UK to have degraded air-defense capability with the F-35

Since the start of the UK signing on to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program years ago, it was briefed that one of the weapons to be cleared for internal carry by the end of systems development and demonstration (SDD) phase with UK jets was the ASRAAM AIM-132 air-to-air missile.

Now, according to a briefing by program officials earlier this year, it seems that the AIM-132 will only be cleared for outside carry--the non-stealth mode--by the end of SDD.

There have been other degraded affects with the AIM-132 and UK F-35. Back in 2008, program officials announced that it was just too much work to clear the AIM-132 for carry on internal air-to-ground hard-points. In each of the F-35's two internal weapon's bays you have one hard-point which can hold either an air-to-ground weapon or an air-to-air weapon. One door from each of the two bays can also hold an air-to-air missile. This gives the potential for the F-35 to carry 4 air-to-air missiles internally.

Originally the UK expected to have the ability to carry 4 AIM-132s internally; 2 for each weapons bay. With the 2008 announcement, that left the UK with 2 internal carry AIM-132s (hung on the internal part of one of the weapons bay doors) and the other two would be carried externally. In 2008 it was passed off that the external carry would be with low-observable hard-points to carry the missile but program officials have already stated that if you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy.

A March 2012 briefing now shows no internal carry of the AIM-132 for the end of SDD.



Compare that to this 2009 slide (from a Lockheed Martin 2010 briefing) which reflects what has been briefed for years in relation weapons cleared by the end of SDD. Those weapons with pink text labels.

Ignore the pink on the external fuel tanks. That went away in 2006 when trying to figure out stores separation became too troublesome. Note that the 2012 brief still assumes the UK will have the F-35C. This is no longer so. They are back to the F-35B.

The 2012 brief also has some interesting items about schedule best left for another post.

It will be interesting to see how program officials respond to the idea that the UK just recently said good-bye to internal carry of the AIM-132. An industry observer and military aerospace engineer not attached to the program put forth some possibilities:

ASRAAM is a rail launched weapon so the body is likely not designed to take the loads of an ejection and the exhaust would burn the beejeesus out of the weapon bay, with exhaust plume byproducts being blasted into the bay and onto everything in its flight path, like the EOTS sapphire window.

Then there is the under fuselage crossing angle issue with a rail launch from the door station which would somewhat seriously hinder simultaneous or closely spaced dual launches to consider.

Most likely too, it was yet another case of the PowerPoint not matching engineering reality. Quite normal for this program. Woe to the U.K.

So what does that leave the UK with? AMRAAM. However that has its own trouble with production reliability considering the 2-year-old motor problem and overly optimistic probability-of-kill claims against high-end targets.

The U.K. is currently running a going-out-of-business sale with the military. How the F-35 will help any improvement in their combat capability is a large question.

It may be possible to see weapons clearance options catch up after SDD. However the way the program is struggling, that is the least of the worries for the F-35 faithful who are trying to keep the cause alive.

UK MOD shouting past the graveyard with the F-35

Maybe U.K. MOD officials need to have a chat with the U.S. chairs of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) in regard to their findings on F-35B STOVL progress.

What we have here is stock and trade regurgitation of Lockheed Martin talking points via, a clueless U.S. DOD boss, Mr. Panetta who is acting more like a seller of the F-35, instead of being a helpful counsel to a valuable ally.

Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, poured scorn on concerns over the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme on Wednesday comparing an official US government audit into the embattled fighter jet to a “home buyer’s survey” that could be safely ignored.

I would wonder if there is anyone left in the MOD that has the skill to do proper military engineering studies? Below is the top analytical statement. Faith-based and dangerous.

“Maybe some of the sceptics will change their minds when they see it fly.”

You mean...like this?

I wonder how that kind of attitude works with these guys?



If you take some time and look at the trade-press and various sites over the past few weeks, you will see a surge in F-35 marketing spin.

All for an obsolete-to-the-threat, troubled and overly expensive aircraft.

Royal Navy--betrayed

The U.K. MOD remains committed to the troubled F-35B short take-off and landing (STOVL) strike-fighter.

That is until it becomes known that it could be dumped. Interesting when you fire so many people in the MOD, hardly anyone is left in the military that wants to cheerlead for you.

Maybe the UK MOD F-35 fan-base need a senior communications advisor to help get the word out to the public.

Taxpayer funded of course.

F-35C not compatible with French carrier

Besides what I tweeted on the right, note that the UK thinks that if they go with the F-35C, it won't be compatible with the French aircraft carrier.

A reassessment of the programme, ordered by the Prime Minister, found the F35C would only provide one operable carrier, rather than two, and would carry an extra cost of up to £1.8billion, the Times reported. The review also found the programme would not be compatible with France's aircraft carrier and the new vessel would not be likely to come into service until 2025.

EMALS, critical to F-35C success in the U.S. Navy? Oh wait. Someone has to prove that you can trap an F-35C.

