Those OJARs don't write themselves eh?Lord Jim wrote:Well that is how it was done in the Falklands war to reinforce the Task Force's Sea Harrier fleet, So someone somewhere is probably dusting off those plans just in case.
F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Well the first thing that should be done with the extra defence funding is restore the target of having 48 F-35B in service by 2024 rather than 2025 and then confirm an order of six per year from 2025 onwards.
Simple!
Simple!
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I forget already what caused the slippage, but from the CEPP milestone onwards it is not simple, but rather involves some fundamental choices. Not only the combat effectiveness of the whole fleet (of fast jets) for several decades to come, by getting the mix of types within it right - for the available money, but also whether we maintain the sovereign capability to keep ourselves in the forefront of airpower. Not implying any specific quantities, but the simple fact that up in the air there are no silver medals up for grabs, nor is fighting to a stalemate a likely outcome.AndyC wrote:restore the target of having 48 F-35B in service by 2024 rather than 2025 and then confirm an order of six per year from 2025 onwards.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Even with additional funding that may not be possible, the fast jet training pipeline has been a mess in recent years, its only recently that steps have been taken to sort it out. We could order jets early...but have no pilots for them...AndyC wrote:Well the first thing that should be done with the extra defence funding is restore the target of having 48 F-35B in service by 2024 rather than 2025 and then confirm an order of six per year from 2025 onwards.
Simple!
IF there was any more money (and its not clear there is...) a far more useful use would be making sure all of the 18 'combat capable' jets we'll have by years end (excluding the 3 test aircraft) are funded to bring them to the full Block IV standard, and then spend any spare cash on spare parts....that would have a far greater effect on the fleets utility in the short to medium term. If we buy any more, more quickly, we'll probably end up cannibalising them for spare parts regardless...lets concentrate on getting the 48 we'll have in 2025 piloted, supported, to the same standard (no more fleets within fleets) with all the planned UK munitions integrated and deployed before we do anything else...only when we've done all that is contemplating buying more worthwhile..
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
This comment could be replicated across so many programs - lets get our s**t in order before we start throwing out wish lists
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Take off is relatively easy to solve, the candidates are small airframes. A rocket assisted ramp or a large rubber band would do. It's landing that's a tad difficult which is why the RN reached out to industry to ask them for their thoughts a few months ago.seaspear wrote:Loyal wingman as I understand takes off a conventional runway,the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with their ramps would likely require something very different
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The delay of the last order by one year has been described as purely financially motivated i.e. to balance the books
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
This article only suggests a derivative of a Loyal wingman for sea based options I would of found it interesting if such a craft could be deployed from the Canberra class ships a good drone design would be a force multiplier the f35b and its carrierRon5 wrote:Take off is relatively easy to solve, the candidates are small airframes. A rocket assisted ramp or a large rubber band would do. It's landing that's a tad difficult which is why the RN reached out to the industry to ask them for their thoughts a few months ago.seaspear wrote:Loyal wingman as I understand takes off a conventional runway,the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with their ramps would likely require something very different
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Would be good to Re - hash some old ideas, automomous or remote control VTOL take off pad thingRon5 wrote:Take off is relatively easy to solve, the candidates are small airframes. A rocket assisted ramp or a large rubber band would do. It's landing that's a tad difficult which is why the RN reached out to industry to ask them for their thoughts a few months ago.seaspear wrote:Loyal wingman as I understand takes off a conventional runway,the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers with their ramps would likely require something very different
Maybe not as dramatic a landing as CATOBAR but....
http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/2 ... aaqsk.jpeg
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Thunderbirds are GO!!!serge750 wrote:Would be good to Re - hash some old ideas, automomous or remote control VTOL take off pad thing
Maybe not as dramatic a landing as CATOBAR but....
