CVF - News update [Archive]

althenick

28th Feb 2005, 13:33

Click Here (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/). To view the complete document.

As i'm sure WEBF and Navaleye would testify this guy has his finger pretty much on all aspects of the RN. I know all you PPruners out there probably think that this is not the place for dicussing the RN Surface fleet but since these ships are seen as 'Joint Force Platforms' I think that a couple of points are worthy of discussion here.

Even the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, seems to be losing patience with the ever lengthening delays, he is quoted in a recent interview with International Fleet Review magazine as saying: “The key ... is to get the the order for the new carriers in place. We need to order the carriers and start cutting steel. There have been statements from Ministers to the effect hat they will be ordered and it is Government policy to build them. Even so we have still not got there. ... There is is no doubt that we have taken some hits on the current fleet in order to enable that to happen. The structure we are creating which includes cuts in the short term. does not make sense without the new carriers." If he's saying that in public, there can be little doubt of the battles being fought by the Royal Navy within the portals of the MOD to finally get CVF funded and approved.

This man is obviously trying to get the Government to sign the contract before he retires. Quite understandable considering he lost his ship to air attack during the Falklands campaign. But who will be his successor? And will they be as pro-carrier?

There are also persistent reports that the MOD is seriously considering completing the new carriers in a conventional (CTOL) configuration with catapults and arresting gear, carrying E-2 Hawkeye's and F-35C JSF's. The additional costs for the carrier platform would be met by savings realised by switching from the F-35B to the F-35C, unfortunately its unclear exactly what these savings would be!

...Now if this is the case then how will this affect JFH? Will FOAS become an extension of JCA? Will the E2's become part of a joint AEW Force with the RAF's AWAC's fleet. Would there then be any commonality of equipment and/or training and working doctrine within these seperate communities?

totalwar

28th Feb 2005, 13:35

Great news..... as soon as the steel gets cut we can truly celebrate.

I know all you PPruners out there probably think that this is not the place for dicussing the RN Surface fleet Not true matey...this is exactly the place to talk about Surface ships.... If the Crabs can discuss their airfields then we can discuss ours.....just coz ours isn't in the same position it was when you left it doesn't make us second class.

SmilingKnifed

28th Feb 2005, 13:39

I've a feeling we can keep the champagne on ice for a while. :ugh:

LowObservable

28th Feb 2005, 14:02

The interest in the F-35C is understandable. Even with panic weight reduction measures in place, the F-35B cannot recover vertically, sea level, tropical day, with more than two 1,000 pound JDAMS and two AMRAAMs. That's the Key Performance Parameter and it is barely squeaking through as it is. So forget carrying Storm Shadow.

The F-35C also has much better range than the F-35B, since it has a honking big fuel tank where the F-35B keeps its lift fan.

Going cat/arrest also solves the AEW problem, since the USN is paying for Advanced Hawkeye.

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Feb 2005, 14:50

Let me be the first to say.........see the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152).

airborne_artist

28th Feb 2005, 14:58

just coz ours isn't in the same position it was when you left it doesn't make us second class

It makes it/them that much more flexible as you can move it to where the next party is/the girls are bonnier/the natives are more restless/closer to the action without the need/wait for the Rental Air Farce gas tanker to arrive.

You'd have thought that Trust-Me would have worked out that CVF was just the platform for his come-as-you-are expeditionary warfare.

Vapour

28th Feb 2005, 15:26

Even the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, seems to be losing patience with the ever lengthening delays
I'm not surprised he's losing patience. 1SL has bet the farm on getting CV(F). That's the main reason he's allowed so many cuts in our surface ships and subamrines. For the carriers to be cancelled after losing so many vessels would be a disaster for the Navy.

Vapour.

ORAC

28th Feb 2005, 15:42

One of the advantages given for STOVL was the ease of conversion for RAF pilots to operate from the CVF and the limited currency training needed. The CTOL version will need a longer training period and very regular currency training. I am not sure it would even be possible taking into account the periods where either the CVF or RAF squadrons would not be within range due to detatchments/deployment.

It would raise the issue of the viability of the whole JFH concept.

FJJP

28th Feb 2005, 15:48

Guys, I'm ex-light blue with much contact with the dark blue throughout my career of nearly 40 years. I suggest this is the place to put our differences aside when discussing such serious topics as the future effectiveness of our Armed Forces - attitudes such as those displayed by the likes of Sharkey Ward belong in the dark ages.