Tanker problem for RAF

The UK MOD has a air-refueling tanker problem. It seems that the hardware involved is having trouble passing gas to RAF Tornados.

I suspect the problem is fixable. More interesting in the article is the lease for 14 converted Airbus A330s for $16.7B (USD).

Leases are in some ways like rentals. It would be interesting to see the terms of the lease in detail.

At first look, acquisition of 14 tankers would be less. However budgets (especially a death-hospice MOD budget environment) are all about what colors of money you can spend at different times.

In that case, I wonder if a civilian contractor could do it better cheaper?

UK air-refuelling requirements are almost all hose-and-drogue. Interesting as I would have thought getting the C-17 and used Rivet Joints would get in the way of all this.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know, the RAF's A330s will not be fitted with a boom system.

UPDATE--UK carrier project will end up being helicopter capable only

The UK Parliament and MOD seem to be hopeless at decision making over their large aircraft carrier project.

This project was supposed to deliver 2 carriers that would launch and recover F-35 STOVL aircraft. Now, Parliament and the MOD dither. They cannot determine to go with the F-35B or the carrier version F-35C.

The first thing to consider is why did they go with the F-35C two years ago? The reason is that the F-35B STOVL was riddled with techical problems. So much so, that they thought it would be cancelled.

Things haven't changed much. The F-35B is still at high risk of never being operationally capable.

The U.K. now claims that converting the carriers to a conventional conviguration with catipults and wires to take the F-35C (or other carrier aircraft) will be too expensive. Well, duh. There was no way to have zero cost increase on the carriers when adding additional appliances that were not in the original plan.

After making their decision to go with the F-35C, a potential show stopper appeared. A rolling hook and wire test in 2011 with the F-35C failed. Unless this is solved, the F-35C will not be able to land on ships. The U.K. will not have full confirmation of this until the F-35C does cat-shots and traps on a real carrier.

One of the major problems with the F-35 program is that the STOVL variant is the driver in the whole project.

For example, The F-35A and F-35C carry around 2000 pounds in dead weight in the F135 motor. The goal of the program is to have one motor design with three sub-variants; One for the A, B and C. So the priority is to design a STOVL motor that can be stripped to run in conventional aircraft. Extra, dead weight is the result for the A and C.

And how much does the STOVL motor with all of its lift fan appliances weight?

About this much.

A STOVL design is also very different on its center-of-gravity requirements to safely fly. Different enough as to cause issues with the F-35A and C.

Other airframe compromises in the F-35 program have left the design with paper-thin weight margins for all variants.

The F-35 program is in serious trouble.

So, along with mothballing one of the carriers as soon as it is built, the Royal Navy will end up with a very nice helicopter carrier.

For a defense budget that is in dire trouble, this is about all the country can afford. They are not in the league of defense budgets that can pay to run carrier ops.

UPDATE-

Secret correspondence seen by The Mail on Sunday shows that senior defence officials knew the move was likely to prove controversial, and they urged officials to stonewall awkward questions from the media.

MOD and UK leadership don't know half of the problem

Wait until the dummies in the MOD find out that neither variant of the F-35 is a good idea.

They will end up with 2 over-priced helicopter carriers.

U.K. still short of some facts on the F-35 decision

Canada will host a meeting on F-35 woes.

It would be helpful though if some of the people show up with some facts. If this is what the UK JSF partner knows about F-35 cost increase, then they are not well informed.

Some facts to add to the article.

1. The F-35 is rising in cost because of senior program management incompetence (both the JPO and LM) and significant technical defects.
2. The U.K, has received an F-35 but it is the wrong kind; a mistake-jet B instead of a mistake-jet C.
3. 2016 is overly optimistic since it is unlikely a lot of the technical defects will be fixed by then. Add to that, they won't get Block 3f software. One would hope they have the TR-2 hardware working by that time because without it, Block 3f software will not function. Why would anyone want to order an incomplete and faulty aircraft that is this expensive?
4. At this time, the F-35C which is what the U.K., now wants, has a major defect in the hook placement on the airframe which may keep it from trapping. The U.K. should not go forward on any F-35 decision until this fix appears.
5. The U.K stating that they will be able to afford less F-35s is already known. This was assumed when their original projection dropped from 150 down to: a handful in the MOD budget massacre.
6. The pilot training program is still grounded. A wait and see on this, before ordering mistake-jets used for “training” would be prudent.

So, if none of that is considered by the U.K at the Canadian meeting, they might as well not show up at all.

Solutions

MOD's £38b 'black hole' almost balanced

Now that there is little left. In order to save the village, we had to destroy it?

The U.K. should have traded

BK-1 is out.

Looks like the previous proposal for the U.S. to trade BK-1 to the USMC failed. The trade idea was hatched when the U.K. dumped the F-35B STOVL (138 orders previously 150) in favor of the carrier F-35C variant.

They should have traded.

BK-1 will need a wing fix; a bulkhead fix and who knows how many other mistake-jet fixes.