A guest post from Chris EA
On Thursday the British Secretary of State, Mr Hammond, announced a reversal in the decision to switch to the Carrier Variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, and return to the Short Take-off/Vertical Landing variant, the F-35B.
With all of the political handbag swinging combined with the raging debates in the media as to how the Ministry of Defence and the current Government could, should (or have) done things better, it’s easy to forget that this equipment is on its way and our service personnel will be relying on this kit to protect themselves while looking after the British people.
Let’s have a look at the positive side of the decision.
Contents
It’s the economy, stupid
There is no doubt that the cost and capabilities of existing and in-development catapult launched aircraft such as the F-18 and the F-35C are impressive, making it understandable why Britain would have sought to add CATOBAR capability to the Queen Elizabeth class of carriers.
Why Britain was in a position where she had to think about converting Carriers to operate CATOBAR aircraft mid-construction at all is an article in itself, but the cost of converting a pair of STOVL carriers in order to operate more conventional aircraft is too much for the country’s bank balance to bear. Britain’s already deep into her overdraft facility.
Being a little short on cash, Britain has had to take along hard look hard at her place in the world. It would be easy to cut back the armed forces still further and reduce her dealings in the world but if you want to secure your maritime trading arrangements on a global scale, attempt to promote your values and also assist the unfortunate when disaster strikes, then you often need a military to resort to.
Britain has chosen to maintain her influence and has vowed to continue sending aid and assistance to poorer and disaster struck nations.
What Britain is (hopefully) getting
Given this money situation and Britain’s choice of role in the world, she has to play the hand she’s been dealt.
Looking at the equipment, training and experience that the British Armed Forces has and is getting, it’s not all doom and gloom.
Come the end of decade, it’s looking increasingly likely that two 65k ton CVF carriers, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, will be in service on a rotational basis providing Britain with one carrier available for operations year-round.
Flying from these Carriers, assuming all goes smoothly, will be a compact fleet of Fifth Generation, Supersonic aircraft with all of the low-observability, networked systems, defences and strike packages that the “5th” tag implies.
These will be supported by an ever increasing fleet of helicopters including refitted Chinooks as well as newly built Merlin’s and Wildcats. Britain is increasing its stock of helicopters that the miltary and populace have been clamouring for.
Taking into account the newly built Type 45 Destroyers, Astute SSN’s and taking the Type 26 project into account, there are not many Navy’s in the world that will be able to boast such a modernised inventory across the whole fleet.
How does this compare to what we used to have or could have had?
F-35B vs. Apache AH1
Right now, Britain does not have a Carrier Strike or Maritime Combat Air Patrol capability. That was lost with the decommissioning and downgrading of the CVS Carriers and the scrapping of the Harrier fleet. You could even argue the UK lost true Carrier Strike and CAP with the scrapping of the Sea Harrier and the air intercept radar it came with.
The closest Britain comes is with the ever impressive AH1 version of the Apache Attack Helicopter first demonstrated in the Libyan campaign.
Although this Operation clearly demonstrated the capacity to fly aerial combat missions from LPH Carriers in support of ground operations, this is not in the same category as Carrier Strike.
This leaves Britain with close-to-shore aerial ground support combined with whatever capabilities her Surface Vessel fleet assets can supply on their own. They lack the additional “dome” layer of defence that a Carrier vessel brings to table.
F-35B vs. Harrier Gr9
Clearly the decision to stick with the F-35B and continue with the CVF Carriers in a STOVL configuration provides a superior military capability to what the UK has right now.
One message that often gets lost in the current furore over the u-turn is that STOVL Carriers operating the F-35B also provide a superior military capability compared to what Britain used to have in the form of the Invincible class operating Harriers as well.
As much loved as the Harriers are back in Blighty, the F-35B is clearly superior in respect to range, speed, weapons load and variety, its ability to return with greater stores, reduced workload on the pilot, its electronic warfare suite, detection capabilities and in the undeniable fact that it is harder to detect without the exposed fan of the Pegasus engine. The ability to hover longer than a reservoir of cooling water is also a benefit.
It is also suggested that the F-35B is easier to maintain than the Harrier due to fewer moving parts overall and greater experience in designing maintenance access to its components.
CVF vs. CVS
Similarly, the Queen Elizabeth class provides superior capabilities to the Invincible class and should take a minor detour here to look at a usual operating base for the new aircraft.
Range and endurance through greater stores is an obvious aspect, but the class also has a greater seaworthiness and stability. This allows for flight deck operations in rougher sea states which, combined with the STOVL variants greater rough weather abilities, yet further increases the availability of the CVF Carriers to operate when they required.