Like it or not, jointery is here to stay, the way of working in the future. And rightly so.

So can we keep inter-Service rivalry/banter to the more light-hearted topics?

Navaleye

28th Feb 2005, 16:25

Thanks for the info, I will post on the Sea Jet thread for continuitity reasons. Here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1770187#post1770187)

TC27

28th Feb 2005, 16:37

I never understood the reason for going for the B version anyway, the C version offers so much more, if we are building a carrier capable of operating CTOL aircraft why settle for anything less?

delta96

28th Feb 2005, 16:49

Wouldn't one great advantage of STOVL over CTOL be lost, that of recovery in near-zero viz? I'm reminded of a passage in the aforementioned Sharkey Ward's book in the Falklands. And I recall he had some nice things to say about the crabs he flew with.

Magic Mushroom

28th Feb 2005, 19:04

Ref the E-2C argument,
It would be great to see CVF toting a decent airborne C2 platform such as Hawkeye 2000 or an Osprey variant.

By the time CVF will realistically come into service, the RAF E-3D fleet should (hopefully!) have been subject to a mid life upgrade (Project EAGLE). This should replace it's archaic 1970's computer systems with a modern Battle Management system. Accordingly, it may be able to dovetail some elements of mission systems to obtain commonality with MASC.

Even allowing for improvements offered by the Hawkeye 2000 however, the E-2 is more complimentary to AWACS than an interchangeable asset. This is due to it's small crew, limited radio fit, ceiling and endurance. It also has several other limitations. AAR could possibly cure the endurance issue, but the others are difficult to address. That said, it's still a very useful bit of kit and the ac that the RN should aspire to (if only because it'll cause the CVF design to be frozen at a useful deck size!).

Regrettably however, I would be very surprised if MASC turns out to be anything more than a Merlin with an updated ASaC7 system inside (hopefully including a missionised co-pilot position). This would overcome some of the limitations of the current Sea King, but a rotary wing MASC would be of questionable use when one considers how CVF is hoped to be employed. Certainly, the 849 guys that I've spoken to have all accepted that there is just not the cash for a fixed wing or Osprey based platform. The E-2 is still a very costly asset, and any system integration in Osprey would mean paying for the platform to be pressurised and have all the systems integration.

We can but hope however...

Regards,
M2

airborne_artist

28th Feb 2005, 19:25

For the carriers to be cancelled after losing so many vessels would be a disaster for the Navy.

If CVF is cancelled the only decent thing to do would be to re-name it HM Coastguard.

TC27

28th Feb 2005, 20:42

Magic Mushroom, I wouldnt be surprised to see a UCAV solution.

sumps

28th Feb 2005, 21:07

So could this be the future shape of the Fleet Air Arm?...Boat + Plane = (http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/articles/float.htm) ;)
For the Tech spec check out the file c130fp.zip at the bottom of the page. :ok:

Magic Mushroom

28th Feb 2005, 21:25

TC27,
That may be an option; by 2015ish UAV technology will be more mature. There was even a plan to place 2 phased arrays on the outboard pylons of a SHAR to provide AEW!! I bet that would have been about as popular with the SHAR boys as AAR is with the Super Hornet dudes!!

However, the big issue with UAVs is bandwidth and the risk of losing connectivity. At least when you have guys on board, they can go autonomous. From that respect alone, I suspect that 849 would rather keep a rotary platform rather than go for the unmanned (personed?) option.

Regards,
M2

althenick

28th Feb 2005, 21:51

Taken from Richard Beedal's excellent website...

In practice its unlikely that the F-35 target unit costs will be fully met, for example the GAO estimates they will be exceeded by 47-51%, depending on the variant. The CBO believes that the likely unit procurement costs are $65 million for the CTOL version and about $77 million for the other two.

Therefore there is no savings in the unit cost of the CATOBAR Variant of JSF (Apart from maybe the simplification of the airframe due to the lack of fan). And the cost of CVF can only go up with the added cat and trap equipt. Therefore where are these spends going to be clawed back? Commonality of Airframe and support of JCA and FOAS would be a good start. The RAF opting for the 'A' variant would certainly go a long way to streamlining support and training. but over the lifespan of CVF/JSF would the figures even out. Another option would to be to pull out of JCA altogether. The only viable alternatives being Rafale (Unit Cost $70 Million) or more attractively F/18 Super Hornet (Unit cost $48 Million) and if the UK were to go down the E2C route then surely the Hornet would be a far more attractive proposition (Especially to the Bean Counters)

