F-35B VSTOL in trouble?

Eurofighter must be smacking their lips at the thought of the seemingly imminent F-35 program crash and burn.

Grey Havoc said:

Eurofighter must be smacking their lips at the thought of the seemingly imminent F-35 program crash and burn.

Click to expand...

What rubbish!

Grey Havoc said:

Eurofighter must be smacking their lips at the thought of the seemingly imminent F-35 program crash and burn.

Click to expand...

Looks like we have another hopeful fanboy here. :

sferrin said:

Grey Havoc said:

Eurofighter must be smacking their lips at the thought of the seemingly imminent F-35 program crash and burn.

Click to expand...

Looks like we have another hopeful fanboy here. :

Click to expand...

Nope, just extremely cynical. ;D

I'm no fanboi, and I can see an imminent programmatic failure for the F-35B VTOL version, namely a large number of planned buys being canceled.

RyanCrierie said:

a large number of planned buys being canceled.

Click to expand...

And replaced with?

Whilst the USMC may reluctantly use F-35Cs (they would still prefer the F-35B), and the RN FAA could go with the F-35C (with the associated Queen Elizabeth class upgrade/modification costs), what do you propose for Spain or Italy as AV8B replacements?

Regards,

Greg

GTX - What, "the RN FAA could go with the F-35C"? It has already happened. The partner country that knows more about F-35B and STOVL than any other has ditched it, at enormous cost. Tells you a bit about that airplane, I should think.

"Probation" for the F-35B is a smokescreen. The trouble was that both the EFV and the F-35B needed to be killed but that the political capital was not there to do both. Spare me the Marine Corpse babble about the Commandant's personal supervision and "11 more carriers" - the fact is that even if the brute can be made to work, adding six jets per LHA to the task force is not worth the money yet to be spent.

Sferrin - Give it a rest, OK?

GTX said:

RyanCrierie said:

a large number of planned buys being canceled.

Click to expand...

And replaced with?

Whilst the USMC may reluctantly use F-35Cs (they would still prefer the F-35B), and the RN FAA could go with the F-35C (with the associated Queen Elizabeth class upgrade/modification costs), what do you propose for Spain or Italy as AV8B replacements?

Regards,

Greg

Click to expand...

Exactly. The haters can hate (and we all know who they are) but the F-35B will go forward.

GTX said:

And replaced with?

Click to expand...

Nothing.

Note that the USMC has bought into the F-35C program to the tune of 80 of them. I expect that in the future, there will be a larger USMC buy of F-35Cs paid off by cancelling many of the 340 x B models they've committed to.

The "B" won't die totally, because like you pointed out, too many of our allies need it for their small VTOL ships. It just will cost a lot more than originally projected.

RyanCrierie said:

GTX said:

And replaced with?

Click to expand...

Nothing.

Note that the USMC has bought into the F-35C program to the tune of 80 of them. I expect that in the future, there will be a larger USMC buy of F-35Cs paid off by cancelling many of the 340 x B models they've committed to.

The "B" won't die totally, because like you pointed out, too many of our allies need it for their small VTOL ships. It just will cost a lot more than originally projected.

Click to expand...

I read somewhere (can't recall where) that the USMC is looking at acquiring retired UK Harriers/parts to keep their Harriers going as long as possible. They're in a similar situation with their CH-53s. (Pulling old ones out of the boneyard, looking elsewhere to buy someone else's etc.)

Whilst the USMC may reluctantly use F-35Cs (they would still prefer the F-35B), and the RN FAA could go with the F-35C (with the associated Queen Elizabeth class upgrade/modification costs), what do you propose for Spain or Italy as AV8B replacements?

Considering the small order- what, maybe 20-30 between them? Considering the medium term economic problems facing both? Offhand, I would say they will be replaced with mothballed carriers.

Feel free to continue with your anti-F-35 crusade. Though to what end baffles me. We'll see who is correct in a few years - personally I am comfortable that there will still be F-35Bs flying in another 20 years time.