The larger hangar capacity allows flexibility over smaller LPH classes especially as the operating costs are comparable:
- Surge combat aircraft strength in times of serious conflict
- Operate a greater variety of rotorcraft
- More space assists with maintenance, repairs and turnaround times
The other facilities of the CVF are just as superior:
- Large hospital for combat or disaster victims
- Spacious crew quarters relieve stress and help keep crew alert
- Larger passenger accommodation for military personnel or evacuations
- Command and Control suites for operating a task force and analysing intelligence
The larger size at relatively minor additional cost compared to a vessel the same size as a Mistral allows for a greater variety of missions to be carried out, with greater capacity and potentially simultaneously.
STOVL vs. CATOBAR
Given, the capabilities of dedicated conventional aircraft are superior to the STOVL variant of the F-35. This is not in dispute.
Being able to support CATOBAR aircraft would allow the purchase of off-the-shelf proven airframes. In particular the F-18 and the E-2D Hawkeye spring to mind and have been discussed at great lengths by others.
Britain can’t afford to convert her two CVF’s under construction but does gain a few benefits through this decision.
Firstly are the in-service dates. Britain already owns two F-35B’s for testing purposes and pilot training is already underway. The current (I know, I know: Subject to change) in-service date for the first batch of F-35B’s is in 2016, in time for Queen Elizabeth to be delivered for sea trials and with both Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales to be fully operational by the end of the decade.
This would be delayed by conversion work and the later delivery times of the F-35C. Even with flying on-loan or cheaply purchased F-18′s (or Rafales as some have suggested) this date would be pushed into the mid-2020′s, potentially up to 10 years longer. Britain would have a very long capability gap.
By converting to CATOBAR Britain would only receive a single Carrier able to operate these aircraft.
With STOVL the option is available to operate two Carriers, likely in a rotational capacity instead of both on active duty, at a (relatively) small cost of £60m per year. A lot of commentators would be surprised if this option wasn’t picked up at the SDSR 2015 session as this would bring Britain’s Carrier Availability to 100% of the year instead of around 7 months.
The British Armed Forces haven’t only been available for 7 months of the year since Knightly armies packed up their campaigns for the winter! There are also additional intangible benefits discussed later.
It has been suggested that Britain is putting all her eggs in one basket with the F-35B. Surely Britain would be putting even more of her eggs in one basket with only a single aircraft carrier?
This leads to another point. The F-35B is not limited to the CVF’s. With work, it is possible to operate them from the existing LPH’s, LSD’s and potentially from modified merchant vessels. A number of Allied vessels are yet another possibility. That’s a lot of options.
The key benefits of sticking with the STOVL Carriers are:
- Obtain Carrier Strike and CAP capability sooner (around 2018)
- Able to perform Carrier Strike and CAP operations all-year round
- Redundancy in the event of the loss of an aircraft carrier
In the specific choice of 60% availability at F-35C capability vs. 100% availability at F-35B capability, having capability all year round is clearly the superior choice.
The Joint F-35B Fleet
Even with two carriers, the UK is likely to move a smaller number of aircraft between them and ground operations.
In Britain this was pioneered as a joint operation between the Royal Navy and the RAF with the Harrier and I don’t see this arrangement changing.
There are benefits that the F-35B can return to the RAF too: Experience in deploying Harriers to ad-hoc Forward Operating Bases will allow the RAF to once more bring fast jet support closer to the front line, hopefully reducing response times in assisting our personnel on the ground.
This ability, although rarely used (I can only think of the Falklands and do not think the AV-8B has been deployed in this fashion at all) still maintains the Cold War concept of being able to operate fast jets despite airfield damage.
In an era where Iran is flexing their ballistic missile muscles to target Allied air bases in the Middle East, this capability may yet be required.
Directly experiencing the Harrier-like capabilities of F-35B once more may also help make up the mind of RAF chiefs when it comes to picking options after finally retiring the Tornado fleet. When choices are presented between wet jets such as the F-35B and dry jets such as Typhoon, continuing to operate a common aircraft across the services might be advantageous.
Bringing different capabilities to the table
The Royal Navy with Blue Water designed STOVL Carriers of 65k tons, but operating a Power Projection doctrine with integrated helicopter and fast jet operations appears to blend the approach of the US Marine Corps, the US Navy and the Royal Navy prior to the 70′s.
This is a different set of capabilities compared to what the different US services and Britain’s other allies operate.
Tactically a British task force would be more flexible, at the expense of focus. AAW, ASW, Amphibious operations.
Strategically you wouldn’t be sure how a British task force would deploy its assets: Concentrate the Joint Fleet on a Carrier? Move the Joint Fleet to Forward Operating Bases? Divide the aircraft amongst the different landing pads on the fleet? Would hitting their carrier remove the threat of the aircraft?
It gives Opposition planners a headache.
Britain also brings the British Way of Thinking, a slightly out of the box approach to problems often driven by a necessity. Who else would certify AH1 Apache’s for Maritime deployment from a Carrier? Who else would fly obsolete bombers the length of the world to hit an airbase? A bouncing bomb? Boiling Vessels in tanks to make a cup of tea… oh and to cook a warm dinner! Slightly different tools and slightly different problem solving methods will help an Allied Commander.
