What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[aeropilot]

LotusOmega375D said:

I still haven’t had a definitive answer on whether the UK’s F35Bs take off and land in an orthodox fashion at airfields to allow higher TOW if deployed to land bases around the world. Has anyone been to Marham to watch?

Yes, they do, just as the Harrier's did as well.

[ecsrobin]

LotusOmega375D said:

I still haven’t had a definitive answer on whether the UK’s F35Bs take off and land in an orthodox fashion at airfields to allow higher TOW if deployed to land bases around the world. Has anyone been to Marham to watch?

Problem with going to Marham to watch is that most of the time they won’t be loaded anywhere close to MTOW and like the harrier will take off and land conventionally most of the time.

Generally with the harrier they only landed vertically for currency.

[Mave]

Teddy Lop said:

MTOW for the F-35B is listed as 27t, 4.5t shy of the A + C variants.

I'm guessing this must be for a vertical lift, and presumably the jet could carry the same as the others with a conventional take off? Does using the ski jump increase the MTOW over VTO?

(I'm idly speculating if one could power a small transport using the F-135, MOTW of say a C-27 is around 32t)

You don't want to use a low bypass ratio, supersonic capable engine for a subsonic transport aircraft. It would have rubbish range.

[IanH755]

ecsrobin said:

LotusOmega375D said:

I still haven’t had a definitive answer on whether the UK’s F35Bs take off and land in an orthodox fashion at airfields to allow higher TOW if deployed to land bases around the world. Has anyone been to Marham to watch?

Problem with going to Marham to watch is that most of the time they won’t be loaded anywhere close to MTOW and like the harrier will take off and land conventionally most of the time.

Generally with the harrier they only landed vertically for currency.

Like the Harriers, the take off at full fuel levels but with no armaments so fairly close to MTOW-Stealth levels and way off MTOW-beastmode levels.

Whst the F-35B is "technically" capable of both VTO & Rolling VTO the weight restrictions are so severe that its most likely limited to extremely brief flights, so things like swapping between two CV's at sea should one CV be damaged etc rather than for an actual tactical purpose.

[Teddy Lop]

Mave said:

Teddy Lop said:

MTOW for the F-35B is listed as 27t, 4.5t shy of the A + C variants.

I'm guessing this must be for a vertical lift, and presumably the jet could carry the same as the others with a conventional take off? Does using the ski jump increase the MTOW over VTO?

(I'm idly speculating if one could power a small transport using the F-135, MOTW of say a C-27 is around 32t)

You don't want to use a low bypass ratio, supersonic capable engine for a subsonic transport aircraft. It would have rubbish range.

The lift fan effectively makes the F135 a higher-bypass design when engaged; would having a lift fan permanently engaged and simply(!) vectored make it more efficient?

I suppose by the time you've done that there's other methods you be looking at.

I just look at the QE platform and ponder that a transport able to facilitate refueling/AEW etc with more speed/range than the choppers would really complement it, extend the strike range/payload tradeoff of the F35B and more. I guess if the people who know what they're talking about agreed with me they'd just buy some ospreys.

~

Given the complexity of the lift system what's the plan for one returning faulty? Catch netting?

[Mave]

Teddy Lop said:

Mave said:

Teddy Lop said:

MTOW for the F-35B is listed as 27t, 4.5t shy of the A + C variants.

I'm guessing this must be for a vertical lift, and presumably the jet could carry the same as the others with a conventional take off? Does using the ski jump increase the MTOW over VTO?

(I'm idly speculating if one could power a small transport using the F-135, MOTW of say a C-27 is around 32t)

You don't want to use a low bypass ratio, supersonic capable engine for a subsonic transport aircraft. It would have rubbish range.

The lift fan effectively makes the F135 a higher-bypass design when engaged; would having a lift fan permanently engaged and simply(!) vectored make it more efficient?

I suppose by the time you've done that there's other methods you be looking at.

The whole lift fan operation is heavily optimised around that particular VSTOL requirement, and packaging it into the aircraft. I don't think it would make a very good regular propulsion fan.

If you wanted a high bypass ratio engine for a subsonic transport aircraft, there are probably better engines to start with (or it might be better to go with a turboprop?)

[Teddy Lop]

Mave said:

The whole lift fan operation is heavily optimised around that particular VSTOL requirement, and packaging it into the aircraft. I don't think it would make a very good regular propulsion fan.

If you wanted a high bypass ratio engine for a subsonic transport aircraft, there are probably better engines to start with (or it might be better to go with a turboprop?)

Sorry my rambling brain probably didn't make it clear, operation off the QE alongside the F35s is what I'm driving at, so VSTOL capability is why I'm considering that system in particular.

[aeropilot]

Teddy Lop said:

I just look at the QE platform and ponder that a transport able to facilitate refueling/AEW etc with more speed/range than the choppers would really complement it, extend the strike range/payload tradeoff of the F35B and more. I guess if the people who know what they're talking about agreed with me they'd just buy some ospreys.

And this is one of several reasons the UK carriers built the way they are were a pointless waste of money.

[MBBlat]

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

I just look at the QE platform and ponder that a transport able to facilitate refueling/AEW etc with more speed/range than the choppers would really complement it, extend the strike range/payload tradeoff of the F35B and more. I guess if the people who know what they're talking about agreed with me they'd just buy some ospreys.