Greg

I'm not up to speed with the planned Spanish and Italian "Bee" procurement numbers, but I doubt those combined numbers make a dent in the overall picture. There must be a threshold minimum number of airplane production below which the unit price goes up so much it does not make sense to build them.

For the record, being Italian I am rather pissed at the prospect of the navy losing its fixed wing component, what with the service having fought fifty years to obtain it.

royabulgaf said:

Whilst the USMC may reluctantly use F-35Cs (they would still prefer the F-35B), and the RN FAA could go with the F-35C (with the associated Queen Elizabeth class upgrade/modification costs), what do you propose for Spain or Italy as AV8B replacements?

Considering the small order- what, maybe 20-30 between them? Considering the medium term economic problems facing both? Offhand, I would say they will be replaced with mothballed carriers.

Click to expand...

Italy has a requirement for 62 F-35Bs (40 air force, 22 navy) as expressed in the JSF partners indicative order numbers. Spain is not a partner in the JSF program so haven’t forecast any detailed requirement.

The anti-F-35 crusaders have been quick to recast the British defence cuts as anti F-35B but they were far more anti Harrier. By converting their carrier needs from two STOVL to one CTOL they have enabled huge savings via the dismemberment of continuity in the carrier force. Further when the carrier force is re-established it will be less than half the size. This enables them to save money now. It will result in a far less capable force (carrier for carrier and less F-35Cs) but is all about retaining HM Government’s solvency after the GFC. They would have been smarter to have cancelled the Olympics and let someone who can afford it, and put on a good show, step up.

The USMC still has a requirement for 340 F-35Bs (plus 80 F-35Cs) which combined with Italy is 402. With the UK is was 540 but a 25% drop in a single variants order book is hardly the end of days. The cuts in lots 5 and 6 F-35Bs are also hardly dramatic considering the two year probation to fix the engine issues. This will still see 50 F-35Bs on order up until end of FY2013.

Abe G - Your logic escapes me.

If the UK had simply wanted to save money and slash to one carrier, the least costly way would be to retain the F-35B. That way, the QE could continue as planned and there would be no need for expensive changes to PoW.

Moreover, with one carrier, a big plus point for STOVL - that it requires far less recurrent shipboard training and therefore increase carrier group availability - becomes much more important.

Finally, the UK has more domestic and UK-owned content in the F-35B than in the other two variants.

I don't think anyone has the full story on this yet. If I had to guess, I would say that the UK looked from the inside at the STOVL program, and at the fact that it had no backup if it failed to deliver an operationally suitable aircraft, and concluded with an imperative: The future of its carrier(s) had to be linked to the US Navy CVs, not to the USMC and STOVL.

LowObservable said:

I don't think anyone has the full story on this yet. If I had to guess, I would say that the UK looked from the inside at the STOVL program, and at the fact that it had no backup if it failed to deliver an operationally suitable aircraft, and concluded with an imperative: The future of its carrier(s) had to be linked to the US Navy CVs, not to the USMC and STOVL.

Click to expand...

Well that would give them more options. Hypothetically speaking, were the F-35 to be cancelled entirely do you think they'd go with the Super Hornet, Rafale, or spend the money to modify the Typhoon?

sferrin said:

Well that would give them more options. Hypothetically speaking, were the F-35 to be cancelled entirely do you think they'd go with the Super Hornet, Rafale, or spend the money to modify the Typhoon?

Click to expand...

You don't rate the Gripen's chances?

Grey Havoc said:

sferrin said:

Well that would give them more options. Hypothetically speaking, were the F-35 to be cancelled entirely do you think they'd go with the Super Hornet, Rafale, or spend the money to modify the Typhoon?

Click to expand...

You don't rate the Gripen's chances?

Click to expand...

Gripen can't land on a carrier or use catapults.