Al

Guys, I\'m ex-light blue with much contact with the dark blue throughout my career of nearly 40 years. I suggest this is the place to put our differences aside when discussing such serious topics as the future effectiveness of our Armed Forces - attitudes such as those displayed by the likes of Sharkey Ward belong in the dark ages

FJJP - Nicely put down before it started (i\'m getting a bit fed up with it myself) But BTW, Sharkey\'s problems were not with his fellow light blue pilots (in the main) but were with the RAF Hierarchy treating him like sh1t on various occasions. (i\'ve read the book 3 times - absolutely fascinating! - I know i\'m a sad g1t ):(

WE Branch Fanatic

1st Mar 2005, 14:12

Another very interesting article by Richard Beedall, which I orginally posted on the Sea Jet thread - MASC (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm).

If the main options are Merlin, Osprey or Hawkeye, and cost rules out the the non helicopter options, then why not consider using a larger helicopter - say a Chinook. I think I'm correct in saying that it has a higher service ceiling than Merlin (even with stub wings), hence a greater radar range, and more room for equipment and crew.

Or am I just being dumb?

ORAC

1st Mar 2005, 15:09

Admiral Sir Alan West: ....There is no doubt that I would like all helicopters marinised, but that costs money, and I do not think we could afford that. For example, things like Chinooks, to go for something like a rotor fold and for us to be the only people in the world doing it, I think, is too great a risk. We cannot afford to take risks like that.

Razor61

1st Mar 2005, 15:56

I can't see the UK splashing out on any type of fixed wing AEW platform for our new CVF's, probably end up having another Helo based system, Merlin/V-22 ASaC, depending on what types are available at that time of course.

althenick

2nd Mar 2005, 09:23

Take a look at this (http://www.sms1835.no/xTEST/faste_arrangement/Ulvikseminar/Ulvik2004/Foredrag/Foredrag%20nr%2005.htm)

Again, another little snippet from the web. written by Eric Grove (I think he did a series on the Royal Navy but can't remember the title) The whole piece makes interesting reading, however one bit strikes me as bizarre (but supports Richard Beedal's statement wrt conventional carriers)

This RAF’s reported advocacy of a large conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) carrier demonstrates the revolution wrought by the application of joint concepts to carrier aviation.

I thought the RAF DIDN'T under any cicumstances want CTOL. Previous reply's on this thread make a lot of sense of this. Keeping aircrew current in Carrier ops etc. So have thier Airships seen the light and are prehaps going to commit more resources to carrier ops? Or is this a ploy to try and prevent the FOAS project being put into jeopardy?

althenick

2nd Mar 2005, 13:11

Jungly,

I don't think the RAF Airships would be foolish enough to try that as cancellation of JSF would also affect them adversely.
The Labour Gov't has too many votes riding on this one and the Tories (if they get elected) Still have enough Military-minded MP's who still remember what happened in the Falklands. I have a feeling there might be a bit of inter party one-upmanship going on. ie who can procurre the best carrier for the RN, as both parties seem to have pretty much the same foriegn policies which as we all know is the main deciding factor on how are forces are organised and equiped (NOT) :mad:

timzsta

2nd Mar 2005, 21:01

Rotary AWACS (that is what it needs to be to support JSF, not simply AEW) is not going to work. Helicopters do not have the speed to get the distance they would need to go in support of a JSF mission. We are talking with JSF of an aircraft with a combat radius in the region of 800nm. Why not try a bigger radar and have it closer to the ship. Don't think that would work either.

So I think somepeople in MoD may have at last realised the above, hence the delay as a rethink is thought about reference conventional launch and recovery - which has been driven not by the JSF but by the AWACS requirement.

It is my own sad opinion is that it is all academic as CVF just wont happen. In the next parliamentary term, according to Adm West at a recent Commons Defence Select Commitee, a replacement for Trident will have to be discussed and put in progress. The defence budget is simply not large enough to support both those projects simultaneously.

No British government would be willing to give up its seat on the Permanent UN security council, but it would be willing to give up carriers - as it has done in the past.

Impiger

2nd Mar 2005, 21:07

Timzsta is dead right. There is simply not enough money in the pot to afford CVF without completely bu''ering the rest of the equipment programme (and not just the Navy's kit). Difficult choices ahead but cancelling CVF to afford a balanced force elsewhere is a no brainer.

ORAC

3rd Mar 2005, 07:24

JSF?

