F-35B may well become a What-if program !

[pyro-manic]

I for one am very happy that the MoD decided to drop Dave B in favour of the C model. One of the very, very few good things to come out of the defence spending review.

[Taiidantomcat]

Here are a few more reasons why the F-35B will happen (its from wikipedia but its still spot on):

"Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos has said that in spite of its increasing costs and schedule delays that there is no Plan-B to substitute for the F-35B.[197]

The F-35B is larger than the aircraft it replaces, which required the USS America (LHA-6) to be designed without needed well deck capabilities.[198]

The United States Navy has argued that USMC squadrons that operate from supercarriers should use the F-35C instead of the "suboptimal" F-35B.[199]"


One of the reasons the USMC does not want the F-35C is then it will be stuck doing navy work on navy super carriers. A suspicion that would seem justified by the above statement. (also adding to what JoeP answered earlier ) It also ensures the USMC will fight like hell to get an aircraft the navy wants nothing to do with, thus leaving the Corps to do Marine Missions. The very idea that the USN believes the F-35B to be
"suboptimal" in the USN's mission is precisely the reason to keep the two separated. The Marines are happy with machines that do good work for them, and poor jobs for the navy

Perhaps you should look at USS America it an LPH its optimised for carrying the new V-22, CH-53 and the F-35B, it it was specialised for Stovl then it would be better designed to operate more F-35 efficiently someting akin to the STOVL CVF which had a seperate STOVL runway with JBD and ski-jump, the America just has the standard flight deck for loading lots of marines on to their transports.

The USMC general may well have these grand plans, but if the hardware don't work, is not suitable for task, delayed by more than 5 years and costs and arm & leg to buy & operate, then those generals may find little real support in the capital. Its a nice to have buts its not a nessessity, the USMC do have alternatives and in 2 years time if LM don't have the F-35B performing reliably to specifications those same generals will be forced to consider what their alternatives are or where they want to retire to.

If your a US taxpayer do you really want to see your money flushed down the toilet into a program for a substandard platform that only exists due to the USMC wanting an independent air group ?

The US has never been into the ski jump thing. And how is it substandard?

As a taxpayer, Yes I do and heres why. The Marines, thanks to the 1947 Defense act are required by law to have 3 Independent air wings plus 1 reserve wing.  They don't just want an independent air group, they have one now and are mandated to continue that. The USMC has massive congressional pull, they rarely ask for anything so when they want something they usually get it and are quite good at making cases for what will help them complete their mission. The Marines do not have alternatives in their eyes. Just like the V-22, the F-35B is the future. The Super bug is too expensive and they will never get independence with the F-35C. The Marines basically see this as a battle for their aviation survival. They know that even if it costs more now they will save in the future because they will only have to operate one aircraft, one variant. That makes life incredibly easy logistically and with operating costs. Its not going to take five years. The worst case is it is still having problems in two years and the USMC asks for an extension. At which point they will get an extension. It may take a bit longer but thats fine. Its worth taking a couple extra years to get it right with an aircraft you will be using for next few decades. and thats exactly how they will sell it.

The Marines are incredibly frugal, of the entire DoD Budget, they only use 4 percent! American Tax payers love the Marines, if they didn't they would have been killed off a long time ago and their gear and troops given to other services. No money given to the Marines is "flushed down the toilet". These generals are not bean counters, they know whats at stake. They know that losing that air wing means relying on other services not being too busy doing their own thing, and the lack of USMC air support will get people killed. Frankly they don't care what it costs, its worth it. And if the Marines start rallying for it, everyone will fall in behind them.

You really don't know Marines. Wasn't the V-22 some grand plan that would never work? Some substandard platform? Took decades of development? overtime? over budget? Over everything? hell it even killed dozens of people... So the V-22 would never happen right? compared to the hellfire the V-22 took, the F-35B will be a walk in the park. The V-22 development spanned the careers of 4 Commandants and not a single one of them blinked. They knew the stakes, and acted accordingly. The F-35B will happen.

