RN re-evaluating F-35C

[Marsh]

Hi all,

this is a deep, dark topic with endless specultaion, but several UK papers and Jane's and other industry papers ran the story of a large number of RN fast ject pilots sent to learn conventional CV ops with the USN. Any thoughts on liklihood of the QE class getting EMALS and CATOBAR F-35s? Might offer to share them with the RAF as a Tornado replacement... ( alwasy wondered why the USAF didn't go with a C model given better range and payload?)

RN sends cadre of pilots to train on US carriers

Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent
Kiev

Robert Hewson Jane's Air-Launched Weapons Editor
London

Additional reporting by

Peter Felstead Editor
London
Key Points

*

A larger than usual number of UK pilots are taking part in carrier training in the US
*

The move may indicate that the UK favours a commitment to conventional aircraft launched by catapult rather than a STOVL platform

An uprecedented number of UK Royal Navy (RN) Harrier pilots have begun training for catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) carrier operations in the United States, information obtained by Jane's has revealed.

The news further fuels rumours that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) may be re-assessing its previous commitment to fulfilling the UK's Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement with the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), instead opting for a conventional aircraft launched by catapult.

The latter could be the F-35C carrier variant of the JSF, which has a greater range and payload capability than the JSF STOVL variant and also costs slightly less per unit, or even the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on which the UK pilots are likely to be certified. The RN's two future Queen Elizabeth-class carriers that would operate the JCA are designed for, but not yet intended to be fitted with CATOBAR equipment.

The programme for this exchange of aviators is much larger than normal and was apparently initiated in April when a senior US Navy (USN) officer announced training and squadron integration for 12 UK pilots. This officer then briefed the US Commander Naval Air Forces (CNAF) in mid-April.

Sources who spoke to Jane's on condition of anonymity state that the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OpNav) is "driving the requirement and the CNAF is implementing [it]". Given the high level of support, the training and timing for the programme will be high priority for the local F/A-18 fleet replacement training squadrons (FRSs).

USN sources anticipate that this training programme will be scheduled so that the RN will have 12 fully qualified carrier pilots by 2012. They did not mention whether or not any of these 12 would be trained for the rear-cockpit weapon systems officer (WSO) position in two-seat carrier aircraft or as landing signals officers (LSOs).

According to the programme plan, eight of the 12 pilots will complete a full syllabus on the Boeing/BAE Systems T-45 jet trainer (a carrier-capable version of the BAE Systems Hawk Mk 60) and a full CAT I syllabus on the F/A-18 Hornet. The CAT I syllabus has recently been designated as the pilot certification training for the F/A-18. Three pilots will complete a partial T-45 syllabus and a full CAT II F/A-18 syllabus, which is the training for qualified pilot transition to the F/A-18. The training regime for the 12th and last pilot has not been specified, but it is anticipated that he will conduct some T-45 Goshawk training and a full CAT I or II syllabus that includes day/night landing carrier qualification. Eleven of the UK pilots will join USN fleet squadrons and will be flying both C/D legacy Hornet and E/F Super Hornet models of the F/A-18. The 12th pilot will remain at one of the FRS locations as an exchange pilot.

The RN pilots will also fly US Marine Corps (USMC) McDonnell Douglas/BAE Systems AV-8B Harrier IIs.

It is the much larger number of pilots included (typical exchange programmes with the USN involve only two or three pilots) along with the additional training involved that suggest this pilot training programme is not part of a standard exchange tour.

"It's typical to take the RAF [Royal Air Force]/RN guy to the carrier for some 'good deal' [carrier] traps," said the USN source, "but they go in daytime only and are scheduled on a 'not to interfere with [regular USN] student traps' basis. In other words they do not have a quota. All 12 of the RN pilots addressed by this training will have a quota."

Asked about the reasoning behind the programme, one source told Jane's that it is designed to "give additional STOVL and cat-and-trap experience and provide invaluable 'big deck' familiarisation prior to introduction of Queen Elizabeth . It will also further strengthen the bonds between the USN, USMC and RN".

In conjunction with Jane's reports in July that the UK MoD is continuing to contract Converteam UK for the design, development and demonstration of an electro-magnetic catapult system, news of a cadre of UK pilots being carrier trained would seem to confirm the ministry is reassessing its carrier options. The contractual decision on what variant of F-35 to buy does not have to be made until early in 2011, although RN sources indicated to Jane's in July that the B/C decision would be made as part of the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review process, so a decision could come this year even if no contract is signed.

Meanwhile, unsubstantiated reports have emerged that the RN might even be offered an ex-USN carrier as the size of the USN carrier force is reduced from 12 down to 10 ships. This would provide the RN with a conventional 'cat-and-trap' aircraft carrier in advance of the UK's two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers entering service. Although the RN does have experience of operating nuclear-powered submarines, its aircraft carriers have always been conventionally driven. While all USN carriers in service are nuclear powered carrier, the last conventionally powered carrier in USN service, USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), was decommissioned on 12 May 2009 and is currently maintained as a Ready Reserve Fleet asset.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hi all,

this is a deep, dark topic with endless specultaion, but several UK papers and Jane's and other industry papers ran the story of a large number of RN fast ject pilots sent to learn conventional CV ops with the USN. Any thoughts on liklihood of the QE class getting EMALS and CATOBAR F-35s? Might offer to share them with the RAF as a Tornado replacement... ( alwasy wondered why the USAF didn't go with a C model given better range and payload?)

