The F-35 Lightning II has proved highly controversial since the program’s conception in the 1990s. There are still those in the UK who would be happy to see the back of it, but the arguments in favour of the aircraft that is an essential part of the RN’s future are overwhelming.
The F35 has problems, all aircraft have problems
The scope of the project is incredibly ambitious; producing a 5th generation, multi-role aircraft to replace many different aircraft types and meet the needs of multiple international partners was always going to be costly and technically demanding. The F-35 has attracted an army of critics, including President-elect Donald Trump, calling for its cancellation during his election campaign, even as the aircraft is coming into service. The F35 hate mob, armed with half-truths and simplistic alternatives can be found across the internet, and their influence extends to high places. As a complex, multi-faceted project, it does not sit well with those who want to live in a world of easy-to-understand, quick solutions and sound bites. Every aircraft design project has to overcome unexpected hurdles. Innovating at the cutting edge will always involve risk.
During the development of the much-admired F-15 (In production for 45 years and over 1,200 built), it was continually criticised as too big, too complicated and too expensive. Many very successful aircraft designs experienced major issues along the way but the discussion was mostly confined to aviation experts and specialist analysts. In contrast, today’s online world allows the detail of F-35’s problems to be quickly put in the public domain and subject to the instant judgement of anyone with an internet connection.
It is undeniable that the F-35 is late, around seven years behind the original schedule and the price is approximately double that quoted in 1997. There have been mistakes in the program and a ‘conspiracy of optimism’ in the early days that has been a regular feature of many UK and US defence projects. Because of the scale and ambition of the project, failures are inevitably magnified. Those who still advocate axing the F-35 entirely fail to explain how it could be replaced more cheaply. Billions of dollars have already been spent on three decades of research, development and manufacture. It would be madness to throw that away. The entire lifetime cost of the F-35 will supposedly be around $1.5 Trillion dollars which seems staggering, but replacing each of the 4th generation aircraft designs in the US inventory, is estimated at $3 Trillion. Unfortunately, some of the expected cost savings through large-scale production has been more than offset by growth in development cost. The F-35 will never be cheap, but the unit costs are falling and will continue to fall, to date more than 220 aircraft have been built, already making it the most numerous 5th generation aircraft in exitance. The predicted cost-death spiral has not materialised with international partners sticking with the project, even cash-strapped Britain intends to buy 138 eventually.
The latest report from the Pentagon on the F-35 project highlights significant on-going problems. Most notably the Block 3F software which is critical to many of the aircraft’s capabilities will not be ready until 2018. There are also a variety of other issues with the Automated Logistics System, the new pilot’s helmet and the safety of the ejector seat. These are serious concerns, but with at least 11 nations buying more than 3,000 aircraft, it is too big to be allowed to fail, there is such momentum and finance behind it that the problems will eventually be solved. This situation is not ideal but the RN does not expect to deploy HMS Queen Elizabeth operationally until at least 2021 by which time more of the F-35’s issues will have been fixed. Aircraft are operating under some restrictions and is far from full its full potential, but the US Marines already have enough confidence in its ability to forward-deploy F-35Bs to Japan in 2017.
A networked aircraft for a networked age
The majority of the critics of the F-35 have limited aviation experience or are retired pilots who flew 3rd or 4th generation aircraft. The F-35 is not just an upgrade on earlier aircraft, but is conceptually quite different, drawing its greatest strength from its situational awareness. The older generation may question its close-range dogfighting capability, but it will be very hard to kill an F-35 when it can see you in any direction at great distances, while itself almost invisible to radar. It can manoeuvre hard, but shouldn’t need to. Early beyond-visual-range missiles were unreliable, so all good fighter pilots believed in having an aircraft and the skill for the dogfights that were inevitable. Radar and missile technology has moved on to the point where the F-35 pilot can reliably expect to engage the enemy from a distance almost every time.