Britain is certainly mad enough to attempt an F-35B strike from the aft deck of a Type 45…
British Industry
Conspiracy theories about Bae hiking up the conversion costs aside, sticking to STOVL does bring economic benefits.
More F-35B’s means more Lift Fan assemblies are required which means that Rolls Royce will receive more orders providing more work to their workers.
Similarly, if the option to operate the second STOVL carrier is taken up, you can expect the majority of that £60m a year to flow back into the British economy through wages, maintenance contracts and other servicing arrangements.
A more stable CVF and F-35 program also means that the MoD can be more certain of its finances. This bodes well for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program which is sorely needed in reasonable numbers and capability of its own in order to plug other naval gaps that have appeared in recent cuts, such as the downsizing of the Type 45 order.
Future challenges
Sticking with STOVL carriers is still not going to be straight forward.
The matter of AEW is still a problem and the likelihood is that the Sea Kings with Searchwater Radars will be replaced with Merlin’s carrying either re-tasked Searchwater’s or (hopefully) Vigilant style AESA pods.
Even this solution to VTOL based AEW is not ideal but it bears reminding that the F-35B and C each contain autonomous detection arrays that interact together with other assets such as the Type 45 SAMSON to provide a wide area AEW network.
Instead of all your eggs in a handful of AEW baskets, all of your eggs are now distributed and gathering information on the airspace. This helps combat other low-observable aircraft by maintaining several viewing angles.
The F-35B program still contains risks: An overheating clutch on the Lift Fan, damage experienced to the Lift Fan doors, jittery helmet displays when projecting the “see through” image to the pilot.
These sound like engineering problems that are relatively confined to their own components. Contrasts with the tail hook problem of the F-35C which could require structural changes to accomodate a different size and shape hook assembly.
Developing a Plan D is also prudent and I’d be surprised if it wasn’t underway already. Plan D as in the F-35A is not carrier capable at all, F-35B project may fail and Britain cannot afford conversion to fly the F-35C.
Development of the Ski-jump capable Sea Gripen was moved by SAAB to a UK research centre a few years ago in order to leverage development skills based there and close proximity to other UK defence centres could make the Sea Gripen an option.
The Indian LCA Tejas is also another possibility being another Ski-jump capable aircraft on the horizon developed by a friendly nation.
Future Opportunities
Being “stuck” with a STOVL only Carrier also provides motivation to solve the limitations that the set-up enforces in order to be able to reap its benefits.
For example, given the steady pace of UAV and UCAV development, how will these be operated from a STOVL Carrier? Rocket assisted launch? Mini-EMALS? Ski-jump Launch? A new kind of arrestor gear? LEMV style hybrid airships operating for weeks over the task force?
With Rolls Royce’s development of the award winning Lift Fan on the F-35B, will be see a Dassault/Bae Taranis derivative fitted with a Lift Fan to give it STOVL capabilities of its own?
Now that Britain’s relying on a single model of aircraft, will we see another F136 engine program start up or be resurrected in order to provide Britain with more engine options as per the AH1?
In the future, we may also see Britain engaging in developing aircraft that are Maritime capable from the outset, a Navalised Typhoon from project initiation as per the Rafale if you will. It’s sensible for a Maritime country to ensure Maritime abilities in almost everything that they do.
Conclusion
World Peace as a preference aside, if I was able to pick Britain’s Carrier capacity from scratch I would pick three CATOBAR equipped carriers with a variety of aircraft.
However two STOVL Carriers operating F-35B’s and helicopter support year-round is still a step-change in capability for the UK and puts Britain back on the playing field.
You have successfully calmed me down and spared the wall bearing the brunt of my forehead contacting it!
The thing I can’t get over is how costly these flip-flop design changes are.
The carriers were sold (at least publicly) as a baseline STOVL design with fitted-for-but-not-with capability for cats-n-traps. The original change would incur additional costs over the purchase/fitting of the cats simply to get up to speed on the progress & impact of the specific US EMALS programme, but I can’t see where the new bill is justified, when reverting back to baseline!
Nice article – well written, so please don’t take this too negatively: exactly what is your point ?
Ref: “a step-change in capability for the UK and puts Britain back on the playing field.”
Really ? How ? Can you do a follow up article describing this in detail please, because at the moment this what I am failing to grasp. I get that CV is a “step change” from CVS. I get that F35B is a “step change” from Harrier, although I do wish people would just quit with the direct comparisons, they are apples to oranges !
But what “step change” does the overall package provide us that gets us back onto the playing field, and what do you define that playing field to be ?
This bit I really don’t get: “When choices are presented between wet jets such as the F-35B and dry jets such as Typhoon, continuing to operate a common aircraft across the services might be advantageous.”
