If the Guardian is to be believed the MoD is considering switching back to the STOVL version of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/01/uk-aircraft-carrier-us-strike-fighter You can have a cheeky snigger at the Cats and Flaps mistake in the article but the story is no less interesting.
Britain’s troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the “cats and flaps” planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier – more than £1bn – to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan – namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive
Its probably a load of nonsense but if true, despite the comedic element of the CVF/JCA omni shambles, it would represent a thoroughly sound decision. In time-honoured tradition it could be a Pre PR12 spot of damage limitation and/or shaping, a mischievous leak by someone with an agenda, a discarded option, or it could be the result of the post SDSR decision to switch. A decision that was always done based on incomplete information, recognised by the fact that the MoD then embarked on a study to determine how much it would cost. Given that we aren’t best buddies with the USMC aviation community for leaving them in the lurch I wonder how we would re-generate those STOVL deck operations? Of course the original decision of run Harrier from CVS and CVF, transitioning to JCA, made perfect sense. I wonder in retrospect, the money we have spunked up the wall on studies, contract changes and general pissing about could have kept that original, sensible, plan. File under, you couldn’t make it up! More later, but thanks for the spot James
“when the USAF allowed them to take their positions in the C-17 production line.”
Yes exactly. Allowed us to. I don’t pop into Tesco’s in the hope they’ll let me buy 10 tins of beans, I know I can buy 10 tins of beans. It might be all a moot point I don’t know how much slack or good will there is in the production line but looking at the production figures over the next four years there aren’t an awful lot of slots to swap.
Actually it is like a supermarket, and generally lots of customers can accomodate other forces orders accordingly in amongst their own. The RAF have done this, when the USAF allowed them to take their positions in the C-17 production line.
@ John Hartley with you up to the RAF point as it being one option. The other option is as mooted and just do both carriers as original intended as sea control / assault carriers – F35b. I think for 99.9% of cases, the difference between B and C will not be noticed. What we should look at is the difference between QE with say 30+ F35Bs and Illustrious with c20 Harriers – a quantum leap in capability and it seems to me we could get far sooner than by going cats and traps. Stick with Typhoon for RAF (keep tranche 1 and upgrade, retire tornado) and make a separate decision on F35B or F35A perhaps – still fundamentally same aircraft
“In 2016, buy a dozen F-35B to operate off Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth. QE also loads up with helicopters to become a sea control/assault carrier.”
The production line isn’t a supermarket you can’t just announce you want 12 airframes whenever you please. As I understand it.
X
There is no point the RAF having lots of shiny new jets if they cannot reach the enemy. That was the situation with the shiny new Tornado in 1982.
John Hartley has this one correct. I believe (if this story is true!) that the gov is worried about the potential of another falklands or similar intervention. If this is true and this is a big if, I bet they will order 10-15 F35B’s and 60 or so F35C’s. The B’s will operate off of HMS Ocean and the other invincible class enabling carrier strike incase the C variant or the carrier manufacture is delayed.
“RAF needs global reach.” ?
No they don’t.
In an ideal world, we would not start from here, but this is how I would get out of it.
In 2016, buy a dozen F-35B to operate off Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth. QE also loads up with helicopters to become a sea control/assault carrier.
Then Prince of Wales is fitted with cats & traps, plus at least 20 F-35C to become our sole strike carrier.
QE can always be refitted at a later date if we can afford a new Ocean replacement & the F-35B would transfer to the new assault carrier.
RAF needs global reach. A smaller number of regional bombers (21c Vulcans) might be more use than larger numbers of F-35C for the RAF.
Pity we could not save Brough by ordering a few British built Hawk128/Goshawk hybrids For the FAA.
SOMEBODY JUST BUY SOMETHING!!!
Has any other plane invoked so much bile from so many quarters for so many reasons?!
*sigh*
ah right i see where you’re coming from now. I’ve really no idea, give bae a blank cheque and see what they come up with? ;)
@ Topman
No. I am all for two fleets that compliment each other. Just in case one develops “faults” that ground the fleet. These things are way too complex to have all our eggs in one basket.
@solomon
The extra 200nm range of F-35C over F-35B means you can cover operate over a much larger area of land inside a country. Especially when you stand QEC a way offshore to protect it from threats.
A good way to look at the effect of this is with Google Earth. See how much of Iran you can fly over with 450nm radius and 640nm radius. Then stand offshore some distance and repeat. The effect is very significant.
Lots of interesting points raised.
With regards to aircraft carrier landing. The US has already tested JPALS which is the fully automatic fly home and land system. This was also demonstrated by the UK as the Autoland function on the VAAC programme. However, this depends on GPS which is not infallible.