There is a Navalised version in development (Sea Gripen), derived from the Gripen NG.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8988.0.html

Granted, we don't know all the facts about the F-35B. My guess though, is that based on the RN dumping it relatively early, there are some serious, perhaps, uncorrectable, problems. I was not aware that the Italian AF wanted Bs. I am sure though that if the costs rise and the service date recedes into the future, they may opt for CTOL versions.

royabulgaf said:

Granted, we don't know all the facts about the F-35B. My guess though, is that based on the RN dumping it relatively early, there are some serious, perhaps, uncorrectable, problems.

Click to expand...

Everybody would have dumped it then. Don't over dramatize, it's not an XFV-12. :

LowObservable said:

If the UK had simply wanted to save money and slash to one carrier, the least costly way would be to retain the F-35B. That way, the QE could continue as planned and there would be no need for expensive changes to PoW.

Click to expand...

You fail to take into account the actual business of the military – forming units of trained personnel operating defence equipment. If the RN was to retain the STOVL capability in the new carrier(s) then the Government would not have an argument to immediately disband Joint Force Harrier and pay off the legacy STOVL carriers.

By converting their carrier requirement to a CTOL carrier capability sustained jointly with partner nations (France, USA) they have a reasoned argument that the STOVL force is now redundant and not needed for continuity as they have to raise a new CTOL carrier force. Therefore the Harrier and its carriers can all be removed from service immediately (done) and a carrier capability holiday established until the new carrier(s) are ready for service at a date now delayed. Which is what they did saving a huge amount of cash over the next 10 years.

Sferrin, what was the reason the RN switched from STOVL to CTOL? Was it a point where carrier design had to be frozen? I could understand the RN hedging their bets then.

.

royabulgaf said:

Sferrin, what was the reason the RN switched from STOVL to CTOL? Was it a point where carrier design had to be frozen? I could understand the RN hedging their bets then.

Click to expand...

No idea, you'd have to ask them.

royabulgaf said:

Granted, we don't know all the facts about the F-35B. My guess though, is that based on the RN dumping it relatively early, there are some serious, perhaps, uncorrectable, problems. I was not aware that the Italian AF wanted Bs. I am sure though that if the costs rise and the service date recedes into the future, they may opt for CTOL versions.

Click to expand...

The RN did not dump the B. The RN was directed to switch to the C by the MoD as part of the 2010 SDSR. In my opinion, this was done to create a reason to delay the delivery of the carriers by a few years and this could show up on the books as a "savings" (although that also means if you need them during the interim, they won't be there). In reality, this will end up costing Britain a considerable amount more money (and I don't mean in the long run I mean in the foreseeable future), but by then some else will be around to get the blame. Sorta like what we do over on this side of the pond.


Plus, it makes the RAF happy, but going into that might take this too far off topic.

The final choice for JCA was actually set for 2012, between the F-35B and F-35C although the carriers were being built under the remit that the B was the preferred choice until instructed otherwise. Last year it became apparent that the F-35B just wouldn't meet the JCA reuquirement, and cost more for a less capable aircraft thats STOVL feature was no longer actually a primary requirement

Thorvic said:

The final choice for JCA was actually set for 2012, between the F-35B and F-35C although the carriers were being built under the remit that the B was the preferred choice until instructed otherwise. Last year it became apparent that the F-35B just wouldn't meet the JCA reuquirement, and cost more for a less capable aircraft thats STOVL feature was no longer actually a primary requirement

Click to expand...

OK, it's only fair that I explain how I came up with my statements.

At the time the decision was announced the quoted prices showed, if I recollect correctly, that the F-35C had a higher purchase price than the B. This wouldn't be surprising, since the C embodied significant structural changes, while the B & A were much more similar, except for the STOVL equipment. Also, the USN was the only user of the C and the numbers at the time also had it being the least produced version. Since then, of course, USMC has been directed (my belief) to buy some Cs, that latter may not still hold true.