Are you suggesting the RAF replace Tornado or even Typhoon with an F35B for it’s “deep strike” requirement ? Or are you suggesting the “commonality” of another F35 variant, or are you suggesting something else ?
Also: “The F-35B is not limited to the CVF’s. With work, it is possible to operate them from the existing LPH’s, LSD’s and potentially from modified merchant vessels” really ?????
The F35B empty is heavier than a fully loaded Harrier, and apparently / allegedly needs specially treated decks due to jet blast heating, so I don’t know if even HMS Ocean’s deck could take one, never mind the type of quick work done on the Atlantic Conveyor for the (even lighter) early variants of Harrier.
ref: “With Rolls Royce’s development of the award winning Lift Fan on the F-35B, will be see a Dassault/Bae Taranis derivative fitted with a Lift Fan to give it STOVL capabilities of its own?”
I doubt it very much, we cant afford it ! It would be really nice if we could fit the angled deck, the British EM capapult and by some GAe Avengers though…… probably cant afford that either mind you.
Ref: “will we see another F136 engine program start up or be resurrected in order to provide Britain with more engine options” – not a cat in hell’s chance of that happening, again we can’t afford it.
Mores to the point, will we even find the cash to integrate Meteor, SPEAR II / III (son-of-dual-mode-Brimstone) or to buy NSM – I doubt it somehow, our wonderful low observable strike fighters will be stuck with obsolescent AIM120′s and and free fall bombs…..
I am trying to be glass half full on this, honest…….
Grand post C:
Good stuff and as already commented, does help cool down the temperature on here!
Even though 2015 is the set in stone date, we should now look at the right way of using the assets we have and can – realistically – get. Rather than focus the past, eg; Harrier.
btw, you forgot to mention the training demand, time and cost for conventional carrier ops.
Also see Grabriele’s article here on what the F35B might, or might not be able to carry, weapons wise:
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.ca/2012/03/f35b-f35c-rethinks-weaponry-costs-and.html
Hi Chris,
You have nicely touched on just about all relevant dimensions
- may be, underplayed the hangar capacity, and the mission flexibility that flows from it, a bit
- may be overplayed the AEW “already in hand” a bit
On a detail note on this “rarely used (I can only think of the Falklands and do not think the AV-8B has been deployed in this fashion at all) still maintains the Cold War concept of being able to operate fast jets despite airfield damage”
- even though I am all for it
- the low-tech mortar damage that has been suffered while doing “it” has been suppressed in the good-old war reporting fashion
Chris EA
Sorry I just don’t feel very confident at the moment.
Most of the blame goes to the SDSR where we won a prize for slimming by chopping off an arm and a leg.
The biggest issue is the size of the fleet – too small in hull terms – plus the fact that RN is the last bastion of demarcation and restrictive practices – how dare you try and make a platform multi-purpose.
The CVF situation has not been fully sorted and the T26 looks to be the answer to a question no one is asking. Add in all the talk of alliances and multi-national co-operation not because they are the best way of solving problems but they are needed to fill basic gaps in our capabilities.
Then there is the bloated cost base, the complete lack of basic efficiency and cost effectiveness plus very little energy to change things. If the cost has a BWoS badge on the invoice then we just pay up and cut numbers in something else.
An excellent article Chris.
Don’t stare into their eyes … repeat “the RAF is not your friend” to break the hypnotic spell.
So good of the RAF to want the Navy to have their own aircraft – but we’ll believe it when we see it, and see what’s painted on the side of the fuselage.
PM to Defence Secretary:
“Do we still bomb ball bearing factories?”
Defence Secretary to PM:
“No sir, we stopped that years ago, couldn’t see ‘em at night”
PM to Def. Sec.
“why do we still have the Independent Air Force” then?
Def. Sec. to PM
“it’s traditional sir, the public like it, gives ‘em a nice display for summer air shows”
More seriously, let’s see what the F35B will deliver in practice, and see what the airmen of both shades of blue can make of it
Its all a huge embarassment. For me the F35 will likely be the most over rated piece of kit in avaition history – overpriced, and unable to carry the amount of munitions required unless externally at which point it critically damages its advantage of stealth.
And the F35B is the worst of the lot – we save marginally today and massively over spend in the future to have anything remotely resembling an effective weapon system.
With our new entente with the French, we should be in negotiation with them, not only about future UAV/UCAV but an advanced Rafale, using BAE Systems stealth knowledge to develop a further variant which might be available as a CATOBAR/STOBAR aircraft with improvements similar to the Hornet E/F and Silent Eagle. Look at a two tail fin variant, further radar absorbing materials, re-engined with the EJ200, retractable air refueling probes etc.
It can’t be more expensive than the bottomless pit the Lightning II has become
Dave, As the US are the only nation on earth to actually fly stealth aircraft and they are having difficulty making this one work. The idea that ourselves and the French will just knock one up in our spare time is really not a goer.