The UK and US did a lot of work in the VAAC programme to develop a Flight Control System that was extremely simple to fly in STOVL mode. It is significantly different to Harrier and much much easier to use. The US released some information last year on transferring a lot of this work over onto the C variant. This will remove the need for expensive carrier training for the pilots as it will be a lot easier to operate. With a minimal conversion time either FAA or RAF pilots can operate from QEC which gives a much more flexible asset (and saves massive cost).
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/11/07/AW_11_07_2011_p76-386903.xml
Now of course, this is being presented by the pro-Navy lot as an evil RAF plan which is complete bollocks.
Since when would the RN be happy with F-18E? You seem to be mistaking the RN with Sharkey Ward’s ravings. The RN isn’t even in this decision making process. This falls under the remit of CAP DTA (Deep Target Attack) and a bit of CAP TA (Theatre Air). It is their job to provide the most cost-effective option for fulfilling UK requirements.
What is important to the UK? Having a long range and endurance strike aircraft. F-35C is much superior at this than F-35B.
This means you can buy less F-35C and get the same capability as F-35B (as well as always having longer range).
F-35C is the clear choice for cost/effectiveness in the long term but requires the cost of QEC conversion up front. We would be stupid not to do this.
gentlemen.
the increased range found in the C model is for want of a better term…paltry. the B has a combat radius of 450nm while the C has a range of 640. both outrange the F/A-18. so don’t think that the larger wings of the C were specifically designed so that it could fly further and carry more fuel. that’s an old wives tale. the US Navy would prefer a fighter that had 9g capability.
the C has larger wings in order to operate off a carrier. additionally the B model and the US Navy and the sea control concept is alive and well. it is commonly touted here in the US that in case of war the US has not 11 carriers but potential 22.
with the F-35B and with the reduced squadrons being carried by big deck carriers the difference between the enlarged USS America LHA and a super carrier are shrinking not growing.
as a matter of fact in the sea control role the USS America LHA comes close to matching the HMS Queen Elizabeth (not if you guys surge airplanes but in normal configuration while the America would be operating in surge mode)
This is fun and all but its incredible hard to take this piece seriously when it has so many basic facts wrong. This will be the a/c for the navy and air force that buccaneer should have been in 1960 before infighting put paid to that.
We will know all in a few weeks as march will have some important things happening. Maturity flights start at eglin next week and partners meeting in canada and then a formal partners meeting in Australia mid/end of month for deliver slot and production decisions.
maybe, you think the f35 will be?
Gabriele is right,
F-35 is now the Tornado replacement as well as the future carrier strike aircraft, this whole thing will just be someone venting to the press when they should not be.
Typhoon will be.
out of service so soon?
What happens post 2030 without F35?
I know i’ll get hated for saying it, but someone has to say it.
“with the C model it would probably be too expensive to have Royal Air Force pilots trained to land on a conventional carrier. with the B model you’ll see RAF pilots flying off the flat tops to there hearts content.
are we seeing the RAF gaming the Royal Navy????”
Likely, yes.
Another factor at play is that the Navy would be perfectly happy with the F/A-18, and some in government might be tempted to bin the F35 and buy the Hornet for real instead if a good deal is offered by Boeing.
The RAF does not want this to happen. They want the F35, and nothing else.
But they also do specifically want the F35C, if possible. They apparently were the ones pushing for the switch the most, and have been pushing at least since 2005 when FOAS was cancelled.
This “revert to B” suggestion is not very plausible.
lol here we go again…
A lot of thought went into the B, we decided – after a long process – that it suited what we can realistically do, and do well; with experienced pilots in both services of operations from sea and land. Hell, part of JFH was an attempt to continue that expertise… Its what both RAF and RN have had experience of, in small scale and the larger.
I’d love a carrier with hornets/rafale/F35’s along with fixed wing AWAC and dedicated buddy tanker ops… but we never really had that, even in the 70’s, our ad-hoc naval fixed wing aviation wasn’t excatly comparable to the US.
I cant see why we cannot have what we originally planned for, the B – that can, arguably, operate off anywhere – along with AWAC Merlins. Even if you sacrificed Trident, there wouldn’t be enough cash for these dreams, without suffocating the other services of funds or stopping Foreign Aid.
The RN has already sacrificed too much of its other assets…
This whole thing is one big pile of brown… alas, I hear that broken record again, another round of debate!
But I do like MintCake Makers Idea.
Observer – ref: “A high risk situation is NOT something you want a rote computer to take control of.”
LOL – seriously ? So you don’t fly in modern Airbus, or Boeing “fly by wire” airliners then ? Where 3 discrete computer systems are “voting” on the action to take with respect to keeping it in the air ?