USAF didn't buy the F-35C for the same reason it didn't buy the F/A-18A/B Hornet.

1. The additional beefed up structure of the -C model airframe would mean that USAF aircraft which will never have to land on a carrier, have a weight penalty that they have to carry around for their entire service lives. This generally equates to greater fuel burn and lesser aeroshell performance.

They also have an increased maintenance requirement with folding wings and substantially stronger landing gear and double landing gear doors. All that adds up over 1763 aircraft operated for 30 + years, especially when it is entirely unnecessary for USAF operations...

2. The -C model is much heavier than the A model, yet it uses the same motor. The -C model will offer significantly less aeroshell performance than the -A model, having inferior acceleration, inferior sustained turn rates and only a 7.5G rated airframe (compared to the 9G airframe on the -A model).

The -C model will offer greater range, true, but it won't offer better payload. The USAF is not as concerned about un-refuelled range, given it's 500+ tankers, compared to the USN, which has to make do with whatever tanking capacity it can carry on-board it's carriers or whatever spare capacity may exist with in-theatre tanking aircraft.

USAF of course, wants more range from it's F-35A's than it's legacy fighters are capable of, but the other detrimental attributes of the -C model, that are necessitated by it's carrier influenced design do not apparently overcome by the 50nm extra range of the aircraft. The -A model still provides a significant range improvement over legacy fighters.

3. The F-35A will be much cheaper than the F-35C. That is mostly to do with build numbers and this would be closer if the USAF AND USN bought the -C model, but the -C will always require greater engineering, more metal and longer construction times, resulting in a cost increase over the -C model.

Basically, the -A model is lighter, faster, more agile and cheaper to acquire and support.

The -C model is heavier, slower, less agile, more maintenance intensive and more expensive to support and acquire.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Had the impression all USMC harrier pilots went through carrier training. Doesn't change the USMC selection of aircraft though.

 

[Marsh]

Ah, I thought a C-sized airframe minus the unnecessary carrier kit might prove more useful; it's not as if any aircraft has not massively grown in weight over its life and so the larger tankage and wing might be helpful for the Air Force in the long run.

Are you sure about the inferior sustained turn and g rating? The lower wing loading should aid turn (though I agree the drag and lower thrust to weight ratio would affect it). Why would it be lower rated after dropping air to gound ordinance?


The USMC has CATOBAR aircraft so it would make some sense to give all their fast jet pilots training in this. I doubt the Harrier pilots have continued training in this area in the middle of a Harrier tour. The RN pilots are in a similar position, which is what makes this a little strange; what's the point of sending them to F-18 squadrons when the RN has nothing romotely similar?

 

[maus92]

Are you sure about the inferior sustained turn and g rating? The lower wing loading should aid turn (though I agree the drag and lower thrust to weight ratio would affect it). Why would it be lower rated after dropping air to gound ordinance?
?

The F-35C, like the F/A-18, is limited to 7.5G's by the flight control software. The limitation extends the life of the airframe.

 

[Bonza]

The RN pilots are in a similar position, which is what makes this a little strange; what's the point of sending them to F-18 squadrons when the RN has nothing romotely similar?

Could it be that the objective isn't to do with the aircraft they're flying so much as the fact that they're learning how to participate in large-scale carrier operations? If the UK intend on operating a pair of carriers they're going to need this kind of operational knowledge ahead of time.

 

[Waylander]

I think I mentioned that in another thread as well. Many allies send their pilots to the US because of existing exchange programs. Germany for example has some carrier qualified pilots who made their tours on Hornets. Some time ago we also had one guy who worked as an instructor on the F-16.

This has to do with institutional knowledge sharing. Germany defenitely doesn't plan to aquire F-16s not to talk of a carrier with catapults.

So I expect that at any given time several UK pilots are engaged in such US exchange programs as well. That they now send additional guys onto the carriers might very well be because of what Bonza said. To gain knowledge in big carrier operationsbefore the QEs come online.

 

[Marsh]

That does sound like the most sensible answer. Was not aware that there were Luftwaffe carrier qualified pilots

 

[riksavage]

That does sound like the most sensible answer. Was not aware that there were Luftwaffe carrier qualified pilots

The RN is desperate for the Carriers, if the F35B programme blows-out on cost then the default back-up plan is to buy Super Hornet. Rumour mill (press) claims billions can be saved over the fleets service life by opting for SH over F35B, which sort of negates all the arguments about lack of weapon standardization and cat and trap problems (steam vs. EMCAT). For this reason sending RAF / FAA pilots to train in the US on SH makes absolute sense - hedge your bets and speed up integration time by developing tactics early in the game. If Rafale was the default back-up option we would be reading about sizable numbers of pilots arriving in France for cross-training.

The QE's were ordered in time of plenty, now the UK's skint, to justify the vessels size/potential they must have credible CAP/CAS aircraft to fly from them to avoid the white elephant label. Alternatively cancel both and follow the Italian example and invested in a couple of super-sized Invincible Class types complete with well-dock.

 

[swerve]

Alternatively cancel both and follow the Italian example and invested in a couple of super-sized Invincible Class types complete with well-dock.

That isn't the Italian example. That's what the Italians considered, & rejected. Cavour does not have a dock.

The Italians are, however, intending (money permitting) to follow the Spanish example, & build an LHD with ski-jump, able to cover for Cavour when she's in refit.