Thank you very much for the feedback and the nice comments.
I’ll come back in a few days with some further details for you but I wanted to drop a few quick replies to either clarify what my thoughts are, reinforce a really important aspect I could have clearer on and answer a few questions.
I hope you can forgive the bullet point format, I’m a little short on time.
- I think almost everyone would have preferred two CATOBAR capable carriers
- The realistic position with CATOBAR was a single carrier
- Reverting to STOVL restores the likelihood of having two carriers rotating to provide 100% availability
- 100% availability at lesser capability is preferable to 60% availability of maximum capabiity
- The B model is still a very capable aircraft
- The overall package that a Carrier task force gives us is restored Power Projection
- Although Gunboat Diplomacy is distasteful, right now Britain cannot conduct it without Allied help
- There are currently four playing fields for Britain that can be influenced by Power Projection:
1) South Atlantic which is Britain specific
2) Horn of Africa, endangering British maritime trade in general goods
3) Persian Gulf/North Indian Sea, endangering oil supplies
4) South China Sea, endangering maritime trade in high tech goods diplomatic relations
- Power Projection in areas affecting maritime trade maintains Britains economy directly
- i.e. Why trade with us if the goods don’t make it?
- Re: LPH et al as stop-gap Carriers: Ocean can never launch or recover an F-18 in an emergency.
- Re: Wet/Dry aircraft, the meaning there is any future Tornado replacement should be Navalised
- It’s crazy that an Island nation isn’t leveraging our Maritime assets
- If Typhoon was built to be carrier launched from the start would we be in a better position now?
- Anglo-French UCAV and MALE UAV are already in the works. Carrier capability would be nice. Stealth is a given.
- VTOL based AEW concerns me, but F-35 has autonomous AESA+ that networks with other units in field
- SDSR 2010 was like finding out you had to lose your foot because you hadn’t kept an eye on your diabetes
- Forward ad-hoc airstrips: Yes, vulnerable. F-35B gives commanders the option if considered an advantage.
- I can see the UK qualifying CAMM(A) as the ASRAAM replacement
- I also see the UK operating F-35B with external pylons regularly, going low-observable in initial or specific sorties only
I know I haven’t gone into detail here and I hope you can extrapolate the gist.
The overall message is: No, we haven’t got what many of us want, but the good news is that what we’re stuck with getting isn’t too bad either.
So chins up, Keep Calm, Remember Grandpa and That’s the Spirit!
Regards,
Chris EA
Great post and I agree with large swathes of it.
I tried a similar article over at pinstriped line – http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/positive-view-on-f35-announcement.html
I’d welcome any thoughts on it as I think we see things in a similar manner here.
I notice the post optimisticaly states that STOVL carrier strike will be available from 2018, two years earlier than the government or military thinks. And that CATOBAR ops could have taken “up to 10 years longer”, though even in present full spin ahead, the gov’t and mil suggest that the difference would be going without carrier jets during 2020, ’21 and ’22. If they were that worried about three years, they maybe should have held onto the Harriers for three years longer. Three years of Harrier operations would have been cheaper than three years of F35 service for no increase in the carrier gap.
Good positive post Chris.
However good the F35B is though (regardless of final price and performance) I still feel the most important issue is never regenerating CATBOAR capability in the future and therefore never having any other option than Lockheed Martin – just like we were pinned with Harrier and BAe.
For a tax-payer in the capitalist and free trade west, it’s self-defeating – there is no competition to promote value for money.
I do think there is a lot of spin around the decision, instead of the politically impossible…
Ooops, Foxy was hoodwinked by the Admirals and Air Marshalls, fucked it all up a bit and now reality has dawned we have to go back to Plan A
Despite it being the correct choice, lets not forget we have just spunked a couple of years and likely over a hundred million quid up the wall, or put it another way, 10 years operating cost for RFA Largs Bay
I can’t believe that no one has yet linked to TD’s inspiration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcjh1a9Yoao
I’m not very left wing, in fact not left wing at at, nor much a centrist, nor believe that John Major had all of the good ideas, slightly warm to Maggie, if only she’d been a bit more stern in her social policies. Having alienated 99% of the TD readership, I will say that it does no-one any good to dismiss the very real concerns of someone like Iain Dury as not being real. In addition to the £38B black hole, let no one forget that it may be a good use of Government money to actually – shock horror – reduce the defence budget in favour of other spending.
All the recent enthusiasm for forward basing F35B at makeshift airstrips seems to me like desperation to justify a string of poor decisions, rather than hailing a truely useful capability.
If we had F35C on carriers as well as Typhoon or F35A/C to operate from land bases, and forward based AH, then no one at all would sensibly propose buying F35B too – a couple of extremely expensive but hamstrung squadrons just to fill the tiny niche of forward basing during a particular brief period in a particular type of war.
