The deck was never going to melt, but the high temperature on landing may, over time, cause metal fatigue.”
Not sure if it never was going to melt.
Even Jet Blast Deflectors with the F35C caused worry, as it was feared, prior to trials, that they would melt too. It is a very real issue.
Also, i must note that in the video it is pretty much evident that part of the LHD deck, where the landing happens, has been newly coated. We can’t know what kind of coating has been used. It might well be special coating designed for F35B stress.
“Buddy buddy I wonder how often the French use it.”
They made at least 280 Rafale buddy-buddy sorties from CdG during ops over Libya.
Some 1350 sorties from the carrier, say… 0.25 tanker sorties per general sortie.
“wasn’t there some clause in the air tanker contract stating that ALL air to air refueling will be done by the PTSA team.”
I’ve read that as well on here more than once. But reading into the NAO report over the FSTA (not read it all yet, but most of it) there’s no sign of that.
I’ve instead found an interesting bit: if the MOD charters civilian planes for an airbridge instead of using the FSTA tankers, it will have to pay 300 pounds for each chartered hour on the ground and 8000 pounds for each flying hour.
Just to give an idea, the MOD has chartered flights for 175 million pounds between 2006 and 2008 to sustain Afghan ops.
In the contract bit there are non-specified exception.
I hope that chartered flights used IN ADDITION to FSTA are not subject to penalties.
Otherwise, in case of ops abroad the MOD is going to be drained up by them.
Hi Mike,
What I can’t understand is that when the French have enough Rafale Ms to fill the CdG twice over, they still use Super Etendards. Are there versions that still don’t exist, like recce? I thought that is all pretty much “podded” these days.
Onto B & C; I have always had a suspicion that there was horse trading re: the second (R&R) engine and UK support for the USMC version. Actually limit USMC? I would not say so – what would they do with their “Americas” without the B. That (forget how many of them) is a sunk cost, and an investment that was very much predicated to the capabilities [to be] brought to it by the “B”.
Finally, I think someone was in the know that those E2s, even though “flyable”, had already too many carrier take-off and landing cycles behind them (premature airframe fatigue?).
It would seem unfortunate if we had to tie up a couple of the dozen sparkly new and super expensive embarked F35 to cover refueling.
But by 2020 the US might have converted the new Hawkeye airframe for Greyhounds and, as Mike said, a COD/tanker might be an option.
The USN will also have been operating X47b for a few years, and I believe that is meant to get a refueling ability. And surely it’s not beyond UK & French boffins to knock up a robot tanker, far simpler than a UAV strike fighter I assume.
ACC
The French still want a second Carrier
Gabby
How many buddy buddys for a missed trap were in those numbers.
Brian
X47 is due 2020 possibility later if it’s selected after the fly off in a few years time. But if the tech is there to land a Uav on a carrier deck the its there to land a manned a/c no requirement for buddy buddy for a missed trap
Hi DJ,
- we want our 2nd/ 3rd carrier (but put the 1st one off by a considerable number of years)
- India wants 5 (Hermes is the only operational one, and in her mid-50′s)
- Russia wants about that number (but their one should already be birthed up for a lengthy refit?)
- America wants 12 (but might end up with 9?)
Yes, “want” is one thing
ACC
But the French actualy intend to get a second operational carrier.
Either that, or sell us the Rafales, but I’m pretty sure they want to build more rather than offload the current lot.
Whereas India having 5 is laughable.
Russia can have a carrier when it ceases to be laughably poor and has a warm water port the thing could live in.
The US could drop below 9 without much drama, even fighting a two front war,
Regarding missed trap refuels
If you cant land, can you take off?
I would assume both were equaly difficult?
Hi DJ,
Wrong “I would assume both were equally difficult?”
Hi DJ,
“Whereas India having 5 is laughable”
- well, they are trying very hard (and paying big bucks to Russia/ Ukraine
- the last I read was 9 operational Harriers; the LCA(N) flew for the first time in July?
Mig 29K are training, but off land bases
Russia can have a carrier when it ceases to be laughably poor and has a warm water port the thing could live in
- where is the oil price headed
- they got Sevastapol to 2040 (part of the energy black mail?)
- there is another port in Abkhazia; look it up
Hi, Mark.
X47b should see ship launch and recovery in 2013 in the UCAS-Demonstration part of the Naval-UCAS programme; but I don’t think it will be a fly-off. The only other class competitor would have been a naval version of Phantom Ray, but I think that Boeing have shelved that idea in favour of steering the tech towards winning the USAF’s next bomber.
The X47b is obviously not the be-all and end-all of Navy UAV’s, but it will help the US develop the technology and the operational concepts further; and the point I was trying to make is that unmanned platforms can begin to do these kind of ancillary tasks in the quite near future, and even if using manned tankers a scarce F35 might not be the optimum aircraft for that task.
I agree with what you’re saying about the tech cutting out missed landings and negating the need for buddy refueling for that particular reason – F18 has already done manned but hands-off landings – but it will still be a useful capability to have.
Being able to routinely top off jets after take off, or to deal with contingencies would be worthwhile capability. We should also consider the limits on concurrent launch and recovery, and consider the ideas that we have for using our ships as combined CV/LPH; these will put extra demands on the deck area despite the small number of F35 likely to be routinely embarked.
We may quickly find that buddy refueling, or dedicated tankers, are essential to carry out the rate and scope of air operations that we desire.