http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/2 ... aaqsk.jpeg
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Well they are supposed to be semi-disposable so give them a floatation device so they can ditch near the taskforce if they survive the mission and be retrieved by boat or helicopter.Ron5 wrote:Take off is relatively easy to solve, the candidates are small airframes. A rocket assisted ramp or a large rubber band would do. It's landing that's a tad difficult which is why the RN reached out to industry to ask them for their thoughts a few months ago.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I forgot to add this it makes sense on my previous post
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/loyal ... ased-ucav/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/loyal ... ased-ucav/
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Some folks may wonder about (even be irritated by?) the fact that I keep talking about the mix (for the ongoing IR that's the RAF and FAA then) and not just over the next two years, but over the next decades. Let me borrow from a linked article, used in the ASPI piece contributed by @seaspear above on this F-35 thread (F-35 numbers are topical in the IR, but it is not the only thing that determines the mix in two years time... or in two decades from now)ArmChairCivvy wrote:some fundamental choices. Not only the combat effectiveness of the whole fleet (of fast jets) for several decades to come, by getting the mix of types within it right - for the available money
" models work best when the sides are roughly equal in terms of weapon effectiveness.
But they’re not without application [when that assumption is not valid] either. For example, when the RAND Corporation modelled an air war over the Taiwan Strait a [few] years ago, they produced a set of numbers that allow us to test Lanchester’s models [that derive from as early as the emergence of air power during WW1]. From the RAND data, the American forces had a clear aircraft-on-aircraft superiority over Chinese forces, ranging from a whopping 27:1 for the F-22 Raptor [class, or 'quality' of assets] to better than two and a half to one for the F/A-18 Super Hornets. When the number of sorties by each is taken into account, the US and Taiwanese aircraft collectively had an average effectiveness of almost five times the Chinese ones.
Advantage [arranged by 'silver bullet-ness' factor]
F-22
27 : 1
F-15
4.6 : 1
F/A-18
2.6 : 1
Taiwanese
2.3 : 1
Average
4.7 : 1
So the US wins, right? Well, no—despite the numbers above, the RAND shows that China wins in a great many of the simulations. The reason, as Lanchester would have known, lies in the number of sorties generated. RAND puts it this way:
The effects of China’s missile barrage [presumably A2A missiles; one should include l-r artillery missiles and 'carrier killers'] are dramatically apparent: on the first day, the PLAAF generates about 3.7 times as many sorties as do the United States and Taiwan combined. … China’s ability to suppress or close… bases could give the PLA Air Force an almost overwhelming numerical advantage that—coupled with the rough qualitative parity that now exists between the two sides—could allow China to attain air superiority over Taiwan and the strait.
The US response to this calculation could be to renew production of the F-22, which I imagine would make the F-22 cheer squad very happy. But it would be wrong—buying more expensive ‘silver bullet’ platforms actually misses the point of this sort of analysis. The rational Chinese response depends on the relative cost of improving the quality of its aircraft to reduce the 27:1 advantage and further increasing numbers. They don’t have to achieve parity—if they get close enough, numbers will do the rest, as they do in RAND’s analysis. Success in any future air campaign will be about numbers, persistence [how you generate sorties, or prolong* them] and technical quality—probably in that order."