TD,
There’s bound to be spin. It really didn’t matter what was decided, the papers have to sell, so the spin is always negative towards what’s actually said or done.
One day this country may get a paper that says: “we didn’t have any money, so did the best we could”. Maybe we’ll actually get a leader that says that too, but with short-term politics this country is no better than watching a reality TV show.
Brian Black,
They’ll never forward base F35B. They’re too expensive and the dust will get into the clutch, lift fan, three-bearing swivel nozel and cover all those valuable sensors.
I reckon they’ll get used as short range versions of the C with forward based Apache.
There was talk some time ago about a turboprop CAS aircraft. Did anything happen about it? STOSL would be useful to carry larger loads than Apache.
Brian Black Yes but if we had F35C we would only have a carrier 8 months a year and would have no capability at all until the mid 2020s as we would no doubt suffer further delays installing EMAL(nothing else has been done on time). As it is barring some dodgy Nav incidents we will have a Carrier capability 365 24/7 with a 5th generation fighter which whilst not as good as the C model will still be a very capable aircraft. It will also be able to deploy to places where Typhoon, Tornado, F35A/C could not.
I know that planning will be for 1 at sea at any time bit given the RN tradition of getting it done somehow you can bet your bottom dollar that if the shit hit the fan in a big way, maybe the Islands that shall not be named or other we would get both hulls to sea. That is a worst case flexibility that should not be sniffed at.
The ideal solution would have been 2 Catobar carriers with 4 squadrons of F35C each some E2D COD and associated helos but we would bankrupt the country.
Jim, very interesting point about the French carrier replacement, they may have to suck it up and buy F35C or switch to F35B and see commonality between all European carrier aircraft? Unlikely.
“step-change”, I’m with Jed on this. Been hearing this a lot recently. What is that meant to mean?
As far as the Harrier is concerned, in terms of performance, it reached a dead-end years ago. And how old is the Harrier now anyway? I’d be very shocked if hundreds of billions of dollars had been spent designing a replacement for an aircraft that has its origins half a century (?) previously, only for the resulting product to be of a lower standard.
There may be many uncertainties around the F35 still, but I’m pretty sure it will never go to war against Tornados and Harriers, so a comparison seems irrelevant. It’s a newer product, you’d expect it to perform better in some way.
Step Change means we’ll have gone up a level in our military capability when the equipment comes into service.
It is truely good to have a decision made, maybe the UK can now move on to things like the T26 and the C3 designs whwere you have atleast some chance of exports.
However on the old rule that ‘if you don’t face up to mistakes you have no chance of avoiding them in future’ your government/MOD needs to really explain how the original estimates for fitting cats and traps were so far out.
Many of the Defence failures around the world are failures to estimate costs accurately.
Nice article other, other Chris
Probably the best point is that with “B” we get two useable carriers instead of one carrier and one LPH.
Question though; Am I the only one wondering why the article is titled “Raasons” and not Reasons? Did I miss something?
well worth linking to Jim30s article, over @ pinstripes
- the alternative (likely) outcomes well analysed
At last a pro carrier argument i can sort of agree with.
Given we are were we are.
The huge sums have been pissed up the wall.
The force structure distorted.
The manpower problems created.
Etc
Then this is the bedt way of maki.g the best of it short of scrapping them.
If we take up the option of fitting both for the b
If we can afford to man 2 in rotation.
If and i mean if the f35 b works
Then yea 1 cheer
Talk of the F35B replacing Harrier, and of the Lightning’s superiority over the earlier generation of STOVL jet, ignores the point that F35C would have replaced not just the Harriers, but many of the Tornados too.
but not optimized for the LPH role 
The F35B will not satisfy the RAF as it looks for the ‘new Tornado’; neither is the F35B a cheap supplementary aircraft that can be bought in large numbers to work alongside another fleet of more capable conventional jets. This decision has not ensured two carriers will enter service, but will give the Navy two large LPH instead – able to embark a small flight of jets
Chris.B, I’m glad you queried the title. I thought I was missing some sort of pun.
Shall I own up to that one then !!
A, erm, technical error
Brian Black,
Still doesn’t stop the Tornado being replaced by F35A or C though does it.
If the RAF think flavour A is the right thing then maybe, just maybe it will be suggested that they buy C and then bobs your uncle’s mother – a future proofed jet fleet even if QE is not CATOBAR – just need to check behind to sofa for a few quid to sort it out
Why would increasing the F-35B fleet not be considered a viable Tornado replacement?
Other than raw top-end Mach numbers (we’ll assume cruise speeds are equivalent), and range on internal tanks, there’s not much the B can’t match the Tornado with and it can perform tasks the Tornado can’t.