And this is one of several reasons the UK carriers built the way they are were a pointless waste of money.

The alternative was to use them to fix the bugs in EMcat, ask the yanks how well that’s going for the USS Ford.
Hint the Ford cost overruns are more than the entire QEC budget

[andy97]

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

I just look at the QE platform and ponder that a transport able to facilitate refueling/AEW etc with more speed/range than the choppers would really complement it, extend the strike range/payload tradeoff of the F35B and more. I guess if the people who know what they're talking about agreed with me they'd just buy some ospreys.

And this is one of several reasons the UK carriers built the way they are were a pointless waste of money.

Unfortunately, despite numerous studies by the RAF and RN, and several design changes to accommodate cars and traps, and back again; the BAe/ Rolls Royce lobby for the STOVl version, in which they had a major vested interest, outweighed the military requirements.
And yes, I do have reasonably good knowledge that was the case, as a former boss of mine did one of the studies as a 1 or 2 star.

[Teddy Lop]

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

I just look at the QE platform and ponder that a transport able to facilitate refueling/AEW etc with more speed/range than the choppers would really complement it, extend the strike range/payload tradeoff of the F35B and more. I guess if the people who know what they're talking about agreed with me they'd just buy some ospreys.

And this is one of several reasons the UK carriers built the way they are were a pointless waste of money.

Eh-oh, let's not reopen that argument!

In the sense of we have what we have now, an aircraft with this capability would enhance it and probably have others interested, there's a number of countries that have or are looking to operate F35B and heli carriers.

[aeropilot]

andy97 said:

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

I just look at the QE platform and ponder that a transport able to facilitate refueling/AEW etc with more speed/range than the choppers would really complement it, extend the strike range/payload tradeoff of the F35B and more. I guess if the people who know what they're talking about agreed with me they'd just buy some ospreys.

And this is one of several reasons the UK carriers built the way they are were a pointless waste of money.

Unfortunately, despite numerous studies by the RAF and RN, and several design changes to accommodate cars and traps, and back again; the BAe/ Rolls Royce lobby for the STOVl version, in which they had a major vested interest, outweighed the military requirements.
And yes, I do have reasonably good knowledge that was the case, as a former boss of mine did one of the studies as a 1 or 2 star.

Politics always outweighs military requirements........it is after all the only reason they bloody things were built in the first place......

The fact the RN is simply no longer big enough to support a carrier battle group as well as all its other roles was always a secondary consideration to the reason certain politicians wanted them being built.

[RizzoTheRat]

Presumably UK PLC does quite well out of the F35b as well, with RR making the fan system, so a bit of vested interest there too.

The USN buddy tank from F-18's, and are introducing Stingray as a tanker, do the USMC do similar to refuel their F-35's? Above posts suggest MTOW is limited for STOVL so presumably air to air refuelling is a sensible way to maximise the payload.

[aeropilot]

Teddy Lop said:

In the sense of we have what we have now, an aircraft with this capability would enhance it and probably have others interested, there's a number of countries that have or are looking to operate F35B and heli carriers.

It would simply be far to expensive to design, build and operate, such an aircraft, for just not enough numbers.

It would be just about ready to go into service when the carriers are going out of service

[RizzoTheRat]

aeropilot said:

It would simply be far to expensive to design, build and operate, such an aircraft, for just not enough numbers.

It would be just about ready to go into service when the carriers are going out of service

V-280's supposed to be in service with the US army in about 2030 I think, and Bell showed a navalised version of it some years ago. It would make a lot of sense for carriers.

[aeropilot]

RizzoTheRat said:

aeropilot said:

It would simply be far to expensive to design, build and operate, such an aircraft, for just not enough numbers.

It would be just about ready to go into service when the carriers are going out of service

V-280's supposed to be in service with the US army in about 2030 I think, and Bell showed a navalised version of it some years ago. It would make a lot of sense for carriers.

Bell might have shown mock-up of a Navalised version, rather than a real prototype, as USMC have an interest, but the V-280 is an Army led program, and thus no money is there for a navalised version as yet. US Army 'expect' USMC/USN to fund their own separate version.

[RizzoTheRat]

Gotta love joint up thinking

[aeropilot]

RizzoTheRat said:

Gotta love joint up thinking

Maybe, but the Army have probably looked at things like the F-35 being delayed and cost spirals and the main version design compromised massively by USMC and the B version, and the USN not really wanting the C version, that it simply wants control of its own needs and budget.
The USMC have massive clout on Capitol Hill, but there is a view that it really now, in massively reduced force sizes of today, shouldn't be able to justify some of the stuff it still thinks it needs.....although they have made the decision to give up its tanks in recent years.

[Mave]

RizzoTheRat said:

Presumably UK PLC does quite well out of the F35b as well, with RR making the fan system, so a bit of vested interest there too.

The lift system is built in the US

[aeropilot]

Mave said:

RizzoTheRat said:

Presumably UK PLC does quite well out of the F35b as well, with RR making the fan system, so a bit of vested interest there too.

The lift system is built in the US

Yes, by Rolls-Royce.

The RR Lift Fan System was also design led by RR in the UK.