@ The Mintcake Maker
Another forum, by an ex naval harrier pilot, yes him. Claims we can save £10 Billion by buying 80 F/A18 instead of F35. Now the prices may be off but there would be a considerable saving. So we give up stealth or as much stealth as F35 has. I could never see the F35 doing the CAS role like Harrier and Tornado in Afghanistan anyway.
@The Mintcake Maker: a good compromise. Since as I understand it we are only saving operational costs for Tranche 3B due to cancellation penalties, I would aver there is more scope for a larger 3B order, replacement of Tornado before the support runs out in 2015, and a larger lease of F18
It could be that they know the problems with the F-35C, catching the arrestor wire etc can not be fixed. If thats the case buy 50 F/A18 for the navy. F35A for the RAF.
Don’t forget the B was having problems bringing back a respectable payload, and trials with shipboard rolling landings did not seem to solve them
Okay ignoring the fact that we have ordered EMALS long lead items, here is my humble suggestion to get around said budgetary problems.
1) Buy a further 20 Typhoon Tranche 3b’s for £73m per a/c (price from wiki) = £1.46bn, as these come online reduce Tornado fleet to 53 aircraft. This allows for 6 operation squadrons of Typhoon, 2 operational Tornado squadrons and 1 large OCU/OEU for each type (16 aircraft)
Therefore there would be 2 “combat” wings for RAF fast jets, No.1 Wing (AD) would have 4 Typhoon squadrons attached and No.2 Wing (strike) would be comprised of 2 Typhoon and 2 Tornado squadrons – enabling 6 of each aircraft to be continuously deployed. If the F-35c does get scrapped then the RAF can buy 53 F-35a’s instead.
Total RAF fast jet fleet = 180 aircraft
2) Go to Boeing and ask for 20 F/A-18 Super Hornets on a 10 year lease with options to then buy the aircraft or Boeing could sell them onto the USN to replace their oldest SH or sell them to somebody like Brazil. If the SH costs £81m (aussie deal), then Boeing may want to charge £810m for 10 years. This would allow for 1x 14 plane squadron to be formed (809 NAS? – return of the phoenix) and several planes for attrition reserves. This would also keep the Boeing line open for another year maybe 2 at the most, by which time we should know if the F-35c is goer or not and we can then buy some more Super Hornets or Rafales (TD you may get that Fiver yet!)
This option costs £2.27bn for the aircraft if we then add on another £1bn for the EMALS equipment for the carrier the total cost is £3.27bn. In comparison the order for the first 40 F-35c by HMG should cost around £3.6bn, saving us £330m. Is my solution 100% ideal? No. Will it suffice for the time being and for the vast majority of situations? Yes.
We could use the money saved on another: 1-2 A400m, one more Type 26 or 200ish Foxhhound vehicles. Hell we could even invest in some stealthy carrier based UCAVs for 1st day strike.
Observer I wasn’t taking about video lag. I was taking about the lag between when a pilot sees something corrects it with an input and the a/c actually responding to that input. That will be much longer than if its done in cockpit by an auto pilot.
Squadron numbers are more notional. Force elements at readiness are what counts nowadays. The plan says black adder (and this is taking on those proportion) is was 1/3 of both typhoon and f35 at fe@r according to sdsr. Sustaining is counting at 1:5 in the airforce I think as in the army 5 sqns manpower wise to sustain a Sqn deployment. The a/c not at fear will be ocu/oeu maintenance at depth attrition replacement and spreading flight hours out. I think the typhoon force during Libya rotated about 2 a/c per month thru italy.
@ Somewhat re Murphy being thrown
Perhaps when the cat’s are installed Mr Murphy could be used as a test load.
Perhaps the “cats and flaps” remark in the Grauniad article is in fact an extraordinarily wise design change? Some catapults up front on an extremely large flat top to launch UAVs / UCAVs, and a large flap at the rear of the ship so that you can launch landing craft. Have a dedicated recovery area at the back of the large flat top for the UAVs, and a through deck lift in the middle for helicopters. Then you’ve got a useful military capability without breaking the bank on some fast jets of dubious development.
I really should have been a ship designer…. ;)
Just as I’m getting used to the CATOBAR opportunities they flip back (possibly) to my favoured STOVL option. As much as a hate to say it, a swing role V-22 (with dedicated ASaC variant) would help maximise the STOVL CVF’s capabilities.
