This one caught me by surprise although I did do a "wouldn't it be ironic post" on the very subject.
From British Forces News.
The Royal Navy’s new Joint Strike Fighter may be unable to land on an aircraft carrier because of a design flaw according to a Pentagon report leaked to a national newspaper.I don't know this website.
Documents obtained by The Sunday Times reveal the report – called the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review – has identified a serious flaw in the aircraft’s design.
It reveals eight simulated landings of the new variant all-purpose jet, known as the F-35C, failed because the “arrestor” hook, used to stop the plane during landing, is too close to the undercarriage at just seven feet away, compared with 18ft on existing US Navy aircraft.
The report concludes that a “significant redesign” of the aircraft is needed and that the future of the aircraft is at risk.
It also suggests the new fighter may be unable to fire British Asram air-to-air missiles and is untested in several other areas. It says if a redesign proves too costly and complicated the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped.
The Ministry of Defence has declined to comment on the leaked report but said
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond “discussed a number of issues including the Joint Strike Fighter” with his counterpart Leon Panetta in his recent visit to Washington.
A spokesman said: "We are taking delivery of our first Joint Strike Fighters for test and evaluation purposes this year and are committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF. Our plans remain on track to have a new carrier strike capability from around 2020.”
Don't know if its credible.
Don't know if its valid.
But if this is in anyway true then this is at the very least a matter of concern. The APA boys have been playing this one up and the documentation they've provided seems spot on. If the tail hook issue requires a redesign then the A and B are ok but the C is in serious jeopardy. Add to it the fact that only the USN, USMC and RN are buying it (and the USMC very reluctantly and the RN seems torn with many---including famed Falklands Battle fighter pilot Sharkey Ward recommending the B for the Navy---and the USN seemingly not very enthused) and you have the makings of an easy exit ramp for the program...a Pentagon sacrificial lamb and the rest of the program proceeding on its merry way.
Now how do I drum up support in the UK for a switch back to the B model???
The website is the official news service for British Forces (same organisation that does all the TV broadcasting to British bases around the world) so it is credible.
ReplyDeleteAnd from what i've seen the 8 "simulated landings" talked about, were actually the real tests done on aircraft, rather than computer sims which apparently didn't pick it up.
I don't think the UK would go back to the B variant, it's likely they'll now stay with a Cat and Trap plane or they'll risk losing all credibility on the issue. Its easier to say "The US has messed up designing our plane" than "actually as the US haven't got the plane we want we'll go back on everything we said about the better use of cat and traps."
wow. again! thanks for the confirmation that the website is credible. why would you think that they'll stay with cats and traps?
ReplyDeletefrom what i understood the need was for the RAF and the RN to be able to use F-35's...with the B model you can surge RAF aircraft to the carriers as in the Falklands model...with cats you can't.
was the move to catapults a case of service rivalry or was it found to be more suitable?
Well the argument that has been spun over here is that the B version will cost more to buy and through life, and that cat and trap is the more effective option for carrier strike. If you have STOVL people look at the 60000 ton carriers and wonder why they aren't 20000 tons (which in their minds means massive savings). That probably has a bit to do with the navy finally getting back to being a proper strike force. To be honest it seems like it was the right choice for the UK. The C can still be surged from the RAF to the Navy, the RAF pilots will mostly end up doing carrier quals and has better range and can carry weapons like Meteor without modification like the B requires.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be hard to take back all that PR to get on board with F35B again. It'd be politically easier to go with an interim lease/buy of SH's and wait on F35 coming into service properly. Although anything that has no UK content (Rafale or SH) is going to be a tough pill to swallow now, for once the UK seems to have gotten a little protectionist over its industry, just like the rest of the world.
wait a second Grim! the article calls into quesstion the launching of ASRAAMS so if it can't handle ASRAAMS then meteor is a future issue too!
ReplyDeletei guess this is another wait and see but thanks for the answer on the carrier question. i wonder if this might end up being more carrier than the UK needs. the USS America class are 20,000 tons lighter and can carry as many B models as the heavier QE wil C models.
do you think the carrier is right sized or not?
This is the first i've heard of the ASRAAM issue Sol, i'll try and find some more information on the subject and why it is the case, it may just be that the integration hasn't been done yet. The Meteor issue with the B models weapons bays though is well known though.
ReplyDeleteFrankly I think that the QE's are big for the UK, i've never been quite sure why the full complement of aircraft is low, but I know that they will be very effective ships even if they are maybe larger than they need to be.
It is important to remember that steel is cheap so displacement doesn't really matter. And it is definitely a good thing that the UK is getting this capability back and its a good thing for UK industry. If you told me we would get 3 America style ships for our money (operating costs would have killed it) then that'd be great, they'd give us all the capability we really need, but it wouldn't happen. The QE's will also give us more flexibility in choosing support aircraft.
i thought i sent this link to your or you havent seen it, David Cenciotti on his blog posted on it last week:
ReplyDeletehttp://theaviationist.com/2012/01/09/f-35c-hook-problems/
Joe
Does anyone have s "searchable" version of the QLR? The one I have is complete KRAP.
ReplyDeletewhen you find one hit me up. there are definitely some games being played with the wording in that report.
ReplyDeletei just don't know if i only have the executive summary or if its the whole thing. but from what i saw the report is basically positive on many points and says that the problems are managable in other portions...but this item caught me by surprise.
I do not understand where you're linked British report came up with "It also suggests the new fighter may be unable to fire British Asram air-to-air missiles" as the ONLY mention of the ASRAAM specifically states "the QLR did not consider weapon employment requirements for the UK's Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile(ASRAAM)" (page 4). This was the only mention of the ASRAAM in the report (that I could find without a search function).
ReplyDeleteFunny how the British Forces News misspelled ASRAAM ;)
that statement came from an unidentified Ministry of Defense source.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to read that news item again. It makes no mention of a MOD source, only the QLR.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like BFN was reporting on someone elses report of the QLR without looking at it themselves.
The Brits seemed to have gone with the C because of longer range and higher bring back but frankly much of their analysis is a total mystery. The analysis stated the C would be cheaper; however, it's not remotely clear if that was a comparison between the exact same number of B's vs C's. Moreover, they didn't do any analysis of the cost to refit the carriers to do CATOBAR.
ReplyDeleteOne would be forgiven for suspecting what really happened was both carriers were being built for the B and that going to the C really meant a much lower aircraft buy and converting a single carrier.
They'll get the C to trap. The only question is whether they can do it with the existing structure or whether it takes a significant redesign? If so we're talking more serious money as well as a serious delay in the C. Once the FY2013 budget estimates come out next month we'll know a lot more about the new projected schedule and costs. It's possible the redesign leads to talk of cutting the C but we're not there yet.