If recent history is a guide, the F-35 will probably spend more time on strike missions than in air-air combat. Its situational awareness, stealth and networking capabilities will make it exceptionally capable and its mere presence will act as a significant deterrent. The perception that F-35B is just an upgraded Harrier is entirely wrong. Vastly superior to the Harrier, its has longer range, is supersonic and can penetrate advanced air defence systems which the Harrier could never have contemplated. Even when only a handful of F-35s are embarked aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, the RN will have a step-change in capability that can even mitigate for some of the weaknesses in its undersized fleet. Effectively a flying networked ‘data node’, the aircraft can not only fight but share intelligence and vast amounts of sensor data with ships and other aircraft. By buying into a massive international program, the RN will benefit from interoperability with the US and other NATO allies. Its potential will still be being expanded into the 2030s and 40s as new software and weapons are developed.
Royal Navy CATOBAR is dead, long live VSTOL
There is no question that a conventional aircraft carrier (CATOBAR) with catapults and arrestor gear would be more flexible and powerful than the Vertical Short Take Off and Landing (VSTOL) configuration of the QEC. CATOBAR offers the ability to operate a much greater variety of aircraft than just helicopters and the F-35B.
Unfortunately, the cost of building and maintaining a conventional carrier is beyond the inadequate resources government is willing to provide the RN.
With more money and more time, pinning the success of the QEC project on the F35-B could have been avoided. Although we could have purchased F-18 Super Hornets much more cheaply than the F-35, the F-18 will look out of date in 10-15 years while the F-35 is a generation ahead. As a Tier-1 partner, the UK has a significant financial stake in the F-35 project, worth around £1Bn a year to the British economy and sustaining around 24,000 jobs, a fact that government just cannot ignore. Alternative imported carrier aircraft such as the Super Hornet or Rafale would have no such benefit.
Many believe that the costs quoted by BAE Systems in 2012 for fitting EMALS (Electromagnetic launch system developed by the US Navy) were inflated as it was not in their commercial interest to allow anything but F-35B to fly from the QEC. The US Navy was even willing to subsidise the cost of EMALS to some extent. What is certain is that 2010 CATOBAR plan was adding costs and significant further delays to the QEC program. In 2017 the RN budget is still stretched to breaking point, the pound is weak against the dollar and the US Navy having teething problems with the EMALS, while at the same time F-35B has achieved Initial Operating Capability with the US Marines. CATOBAR operations require more manpower, involved greater complexity and more training. Against this background, it looks sensible for the UK to have compromised on the VSTOL concept, at least in the short-medium term. Only the unlikely prospect of Donald Trump cancelling the F35 puts this at risk.
Trump won’t cancel the F-35
Axing the F-35 would have a worldwide impact on the defence planning of many US-aligned nations. Trump may be rather less bothered about international partnerships than his predecessors but fortunately, from a NATO and UK perspective, the appointment of hardened US Marine Corp veteran James Mattis as his defence secretary, seems to indicate the F-35B at least will be safe. The USMC has bet the farm on the aircraft and Mattis is a big supporter. Trump campaigned on a platform of protecting American workers. Around 150,000 US jobs depend on the F-35, Trump would have a hard time explaining why he was making thousands redundant. As Trump seems to be more of a businessman than a politician, he may ultimately see the bottom line is that it will cost more to cancel F-35, than continue. His actions may at least help drive down the price by forcing Lockheed Martin to reduce their profit margin and find further efficiencies.
The F-35C is probably the most vulnerable of the variants. The US Navy has never been as enthusiastic about the aircraft as the Airforce or Marines, and the C variant is having the most development problems. Lobbying by Boeing and delays to the F-35 has kept the F-18 Super Hornet production lines open. In 2013 Boeing revealed the Advanced Super Hornet concept with new engines, radar, conformal fuel tanks and a more stealthy design. Although an evolved 4th generation aircraft, lacking real stealth/low observability characteristics, it would offer maybe 70% of the F35’s capabilities at 50% of the cost. Perhaps a compromise will be reached where Trump shows he delivered something by axing the F-35C and the US Navy is content to get the cheaper Advanced Super Hornet instead.