If the UK wants the C thats fine, I know the UK wants that carrier before it too gets canceled. But If you think this is anything other than money driven you just aren't paying attention. The RAF is going to be cut down to the strength of Belgium's AF.(Those aren't my words, an RAF general said that) Maybe the RAF should just take over the RN air wing it would save money right? I know the RN has all these grand plans, but will the taxpayers support them? The USMC has plans to buy 240 F-35Bs... How many F-35s are the Royal Navy going to acquire? If I recall correctly when the Royal Navy gave up its last harriers the pilots were moved to an RAF squadron, how long before some bean counter decides to just make it official and bin RN squadrons altogether? Who is more likely to lose their independence? A USMC force with hundreds of jets and a fierce since of self? Or a Fleet Air Arm that has seen its number and ships decline with time and has had to borrow aircraft from other services? along with taxpayers who barely see the point in funding a conventional air force? The USMC will have its own aircraft long after the Royal Navy.

Who's grand plans are more likely to be realized?

I am really not trying to start a flame war or insult anyone, but the idea that now F-35B is never going to work since the RN doesn't want it and it will now go the way of the dodo are wrong. The RN buying the F-35B would be nice but are not essential to the programs survival

[dy031101]

And how is it substandard?

From what I see, this appears to being leaning increasingly closer to a debate between conventional wisdom and revolutionary thinking.  Conventional wisdoms see the F-35B as a combination of "shipborne aircraft derived from a land-based design" and "STOVL mechanism that become dead weight in cruise mode" (double-negative), whereas revolutionary thinkers feel confident that if technology works for their adversaries, it sure can be made to work for the F-35 as well.

Also, the Royal Navy went with the STOVL Sea Harriers because they had to, right?  Now that they no longer need to go under the pretense of "through-deck cruisers" and in fact have the provision to go with STOBAR carriers, it's very likely that many would see no more point for STOVL aircraft.  Same things can't be said for the USMC, with the catapult-less LHD/LHA and forward airbases and all.

[Taiidantomcat]

Its an amazing feat of engineering  

[Weaver]

On the subject of JSF propulsion systems, does anyone have any detail on why the McDonnell Douglas entry moved from a gas-coupled fan to a separate lift engine?

In principle, I always rather liked the gas-coupled fan (well more than I like a 40,000 hp clutch, anyway...)....

[GTX]

On the subject of JSF propulsion systems, does anyone have any detail on why the McDonnell Douglas entry moved from a gas-coupled fan to a separate lift engine?

Whilst I'm sure there was more to the actual decision, from what I understand they had determined the separate lift fan option to be better suited for the commonality problem - the large hot-gas ducts in the mid-fuselage (as required for the gas-driven system) were not something easily factored in when it came to doing the CTOL vs STOVL match up. Also, the risks with having ducts passing high-pressure/temperature gas through the fuselage isn't exactly comforting if you get any leakage - yes, I know the risks with a shaft/clutch arrangement are also formidable, but I think it is less.  Finally, I believe the separate lift fan option was identified as being lower weight over all.

Regards,

Greg

[Weaver]

Here's a graphic of the McDD system. It's not from the final proposal, but it's in the ballpark:




The use of a clang box and hot side nozzles seems inefficient when you could have the F-35-style one, which must have been available to the BAe/McDD teamsinceit was developed by Rolls Royce.

[PR19_Kit]

The RAF is going to be cut down to the strength of Belgium's AF.(Those aren't my words, an RAF general said that)

Cough, splutter! 

You better not say that if you're within UK territorial waters, the RAF doesn't have, and never has had, any 'generals'! Over here they're Air Vice Marshals, or Marshals of the Royal air Force etc, never generals......

Maybe the RAF should just take over the RN air wing it would save money right? I know the RN has all these grand plans, but will the taxpayers support them? The USMC has plans to buy 240 F-35Bs... How many F-35s are the Royal Navy going to acquire? If I recall correctly when the Royal Navy gave up its last harriers the pilots were moved to an RAF squadron, how long before some bean counter decides to just make it official and bin RN squadrons altogether? I am really not trying to start a flame war or insult anyone, but the idea that now F-35B is never going to work since the RN doesn't want it and it will now go the way of the dodo are wrong. The RN buying the F-35B would be nice but are not essential to the programs survival

The RAF effectively DID take over the RN air wing, that's what Joint Force Harrier (JFH) was all about. And the bean counters not only canned the only RN squadron in JFH, they canned all the RAF Squadrons in JFH as well!

As for binning the FAA Squadrons from here on in, I can't see the two new carriers only flying RAF aircraft. As there are no carier capable RAF aircraft any more, they'd have to buy new ones, whether STOVL or conventional types, and I can't see any RAF budget holder forking out for that.

There are some jumped up naval pundits over here suggesting that the RN should take over the RAF! 