@ TD – with the Daewoo tankers and the possible return of the F-35B, is it a good time for my guest piece? (If its too rubbish, I will understand)
While on the subject of aircraft numbers. Can any one here expalin airforce economics to me. For a squadron of 12 planes how many aircraft do I need to have? How many pilots? what exactly are all the planes not in the 12 doing? If I have two carriers and I want one to be avilable at all times with a squadron of 12 planes onboard how many planes do I need in total.
Switching back to the B seems like a poor choice, given Britain’s current plans. The B variant in STOBAR or V/STOVL mode has several shortcomings compared to the C variant – shorter range, yes (which is not unimportant in an era of proliferating long-range anti-ship weapons), but also a lower payload, which limits the sorts of missions you can accomplish (especially if you want to carry a strike package with some self-defense missiles/decoys/jammers/etc). Setting aside the advantages of being able to operate a variety of different CATOBAR aircraft (AWACS, COD, MPA, etc.), a CATOBAR fighter gives you a lot more versatility in terms of mission profile, especially if you’re playing the away game (I’m convinced this is why STOBAR concepts like the “Sea Control Ship” have never really caught on with the US Navy, which is almost always playing on someone else’s turf). If you want to have a credible, independent naval expeditionary war-fighting capability in the 21st century, I think CATOBAR is the only way to go.
The B variant’s primary strengths are its ability to operate from areas where an A or C variant wouldn’t be able to operate. That’s a great capability, especially if you only have smaller aircraft carriers or want to be able to operate from a lot of smaller airfields in your immediate vicinity. However, if Britain is already committed to fielding a large through-deck aircraft carrier as part of a full-spectrum naval expeditionary fighting capability, I can’t see the appeal of operating the B rather than the C.
I have a link here showing the first automatic carrier landing by an F18 on 2nd of July 2011. Seems to work although it looks like a sunny day. Going back to my original point if we can take out the need for intensive carrier landing training then surley the F35C, cheaper, bigger with more range and weapons becomes the no brainer choice for our Dave version.
@ Observer
“Video lag isn’t the problem, Spd of Light is 7 times round the world per second, a paltry 200km back and forth isn’t going to hinder it much”.
Comms sattelites don’t travel at 200KM but rather 36,000 KM. Not sure if you have ever spoken on an old style sat phone but data lag is a big issue. Not to mention loosing comms signal even for a second would cause major problems for a deck landing. I would feel allot safer having a UCAS land itself with pilot over sight than having some guy in a bunker some where bringing a large piece of fast moving metal near my ship using a 2d camera and a joystick over a sattelite link.
http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/07/look-no-hands.html
Observer,
it was designed for autonomous landings from the beginning (why that’s better than a pilot using his xbox controller is not something I ever really thought about). From the Nortrop fact sheet on Firescout:
“The U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman wrote a new chapter in naval aviation history Jan. 16-17, 2006, when two RQ-8A Fire Scout VUASs completed nine autonomous shipboard landings on board USS Nashville (LPD 13) off the coast of Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. This test marked the first time a Navy UAS performed vertical landings on a moving ship without a pilot controlling the aircraft. After it was launched from the naval air station, the Fire Scout flew to the designated test area, where the USS Nashville was waiting for the air vehicle to land and take off under its own control. The flight was monitored from a ship-based control station called a tactical control system, and the air vehicle was guided onto the ship using an unmanned air vehicle common automatic recovery system.”
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/mq8bfirescout_navy/assets/fs-fact-sheet.pdf
@James again
Sorry, noticed something late. Where in the video did it state that was auto-landing and not human operator?
@Mark
Video lag isn’t the problem, Spd of Light is 7 times round the world per second, a paltry 200km back and forth isn’t going to hinder it much. What slows the process down is the bandwidth and encryption. On AJ mode, our radios lag by 1-2 seconds on side by side sets. And yes, this lag is not a good thing for situational awareness and reaction. However if you can increase bandwidth and cut corners on encryption, it is possible for near realtime display. It won’t give the “on the spot” feel, but much higher chance of sucess than a computer programed by rote.
Hasn’t enough money been wasted already changing to cat and traps? Why waste more going back on a decision? This it typical political meddling that does nothing except incur delay and additional cost.
Anyway, would’t trust the Guardian (or Jim Murphy for that matter) as far as I could throw it…
Thanks James, but there is a massive difference between a UAV helo VTOL landing and a F-35 carrier traps landing, though it might be possible to guide the plane down with a modification of the current “calling the ball” visual system. Still not something I’d trust to a computer. If solomon thinks it can be done by computer, more power to him, don’t blame others if you lose planes over it. Still sees it as part of the “Shiny new toy” syndrome.