On 11th January 2017 Trump rather optimistically stated “we’re going to do some big things on the F-35 program and perhaps the F-18 program. And we’re going to get those costs way down, and we’re gonna get the plane even better, and we’re going to have to competition. And it’s going to be a beautiful thing.”
-
US Marine Corps F-35Bs transit the Pacific from Yuma, Arizona to be forward-deployed at Iwakuni, Japan -
Four F-35Bs perform a flyover above the amphibious assault ship USS America during the Lightning Carrier Proof of Concept Demonstration, November 2016 (US Navy photo) -
Boeing’s Advanced F-18 Super Hornet concept demonstration aircraft seen in 2013 -
CGI of F-35B on take off from HMS Queen Elizabeth. The first real F-35 will fly from the ship sometime in late 2018 .
VSTOL is the now only realistic option for the RN and accepting that means accepting the F35-B is the only credible fixed wing aircraft choice. Any change to this plan would be unaffordable with the current defence budget and would involve delays measured in years. It is pretty safe to predict that F-35Bs will continue to be delivered to the UK, albeit more slowly than everyone would like. It is also safe to say that the introduction into service will see more problems emerge but they will be overcome. In the next decade, we should expect the aircraft’s negative reputation to recover as it fulfils its potential. Ultimately the F-35B Lightning II and the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers will give the UK a very powerful tool of foreign policy.
Related articles
- Have the armchair F-35 critics got it all wrong? (Save the Royal Navy)
- F-35 ‘Not Out Of Control’: Prices Drop 5.5% For F-35A (Breakingdefense.com)
- Trump Again Hints at F-35, F-18 Competition (Defence News)
- Boeing resumes Advanced Super Hornet push as US Navy considers fleet size (FlightGlobal)
- F35B – The Right Stuff? (Bring back the Harrier blog)
The P1127 first flew 1961. Its direct successor, the Sea Harrier first engaged in combat 1982. Naval aircraft derivatives take time to come to fruition.
The 1127 was designed to prove the concept of VTOL, it was never prototype of a production aircraft.
The P1154 which never passed the design stage was to be the production VTOL aircraft of it’s age.
The F35 was designed to be a production aircraft from the get go a very different concept from the P1127 in other words the comparison has no resemblance.
By the time, if ever, the F35 becomes operational some twenty years will have passed and with it twenty years of progressive technology.
In other words the F35 will be obsolete before it becomes operational.
The sad thing about many modern weapons systems is that the production costs include a huge amount of promotional advertising trying to promote weapons , that if used, would destroy humanity as we know it.
Yes we need to ‘defend’ ourselves but outdated aircraft carriers and first strike aircraft such s the F35 will do nothing to help.
How expensive would replacing the current ramp on the QEC Carriers with Cats and Traps be?
Also, are F-35Bs able to be directly converted into the C variant or would one have to purchase a whole new batch?
The web has many varying estimates, anything from £400m to up to £2bn (just for the Prince of Wales).
There is a lot differing between the B’s & C’s…. different wing, different engine, differeing landing gear, different sized weapons bay & fuel tanks….. .
If one was of a mind do, just buying new ‘C’s would probably be best.
Not only is it a case of different wing, engine etc, it’s also a case of a completely different body.
The F-35C is longer and wider than a B, so it’s not even like you can strip out the internals of a B and replace them with a C’s internals.
It would be all but impossible to refit QE with cats and traps now. She is basically finished, except her interior fitting out.
The PW could probably be converted, but it would require a complete redisign, and would be considered a new class of ship. The cost would be prohibitive. This means of course, that the RN is committed to the F-35 B.