Domj
On take off the the f14 the pilot flys the take off. Next generation along the hornet the pilot is hands off for takeoff. We’ve had a hornet do a demo in benign conditions simulating a Uav return to a carrier. Next along f35 what improvements here. The assumption that nothing has will improve in this area is IMO simple not accurate.What I’m getting at is If it was 1 in 20 landing need to visit the tanker with older a/c is it 1 in 100 now or more or will it be 1 in a 1000 tomorrow. Using a buddy buddy is often quoted as vital for cat an trap but with the advancement of technology there will be a point where it’s so unlikely it’s not done
ACC
Fair enough regarding landing/taking off.
A port in the Black Sea is bloody useless too. To go anywhere it will have to travel through Constantinople and either Suez or Gibralter. Thats concievably 6 nations (Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Spain, UK) who could all sink it with ease.
Mark
Thats not reassuring.
If 1 in 1000 Sorties require a tanker, and you dont have one, we’d go through jets at an alarming rate.
Using Gabrieles CdG/Libya ops, 1350 flights, 280 tankers, so scratch them, but thats still statisticly one plane ditched in the Med for lack of fuel and inability to land.
Those were numbers I’m making up dom It what I’m asking what is the percentage of missed approaches to have to go to tanker. The French use buddy buddy instead of aar tankers due to a lack of such assets.
Hi DJ,
A bit of a problem, since the days of Peter the Great:
“A port in the Black Sea is bloody useless too. To go anywhere it will have to travel through Constantinople and either Suez or Gibralter. Thats concievably 6 nations (Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Spain, UK) who could all sink it with ease.”
– put it with the Northern Fleet, and no power projection
–put it in the Baltic Fleet and no useful purpose, whatsoever
– put it in the Far East Fleet, and no useful purpose (even Vietnam does not care much about seeing a Russian flag)
– so for power projection, only the Black Sea will do… with all those problems you listed
Interestingly, Latakia has been a base since the 60′s; there is a rumour that another one in the Indian Ocean might be in the works (it used to be Socotra, but not since the Yemeni Union doing away with the two Yemens)
Welcome to Think Defence SpazSinbad
So it would seem that the histeria around melting flight decks, special coatings, water cooled flights decks looks like complete and utter bollocks then.
If it can operate with sixties vintage AM2, which by definition is a temporary surface and frankly outclassed by newer expedient runway materials, then a properly constructive flight deck would seem no problems whatsoever. Even if it did need a special coating, what would would it have been made of, chicken lips and unicorn tears
Another video by the way
We haven’t got a clue how much the switch to CATOBAR is going to cost either. As Mike said, we looked very very carefully at through life costs across different options for JCA and every time the MoD looked the answer always came back VSTOL was the cheapest when measured holistically
After a decade or more of extremely detailed study, I wonder what really promopted the switch
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/05/so-far-f-35b-performing-at-sea-as-advertised/
The above blog has posted a large picture of USS Wasp,
For some strange reason half the deck is grey and the other half black!
So they’re clearly working with new surfaces.
TD
A single landing does not sustainable capability prove.
It was never going to be impossible, but is it cheap? Is it sructuraly easy? Is it long lasting.
TD
ONCE and forever
Who are the MOD now recruiting? And what have they never had at sufficient competence, numbers or seniority – people who understand costs
As we move to a point of 2.7: 1 military to civilian in the MOD, but, finally with the possibility of firing those who deliver out of cost projects, costers will be taken more seriously.
This does not imply that there will be any more people in the MOD who understand costs, just more who have costing as their job description
The fact that in the past the MOD had routinely concluded that any event had a particular cost outcome should inform us that, based on all the evidence, the actual cost outcome would be something very different
TD You can’t have it both ways. Either the MOD are useless on costs or they’re not, but if you hold to your faith in their F35B costs it’s time you stopped criticising them on costing other things
“How many buddy buddys for a missed trap were in those numbers.”
The data that the French released is not this specific, but i’d assume that many buddy-buddy sorties might have been actually used to extend range of recce and strike sorties. There was a short period in which CdG experienced some rough sea during ops: that’s the period in which i eventually expect buddy-buddy to have served planes bolting.
But bolting isn’t that frequent. And i’d willing to bet that a good bit of Buddy-Buddy tanker sorties actually did not transfer fuel at all. Wouldn’t be a surprise.
“A single landing does not sustainable capability prove.
It was never going to be impossible, but is it cheap? Is it sructuraly easy? Is it long lasting.”
Good questions.
I’m also always waiting for explanations of how the F35B can possibly cost less to maintain when it adds to the standard engine a whole lot of other systems, from:
ports and air intakes
Wing VTOL thrusters
The VTOL nozzle
The transmission linking the F135 engine and the Cold Lift Fan
The cold lift fan itself
And other bits.
There is no way in hell that all this isn’t going to add hours of additional mainteinance and requiring a far larger range of spares.
“After a decade or more of extremely detailed study, I wonder what really promopted the switch”
FOAS being killed and a dedicate Tornado replacement being not possible.
The F35C became more and more requested ever since 2005, when FOAS died and F35B struggled with all sorts of issues popping up, included failure in the projected landing and take off distances against requirements, mission range and Bring Back weight.
“There are many quotes from real test pilots without – any Harrier experience – saying that making a vertical landing in the F-35B was easier than they thought. Of course they had extensive time in the simulator, as will all new F-35 pilots.”
On the simulators, there was on TV a non-trained journalist (or was it a visiting minister, i cannot remember) landing an F35C on a simulated CATOBAR CVF at the second try.
I would be very, very, very careful about this kind of declarations.
Especially when the US Marines are trying to show Congress lots of progress to ensure the B variant survives at the end of the famous two-years probation time imposed by Robby Gates.
Dom, ACC. Forget the Black Sea, instead of shutting down Plymouth or Portsmouth we should invite our Russian comrades in. Offer them a 20 year lease, they can pay in gas.