Both aircraft will deliver Stormshadow and Paveway munitions happily. As long as the RAF can still deliver nukes and stand-off strike, they’re happy, right? They still have Typhoon to play Top Trumps with other Air Force pilots.
You would already have a maintenance and support infrastructure from the Joint F-35B fleet when the decision needs to be made, leaving costs comprising unit prices and additional ongoing support.
No additional project costs, no more R&D costs. This adds up to a more predictable budget which means the RAF would have credibility when asking for funds to look at experimental 6th generation toys and UCAVs.
Definitely an option on the table.
This isn’t to say the RAF won’t select another aircraft. Though I’d love to know why folks so happily write off the B as a substandard backwards step? If the carriers went CATOBAR and the Joint fleet was comprised of the C model, would we write off the C as a Tornado replacement as well?
The Other Chris,
You have a point. F35B with external tanks may well give the range that Tornado does (with a similar payload). However, Tornado’s trick is to go in fast and low, F35′s trick is to go in sneakily. The latter simply doesn’t work with external stores – this is why A/C are a better choice, you get a decent range with internal fuel and stores.
Not sure a Mach 1.6 jet will manage to go supersonic at low level with loads of external stores, so without stealth it may not provide much competition to the old Tornado anyway !?!?!
You definitely have a point with regards to low level supersonic intruder missions.
There’s less appetite for that approach following the damage and losses to the Tornado’s in Iraq, despite the successes. Long range / high altitude, stand-off and precision strike is now the order of the day.
Low level strike is still a required mission in the form of Close Air Support. This role does not need supersonic capability at low altitude, indeed low speed handling and countermeasures becomes important.
I am not sure who is suggesting F35B replace Tornado? The B variant will be carrier based and fulfill ground based requirements like Harrier did, a Tornado replacement will in be either A or C or other
Chris,
Very good article. Thank you for maintaining the high standard of fact-driven debate here.
What’s interesting about the F-35 debate is that the B (STOVL) version is the only version of the aircraft that is undeniably better than the legacy aircraft it is intended to replace. The F-35B fulfils exactly the same roles as the GR9 Harrier but brings increased capabilities across all key performance areas -as you have pointed out.
However, what is less certain is whether the F-35A will be significantly better than the F-16 and the F-35C better than the F-35C. If the rumour mill is to be believed, the F-35C has encountered serious development issues: weight growth, power reduction, inability to climb, inability to turn. There is also the need to redesign the tail hook, but that’s a non-issue compared to the more fundamental problems.
Whatever the current issues with all versions of the JSF, cost increases and glacial flight testing schedules have brought the project under close government scrutiny. National credibility as well as national pride is at stake here. The USA has to get this right or risk looking incompetent, week and inferior to potential enemies. So my bet is that all F-35 variants will perform as required. I also think that Lockheed Martin will develop a series of rolling upgrades that will improve the breed over its life.
While F-35B is a quantum leap over the GR9, there is no suggestion that it should a Tornado replacement. The F-35A might prove itself in such a role (it carries almost as much payload as the Tornado and has comparable range). The EU or USA could develop an entirely new strike aircraft. i believe Boeing has already started work on it, with an in service date of 2030.
What is clear from UK pilots who know the aircraft is that the Tornado is at its best when used in its primary role: air-to-air combat. Turning it into a ground attack strike fighter is far from an ideal proposition. (see http://www.pprune.com)
How many TLAM could we buy for the cost of one C?
And why do we think we replacing the Tornado is a good idea?
Without wishing to channel Lewis Page Tornado was more about satisfying RAF bomber fetish than anything useful. During the Cold War what was needed was simple CAS/attack aircraft in large numbers to blunt the Soviet thrust not some long range interdicter or whatever the term is.
Heh heh, although if the Joint B Fleet is going to be operated like the Joint Harrier Fleet, they’ll probably spend more time on dry land!
X, Glad you know better than anyone that attacking the massive spearhead would be have been a better use for tornado than chopping the supply line? Looking forward to the links to your 3 star war game simulations!
Hi, Simon @ 18:47. I think you missed my point, I wasn’t suggesting that we couldn’t buy the A if we’d already bought the B. If I may explain in figurative rather than literal terms: You have a Harrier sqn and a Tornado sqn. You can replace the Harriers with a F35B sqn and the Tornados with a F35A sqn, or you can go catobar and replace both Harriers and Tornados with a single F35C sqn – as the C would better fit the Tornado’s role than the B when land based, while also being capable of operating from one of the grand yachts if you need to go off and do the Falklands.
@ Apats
Of course yes. A plucky handful of handle-bar moustachioed Captain Kirks would zoom through the massed Soviet air defences from ZSU SPAAG to all those MIGs and hit all their supply dumps before the PM had time to reach Turnstile and hit the button. Home for tea and scones then off to Chock and Wizzbang for a few jars of real ale and a few verses of “Beer, beer, we want more beer!” around the piano. Of course yes. All so simple. Makes me wonder HMG ever bothered to buy Polaris or Chieftan for BAOR.