Sad to say that is the issue, the F35 and the new carrier’s are linked at the hip. If F35 fails those carrier’s are gonna be scrapped and its gonna be anot her nail in the Navy’s coffin. If they had been built with cats and traps at least their would be other options.
Regretfully, as of Feb 2018, the USN’s new tech. Cats & Taps, as installed on their Ford class carrier, has still to be finally signed of as fit for purpose. Their ” CONCURRENCY” Programming disaster still has a nasty sting in it’s tail.
It is the right choice but will be constrained by its more limited range.
Lightnings cannot ‘buddy-refuel’….. The UK should consider purchasing some V-22 Ospreys to perform tanker duties.
(Or perhaps the MOD are hedging that these vessels will be primarily a strike platform used in conjunction with the US so they can bring along their Ospreys?)
Ospreys are pretty high up the RN procurement wish-list. We will get some in the 2020s I am confident; even though they are expensive they have only been in service since 2008 and are really useful.
They should use the V22 not only for refuel but potentially as AEW – the crowsnest whilst being an adequate AEW has severe range and height limitations
To reach its full potential inflight refuelling is a must and a real force multiplier . Hopefully the RN can somehow rustle up a few Ospreys for this .
Some of their presentations have Ospreys included so they must be subtlety or not so subtlety pushing their case for them.
It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the USN could be persuaded to replace the F35c with a combination of F35bs and F18s. The B’s limited range would obviously be an issue, but they already have re-fueling capability which they are looking to improve with the introduction of UAVs for the purpose.
One of the worst things that can in foreign policy is having a capital ship sunk,especially if you have only effectively got one.
I think the QE Class could still be equipped with the Traps part of the equation. The logic behind this you see in the Indian, Chinese and Russian carriers. Fitting Cats was always going to be a lot more problematic.
In the case of the RN it would allow that huge flight deck to receive carrier aircraft from USN and French navy in extremis and also future RN naval drones of varying types.
In the not so distant future it is reasonable to assume swarms of drones may accompany F35’s on various missions; hence the requirement for operating these aircraft. (They may need less powerful or no Cats due to light weight.)
I agree that the F35b’s is the only and best option and since like the Harrier it can operate from numerous suitably equipped naval ships or shore locations it has a special place for a medium sized power like the UK.
I agree with most of what you say and I know people are gonna say my god but it surely makes sense to build a 3rd carrier a new class fitted with cats and traps. It’s always been true that 2 ships of any class is not enough as it doesn’t allow for maintenance and losses. In the event of nessesity then the carrier’s could then operate in fleet pairs with the cat and trap operating ship providing refueling and Away cover etc. I know lots of armchair sailor’s have a opinion but that’s because we have the Navy in our heart and we want the best Navy in the world even if we can’t afford the biggest. I just feel it’s better to spend the extra for another carrier and have something that we can rely on rather than waste everything and have half a Navy.
I think a lot of people would wholeheartedly agree with you, however, unfortunately there isn’t the money – and i don’t mean there is the money but they don’t want to spend it, I mean there literally isn’t the money for it at all. I think significantly more should be spent on the Navy but I just have no Idea where we would get/take that money from.
Unfortunately the article falls into the trap of labelling any critic of the program as a hater or ignoramus, which puzzles me.
Why would someone hate an aircraft? All are defined by performance and cost, it isn’t irrational to expect a fantastically expensive aircraft to have excellent performance however both in program and aircraft terms the F-35 does fall short. Also a RAND study recently fairly categorically stated that designing individual aircraft would have been cheaper than the one F-35 to fulfill multiple roles. Hence I’m not sure what the source for $3 trillion is.
LM doesn’t help itself with it’s publicity. Sensor fusion and the information quarterback might be good PR, except that the latest report shows they don’t work. Along with many other trumpeted technologies such as EOTS which it appears is sub par compared to legacy targeting pods.