Hi Sol,
On these sorts of lines of development, people have been wondering how could the new bomber be had for three and half bn’s development pot
“the next common airframe for special mission aircraft”
The theory goes that
– the unmanned operation part of the systems will be shared with x-47
– that the Air Force’s black budget has already spent 2 bn on it with Northrop Grumman (explains why the official x-47 programme is going without a hitch… Navy, Air Force = two different budgets, easier to put a third one in-between)
– and the whole exercise is now mainly about reverse engineering the bigger design into using more mature components (pushing the unit cost down, with the bigger size the technology challenge is less than with the carrier-sized long-range penetrator… even though EMALS could throw even the A-12 up, had it been built, as they can handle 25% heavier aircraft for the same size of flight deck)
Landing back of course becomes a challenge if weight goes up (didn’t know about that high approach speed with F-35 – thanks!)
True, or a fairy tale (about the bomber development)?
The crunch will come soon enough at Barrow. Either orders for a Vanguard replacement, or more Astutes, or pack up the tools lay off the workers and never build another sub in the UK again.
That’s a DIS decision writ very large. Its one of the few areas where our armed forces have a real edge and it could easily go. Its easy to say we’ll stop at 7 Astutes, but if the choice is order 3 more boats or no more _ever_ then we might just get boats 8-10.
@ X – “FOAS = TLAM :)”
The acornyms have evolved over time, so perhaps FOAS is not quite the right one now, but the SDSR did explicitly absorb a £1b budget line for manned long range strike when it swapped the “b” for the “c”.
Observer,
Firescout can land itself on ships in anything up to sea state 5 (me not being a sailor I had to look up what that means – quite lumpy is the answer). It has a landing system based on lasers projected across the HLS at various angles. It approaches on I think a radio homing signal and then hovers and looks down at the laser patterns for a while to work out how the ship is moving. I remember the system being explained in Powerpoint charts when we were looking at Firescout as a possible for Watchkeeper, but at that stage it had not been fully developed. It has now, appears to work quite well. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxl-ko7Vd64 but that does not show any particularly rough sea.
Hi Mike R,
RE “Once Astute is out of the way then probably …Trafalgar’s successors will follow on”
– Astutes are their successors
– maybe a month back we had a lively discussion on whether it had been better to have been a bit more modest with the size increase when designing Astutes
=> would have delivered 10+ units, no need to slow down the construction cycle (due to that factor alone we will now get 7 boats for the price of 8!), no need to lengthen the tours at sea to make up for the numbers gap (are we going to start to lose submariners? – very specialist skills, hard and/or expensive to replace)
hey gents … the X-47 is going to have automated landing. its already being tested on a F-18.
my comment on two engine airliners instead of four was in reference to increased reliability of engines.
the F-16 was known as a lawn dart early on. but i asked for a comparison in loss rates from the most modern models because it was to test the theory that two engined fighters are necessarily safer than single engined ones.
the E-2D is a costly bit of kit. besides isn’t EADS roping Europe into using the A330 as the next AWACS?
here in the US boeing is trying to sell the P-8(737) as the next common airframe for special mission aircraft…AWACS, JSTAR and certain recce models.
Hi Jedi,
RE “has anyone considered that we would have to reinvent the £1b FOAS budget line”
– isn’t that the Scavenger
– if it morphs into nEURON (Dassault is the lead for it), the good news is that half of that has already been spent (by others!) and the £10m allocation just announced is for the lawyers fees, for drawing up the co-operation agreement (anew, giving UK some say)
Obs
I totally agree with you, but BAE seem to have the God given idea that they must have all the military work from government and nobody else should get anything, unless they are a junior partner(in UK). Of course they don’t have this, but their attitude is eventually going to drive them out of this country as regards big projects other than RN maintenance and upgrades. I leave everybody to their own thoughts on this one. Ultimately I feel this will close most of our yards unless they go partly over to merchant navy work.
Observer didn’t say it wasn’t Martin asked if f35 will have automation to make landing easier this is what the above is intending to do. F18 flys itself off the deck at he minute this is what’s next. And if it can’t be done uavs won’t be landing on carriers because the delay between what a pilot sees on his video screen making an input and then that being transmitted to a Uav and the flight controls moving will be to long for carrier landings.
Mark, that’s still human piloted.
Martin, the X-47 series are still human controlled. If you don’t fancy a human’s chances, a computer’s is much worse. You massively overestimate a computer’s decision making capabilities.
@ observer I thought x47 already had landing capability developed. The ship will no far better than a pilot if it’s pitching or rolling and can tell the computer. I would not fancy a humans chances of landing a ucas on a ship via nintendo
This is what your looking for martin http://www.onr.navy.mil/media-center/press-releases/2011/flight-control-landing-carrier.aspx