-----------
* will not deal with the problem in intensive engagements of running out of missiles; hence better loadout (from 4 to 6 internal AMRAAMs) or smaller missiles to achieve the same effect are constantly being worked on
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Kratos' target drone approach is a well worn path for that. Problem is that when parachuted and ditched in sea water the target drone goes back to the manufacturer for a re-build before re-use. There are lots of STOVL or VSTOL drones or indeed aircraft in the works (particularly in the e-VSTOL space). None appear to be aimed at the speeds or ranges necessary to have utility as a loyal wingman for fast air. I'm afraid a Loyal Wingman for F-35B from the QE Class will be a chimaera for a very long time. The solution is there in the form of the F-35B's lift fan, but developing a smaller one (or even re-using the RR LiftSystem) would be very expensive.Lord Jim wrote:Well they are supposed to be semi-disposable so give them a floatation device so they can ditch near the taskforce if they survive the mission and be retrieved by boat or helicopter.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
A simple wire arrestor system is the most likely choice.Timmymagic wrote:Kratos' target drone approach is a well worn path for that. Problem is that when parachuted and ditched in sea water the target drone goes back to the manufacturer for a re-build before re-use. There are lots of STOVL or VSTOL drones or indeed aircraft in the works (particularly in the e-VSTOL space). None appear to be aimed at the speeds or ranges necessary to have utility as a loyal wingman for fast air. I'm afraid a Loyal Wingman for F-35B from the QE Class will be a chimaera for a very long time. The solution is there in the form of the F-35B's lift fan, but developing a smaller one (or even re-using the RR LiftSystem) would be very expensive.Lord Jim wrote:Well they are supposed to be semi-disposable so give them a floatation device so they can ditch near the taskforce if they survive the mission and be retrieved by boat or helicopter.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
That should substantially reduce the cost of CATOBAR conversions for the QEC Carriers.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The U.S.N could be looking at drones with two different functions one being the mq-25a which is being used now in refueling midair the f35c and considerably extending its range https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... nker-drone
It would also assist the f35 to have an accompanying ucav similar to these already in production https://www.defenseworld.net/feature/43 ... 769hc0zaUk nothing about this expensive craft suggest ditching and picking up later certainly the opportunity what these craft bring as force multipliers to the f35b suggests a need to devise some means of its introduction to the R.N
It would also assist the f35 to have an accompanying ucav similar to these already in production https://www.defenseworld.net/feature/43 ... 769hc0zaUk nothing about this expensive craft suggest ditching and picking up later certainly the opportunity what these craft bring as force multipliers to the f35b suggests a need to devise some means of its introduction to the R.N
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
That would require a full CATOBAR set up....which would cost $1.5bn per ship....not going to happen.seaspear wrote:It would also assist the f35 to have an accompanying ucav similar to these already in production https://www.defenseworld.net/feature/43 ... 769hc0zaUk nothing about this expensive craft suggest ditching and picking up later certainly the opportunity what these craft bring as force multipliers to the f35b suggests a need to devise some means of its introduction to the R.N
Setting up a Kratos Valkyrie or a Mako on a rail for a rocket launch off the deck on QE isn't going to happen either.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Well this is making a strong case for FCASW to be integrated with the F-35B to give it substantial stand off range against top tier GBAD threats.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
That will likely be too large for the internal bay.Lord Jim wrote:Well this is making a strong case for FCASW to be integrated with the F-35B to give it substantial stand off range against top tier GBAD threats.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Tru dat.Timmymagic wrote:That would require a full CATOBAR set up....which would cost $1.5bn per ship....not going to happen.
Of course not. It will be the Boeing ATS that will be launched and recovered from the QE's. Duh.Timmymagic wrote:Setting up a Kratos Valkyrie or a Mako on a rail for a rocket launch off the deck on QE isn't going to happen either.
By the way, would the drone have to be RAF rather than FAA?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Does that matter if "substantial stand off range" ??BlueD954 wrote:That will likely be too large for the internal bay.Lord Jim wrote:Well this is making a strong case for FCASW to be integrated with the F-35B to give it substantial stand off range against top tier GBAD threats.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
i dont know if the dimensions of this device would fit in the internal bay of the f35b
https://newatlas.com/military/f-35a-moc ... ight-test/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... lear-bomb/
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ation-bomb
Does this have anything to do with Germany not ordering this aircraft?
https://newatlas.com/military/f-35a-moc ... ight-test/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... lear-bomb/
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ation-bomb
Does this have anything to do with Germany not ordering this aircraft?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Ron5 wrote:Does that matter if "substantial stand off range" ??BlueD954 wrote:Yes.still makes it un steathly and sucks up fuelLord Jim wrote:Well this is making a strong case for FCASW to be integrated with the F-35B to give it substantial stand off range against top tier GBAD threats.
That will likely be too large for the internal bay.