There are vested interests at work all over the place, and some of them are severely lacking in brain cells.........

[kitnut617]

As for binning the FAA Squadrons from here on in, I can't see the two new carriers only flying RAF aircraft. As there are no carier capable RAF aircraft any more, they'd have to buy new ones, whether STOVL or conventional types, and I can't see any RAF budget holder forking out for that.

This might have been brought up before, but what would be involved in getting Typhoons up to Navy spec, they already have an arrester hook (probably need re-enforcing though), what else ?

[Taiidantomcat]

As for binning the FAA Squadrons from here on in, I can't see the two new carriers only flying RAF aircraft. As there are no carier capable RAF aircraft any more, they'd have to buy new ones, whether STOVL or conventional types, and I can't see any RAF budget holder forking out for that.

This might have been brought up before, but what would be involved in getting Typhoons up to Navy spec, they already have an arrester hook (probably need re-enforcing though), what else ?

So many things that it won't be cost effective. Not to say the MoD won't try that of course. Its never cost effective to get a land based plane and retroactively make it carrier based. Any savings you might have had disappears quickly.  Its not just a hook-- its structural reinforcement, heavier landing gear, hopefully folding wings, a slow thus safer landing speed, the list goes on...

JFH is a perfect example of what I am saying. Those are not the decisions of a country that has money to spend. Having to share airplanes before canceling them all anyway? And like I said, wouldn't not putting all your eggs in one basket mean not ridding yourselves of the Harrier until the F-35B or C is ready? Do you see the USMC and Navy having to share aircraft? Who is more likely to stick around?

Maybe the RN figured out that the F-35 is essential to its survival as well.

Apologies for the not saying Air Marshall

[pyro-manic]

BAE has looked at a navalised Typhoon, and it is doable, though as you say it would be very expensive. A new landing gear, structural reinforcement, and a periscope for landing were the principal features. There are pictures floating around here somewhere, and on Secret Projects. The other issue is the low wing, which makes deck handling and arming more difficult apparently. The question was raised in parliament a few years ago. A better option would be to buy Rafales or Superbugs. Either way the F-35C is the best possible choice now IMO, provided the costs don't increase even more.

It's not that we don't have the money. We could afford it, but the bloody politicians see the defence budget as the first thing to be cut when they're looking for more money to spend on something else. We spend more on our military than any other country other than the US and China (who have just pushed us down to third). But a lot of this goes on very wasteful projects (eg Nimrod 4, Astute), where years is spent messing around rather than getting things done.

A big part of the problem is that all our politicians seem to have the same attitude on defence. Apart from some of the crusty old Tories out on the fringes (who nobody listens to), they all seem to think the MoD budget is there to be chopped to pay for other things. It's now down to ~2% of GDP. We could (and should, IMO) quite easily afford 3% or thereabouts, which would be plenty to provide a decent number of ships, aircraft, squaddies and vehicles.

[Tuck]

Why not the F-18 Superbug and other variants......it ain't broke and don't need fixing.....and is still one of the most capeable carrier based A/C around.....why all the "new" stuff?  Just use what is already proven to work.

[Taiidantomcat]

the bloody politicians see the defence budget as the first thing to be cut when they're looking for more money to spend on something else.

That is something we both have in common, my friend 

[Martin H]

There are vested interests at work all over the place, and some of them are severely lacking in brain cells.........

Well when every officer of Air rank in Whitehall is an ex Tonka driver, its not hard to see why the Axe fell on the Harrier force.

Personally, I can understand the RAF culling its Harrier fleet, but its madness to cull the FAA squadrons as well. Better to have the fish head pilots current among their own (ie on a British flat top) rather than on exchange posting with a USN super bug squadron, using different operating procedures to the RN.

[rickshaw]

Why not the F-18 Superbug and other variants......it ain't broke and don't need fixing.....and is still one of the most capeable carrier based A/C around.....why all the "new" stuff?  Just use what is already proven to work.

Perhaps the problem might be that while the F/A-18 is adequate against current threats it will certainly be marginal against future ones and considering that what ever is purchased will have a life of at least 10-15 years, it must remain capable during that life.

The Superbug has one big advantage going for it IMO - it is comparatively cheap.  However, it must be purchased in dollars which is always a problem.  At least with Rafaele other deals can be worked out with a fellow European power.  Additionally, the Rafaele's life would be appreciably longer in service than the F/A-18s.