Do you know what used to scare the heck out of the Soviets? It wasn’t our super Western tech’ or highly motivated highly trained Western soldiers, no it was our lack of material reserves and war stocks because it indicated to them that the West wasn’t interest in a conventional war. The Warsaw Pact just didn’t have numbers at the sharp end but huge stocks of material too and the means to get to the front. There would have been more dumps (or targets) than NATO could have bombed for a week let a lone the few hours before weight of Warsaw Pact numbers would have broke the back of the NATO. In qualitative terms they weren’t as far behind us as popular myth would have it. So yes if you want to believe that tiny RAF West Germany could have got all their Tornados off the ground unmolested by the Soviets, sneaked through the Soviet air defence fighters that out numbered them by some margin, dodged all the AAA and SAMS, and dropped a few hundred tons of bombs and the Soviets advanced would have ground to halt you may do so.
I look forward to your wargame where a handful of Leanders and Canadian Tribals sally forth and defeat the Red Banner Northern Fleet.
Further to my last post. That is a simplistic illustrative example, but it is a realistic rationalization – just as in the past there’d be a fighter sqn and a bomber sqn, but over time, rather than replacing fighters sqns with fighters and bombers sqns with bombers, a multi-role aircraft sqn would eventually replace them both.
The F35C filled the roles of both the Harrier and Tornado, the F35B will not. The F35 is too expensive to operate three or four squadrons of F35B when the RAF will be demanding a share of the same finite amount of cash in order to buy the more capable F35A. So you get LPH with a small flight of jets rather than true STOVL carriers.
Hi BB, I, too, thought there was a pun in it
TD having tried to get “reason” and this “raison d’etre – rationalisation – the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason” into one and the same spelling
Brian Black,
Can I just clarify what you’re suggesting…
Assuming we have about 120 Tornado and 80 Typhoon (at the mo) with Typhoon numbers peeking at 120.
How many of each type are you inferring?
I liked the 80 Typhoon + 80 F35C (ish) idea.
I have little problem with F35C changing to F35B because in the above model the Typhoon are standoff strike capable. I only really have a problem in the initial stages of an offensive where the payload of B is not sufficient for SEAD strikes and Typhoon will never be able to provide the sortie rate from 4000nm away.
Hi Simon, RE
” this is why A/C are a better choice, you get a decent range with internal fuel and stores”
Going in sneaky is the other point. The F-35 stealth is mainly head-on, on approach (Raptor is more stealthy when considered all-round).
- have you compared the forward views of A, B and C?
- B has huge, boxy air intakes (inspired by Mig-23?)
Have not seen any figures, but must be inferior in this respect
I’m a bit puzzled, surely the F-35B will have a lower RCS with external tanks and weapons than the GR4 with a similar payload, and its RCS would be as good as Typhoon, which I seem to remember reading a big-wing version of the Typhoon was proposed by BAE as a GR4 replacement – so it cannot be that much of a big deal to use F-35B as a GR4 replacement?
Personally, I would really like to see the RAF overhaul their tranche 1 Typhoons to keep numbers up (as I understand it Eurofighter thinks they can overhaul tranche 1 Typhoons to same standard as Tranche 2 and still make a profit on selling them on to another customer, so it should not be that expensive) and then fit conformal tanks, and invest in an extended range version of Storm Shadow to replace Tornado.
Hi Tubby, valid points. But RE this
” invest in an extended range version of Storm Shadow to replace Tornado”
-the trade-off works in the opposite way as well. Recently read about the next version (whether it will be still called SS or something else, can’t remember) that you can get the weight down by almost 40% while maintaining the same range)
-now the conformals might start to make a better business case (SS and them not being in direct contention any more)and you get both range and a “survivable” stand-off distance
There is absolutely no reason what so ever a f35b can’t replace tornado. Both have almost identical empty and max take off weights. The f35b however has more thrust and can carry more weapons than tornado(the gr running out of pylons to put them on). The only area it may be of issue is its either two external tanks or 2 stormshadow but it does carry more internal fuel than tornado is cleaner and has a more efficient engine with aar and carrier fwd basing all thrown in, It really is swings and round abouts. If we want f35a also it will be typhoons replacement.
I really do hope we don’t even consider replacing Typhoon with F35. That really is a backward step for anything other than BVR engagements… and I know that’s all the rage, but once all your missiles are spent and have exploded at a chunk of chaff and/or missed due to ECM systems it will always come down to a fast accelerating, agile, gun with wings, and I’d hate to be in F35 at that time – strewth, our little Hawks would probably run rings round it, just like the F5 can run rings round big, heavy and cumbersome but highly powerful, beweaponed, and “techy” F14/F15s.
@ mark did you mean more in variety or number? Which pylons are you refering to?