Additionally, the UK is now going to have to add in the costs of adding catapults and arresting gear to the ships, a not inconsiderable sum when compared to the cost of just having a ramp at the bow. The question then arises how much is it going to cost to develop and produce those devices (it's a still open question whether UK will use a version of EMALS that they have been working on, or steam), but probably the easiest thing to do would be to buy them from the French. Because being thrown off the front end of the boat and being yanked to a stop at the rear is much more stressful on the airframe than land operations, which will lead to a shorter airframe life. STOVL shipboard is basically the same as on land, and so should enjoy a longer fatigue life about the same as a landbased aircraft (discounting maritime effects which would be a wash for the B&C). Airframe structural maintenance on the B probably will be less.

Maritime CTOL operations impose another cost that isn't so obvious: training and proficiency for shipboard operations. STOVL operations aboard ship are very similar to STOVL operations ashore. RAF Harrier pilots were routinely able to deploy aboard ship without extensive and lengthy training and preparation. Similarly, shipbased STOVL crews can and do deploy ashore for extended periods and then return to the ship. CTOL crews can't do that without requalifying. In the USN a pilot, regardless of total hours, hours transitioning to another aircraft type must, over and above all conversion training, perform 12 day landings and six night arrested landings to be carrier qualified in the new type. Even if remaining in type said pilot, no matter how experienced in type, must have completed six day and four night arrested landings in the last six months or lose qualification. It's not at all uncommon to see carriers conducting touch and go operations for proficiency. How often have you heard of Harriers needing to do that? I suspect the loss rate for CTOLs shipboard is higher than that for STOVLs as well because it's just so much harder. This is related to another factor to consider: The RN no longer has organic experience or institutional memory of shipboard CTOL operations, so all that will have to be relearned.

I'm not saying everything should be STOVL, the technology isn't there (yet). Just trying to show that there are a lot of "hidden" costs for the UK going to the C from the B.

Regarding the relative capability of the two...When JSF was first started, it was said that the USN version would have more extensive avionics and sensor capabilities. Over time this has faded away, and it is my understanding that all three versions will have about the same. The C will be slower in top speed and acceleration than the B, and I believe will generate one less sortie per day. This leaves only payload and range. Payloadwise, the Bs have returned to the smaller bay that was originally specified for them. They both can carry the same weapons except for the AGM-154, although the ultimate payload of the C is 3,000 lbs. more. The C has a noticeable nominal range advantage (in fact, along with lower approach speed, that's its significant advantage over the A) over the B. Ashore, that gets into the differences between USN and USMC operations with the latter planning to base them closer to their objective. However, the range advantage is not as great for shipboard operations as it is when both are operating from land (though see my thoughts on proficiency training, above). The reason is that if past history serves as a guide, the F-35C will want to arrive overhead the ship with a significant fuel reserve, as much as 25%. This is to allow for waveoffs, bolters, fouled decks, holding while a wire is changed, etc. None of those will apply to the B ("OK, go land over on that part of the deck instead"), plus the approach and landing can be more economical, so the required reserve will be less. The fuel that would have been brought back for reserve can instead be expended on the mission. The C in UK service may have to carry an even larger reserve, unless there is some way for the C to provide tanker capability, since the CVFs will have no onboard tanker capability for when returning a/c have trouble or are delayed coming aboard.

F-14D said:

Maritime CTOL operations impose another cost that isn't so obvious: training and proficiency for shipboard operations.

Click to expand...

That’s just the aircrew. The carrier has to work overtime as well to support CTOL vice STOVL. You need to crew and maintain the arrestor gear and the catapults. If you want to fly more than a handful of CTOL aircraft you also need to cycle takeoff and landings. Which requires a lot of effort from the flight deck crew (and more of them) moving aircraft back from post landing to pre takeoff and mandates a high tempo, short duration flying period. Then the carrier has to hunt wind over deck which means sailing into the wind for the much longer time it takes to launch and recover the same number of aircraft (CTOL vice STOVL) and run the ship faster when mother nature is not providing natural wind. From a systems perspective STOVL is far superior to CTOL and allows much higher effort from the carrier. Now if the fighter and all other things are equal and the F-35B is fundamentally identical to the F-35C the STOVL carrier is going to be much more effective.