I’d also question whether it is going to be a supersonic capable aircraft, or rather whether it will ever be able to carry Amraams at even transonic speeds as the vibration within the weapons bays is extreme enough to damage them above 550 knots. This would likely need a redesign to correct. Also the transonic performance is likely to be limited as currently airframes often exceed their G limits in unpredictable ways.
The F-35B in particular is already overweight with more weight needing to be added which does raise questions about it’s bringback capability. Particularly in bad weather or once the engines have lost a few horses.
Some of the problems are correctable, some likely are not. As the report in the house of commons library noted we don’t know the final price or capability of the F-35. The latest testing report though does make grim reading. A mission ready rate of 21% ( and has been as low as 14% for the F-35B) is unacceptable, the report even goes as far as to almost explicitly state that it will fail operational test and evaluation and that at least 14 contractual performance characteristics will not be met.
For an aircraft that first flew over a decade ago and with 200 examples flying this doesn’t breed confidence. It is also considered red, or unacceptable, in all of it’s mission roles currently, some of these deficiencies are not due to software glitches or relatively easily correctable fixes.
It certainly polarises opinion, personally I could argue both sides and often do though I’m not convinced that a one eyed acceptance of sales brochures and LM PR really helps matters. All weapons systems should be dispassionately analysed for cost and capability.
With BAEs involvement and the design of the QEs there is no other choice but that shouldn’t blind us to the aircraft’s shortcomings.
What are we gonna do with these carrier’s if F35 is cancelled by Trump ? Will they be scrapped or just turned into giant commando carrier’s?
The F-35 B is not going away. The USMC already has thier first squadron forward deployed in Japan. More squadrons are starting the transition right now. The RN is training with the USN , and have been for quite a while. Fear not the B model is going nowhere.
It wont happen, but theoretically if it did, people talk about scrapping them like its something worth considering…. I really don’t understand this, we really need aircraft carriers, they would convert them to CATOBAR or the EM version and use a different aircraft type (possible the F18 super hornets). While this would be expensive and time consuming, it would be faaaaaar cheaper and quicker than building new aircraft carriers for absolutely no reason.
Considering that even the USA is re considering the building of the VSTOL F35 due to huge extra complexity and cost where does that leave the RN?
What a bloody farce!
For all its problems the F-35 (even the B), will not be canceled. The USMC has its entire aviation future tied up in the programe. If they dont get the B, they would again be reliant apon the USAF to provide almost all their air support. They will eat their own feet before they let that happen again. Also retrofitting cats & traps to the America class would be hugley expensive, eating almost any savings the marine core could gain from canceling the B. They only have a few squadrons of Hornets which fly from carriers so they need a STOVL replacment for the Harrier and the B is the only game in town. It does have some big issues to overcome but by the time CVF is deploying most or even all of these should be corrected. When we get the bugger to work properly , it will be a game changer. The danger as far as I can see, to the UK at least is will we actually send our aircraft back to have all the upgrades required due to concurent development fitted or decide its to costly and end up with aircraft that are lacking critical capabilities and software upgrades.
I can see that in the end someone is going to cancel the whole thing sadly too many eggs have been put in one basket and the basket is about to be dropped.
It’s the only choice because the Royal Navy made design decisions for the Queen Elizabeth class FORCING it to be the only choice. Excluding cats and traps from the design in a myopic attempt to reduce short-term costs at the expense of long-term capability has locked in the F-35B is as the only fighter they’re CAPABLE of fielding.
https://southfront.org/israel-hiding-state-art-f-35-warplane-hit-syrian-s-200-missile-reports/
Was F-35 engaged?
Surely one of the main advantages of the F35B to the RN carriers, not mentioned, was it’s ability to carry out both Short take offs and Rolling Landings i.e. STVRL with VSTOL being virtually relogated to stand by status. This being one of the main reasons that the QE flight decks are so large (4 acreas) so as enable/facilitate air wing strike missions with fast sortie rates. In other words both the F35B and the QE class carriers were actually designed and built for each other from the start.