The Guardian:

Europe risks US sanctions over China arms sales

America and Europe were yesterday being drawn ever closer into a trade war after senior US congressman issued a blunt warning to the EU over its plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo on China.

Talking explicitly about how it would retaliate for the first time, Richard Lugar, the powerful republican head of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned that the US would stop sales of military technology to Europe.

His Democratic counterpart, Senator Joseph Biden, warned that the lifting of the ban would be "a non-starter with Congress". Their tough words came after a meeting with President George Bush in the White House......

"Europe can do defence trade with China or it can do defence trade with the US. It can't do both," said Daniel Goure, a Pentagon consultant and a vice president of the Lexington Institute, a military thinktank.

European leaders hope to lift the arms embargo three days after Britain's expected general election on May 5, when the EU holds a meeting with the Chinese leadership........

Widger

26th Oct 2005, 12:59

It's about time this thread was elevated again. If only to kill off WEBFs Sea Jet. In the Torygraph today.

MOD to miss 2012 target for new carriers.

Apparently, according to Lord Drayson, no decision to go ahead with the carriers could be set while "critical" negotiations were under way with private contractors.

What's going on now?...First the threat of delay because of the French, now this. What is so "Critical" at this late stage? BAE want more money?

Pontius Navigator

26th Oct 2005, 16:59

PMFJI, but why would the Navy want AEW and a helicopter based one at that?

AWAC that can keep up with the jets and exercise aircraft control is surely the primary mission. Warning the fleet of an approaching enemy air attack must be lower on the priority list.

If air attack in today's world is likely then the answer is stand further out and use the longer legs of F35C plus tanker etc to extend the reach. If surprise attack is deemed a risk how many AEW helos would be needed to cover the attack sectors for 24 hrs?

southside

26th Oct 2005, 17:34

but why would the Navy want AEW

Because......

HMS SHEFFIELD
HMS COVENTRY

As we move toward the future, we must not neglect the lessons of the past.

Widger

27th Oct 2005, 08:58

Pontius,

the Searchwater 2000 as fitted to the Mk7 Sea King has a much greater role than just AEW. That is why they are now designated ASACS. They also have the ability to support troops on the ground. This role was pioneered during the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula in GWII and utilised in many joint exercises since, such as supporting the Royal Marines during Ex Northern Lights in Norway.

As with most things in the Navy (crap airframe, great kit)!

Widger

27th Oct 2005, 12:06

Letter to the editor in the Torygraph

Mike Critchley has a letter to the editor within the Torygraph today. He states that further reductions in the Fleet must stop, now that ministers have owned up to delays to the CVF.

Why the delay? Why no main gate? Is the programme going to be scrapped? Are BAE asking for more money?

Worrying times!

Posted on here to kill off WEBF's Sea Jet thread!

Rinse Aid

27th Oct 2005, 17:25

according to Adm West at a recent Commons Defence Select Commitee, a replacement for Trident will have to be discussed and put in progress. The defence budget is simply not large enough to support both those projects simultaneously.

There is simply not enough money in the pot to afford CVF without completely bu''ering the rest of the equipment programme (and not just the Navy's kit). Difficult choices ahead but cancelling CVF to afford a balanced force elsewhere is a no brainer.

These statements are both inaccurate. In the top ten list of most expensive procurement projects currently under way, CVF itself is number 11. Astute is number 2. Eurofighter is number 1.

We can definately afford CVF and we can also afford the budgeted 9 billion or so on top of the cost of the hulls for JCF. If we need to delete something to afford the Trident replacement, the only possible motive for deleting CVF would be political.

In the context of expensive procurement projects CVF is one of the cheaper and yet one of the most valuable and flexible assets the UK plans to procure.

Rakshasa

27th Oct 2005, 17:41

I may be biased but I'd much rather see them spend the money on new Tankers and decent Pax jets than on two tubs with flight decks.

Wouldn't another Ocean be more useful?

Widger

27th Oct 2005, 20:53

Rak..Rakasss...Rakahsh...Boyakasha

You miss the point old boy, why fly in such squalor, when you can cruise to your conflict in total luxury, whiling the days and hours away by the pool, content in the silence of life at Sea.

On a serious note. Ocean in comparison is itsy bitsy . We already have enough platforms to support the junglies and booties, what we need now is Strike Power! da da da da da da dad ad ad a da da da (http://65.24.76.65/sounds/movies/topgun/jester.mp3)

Rakshasa

28th Oct 2005, 14:45

But... that's our job....:{ ;)

Seriously though, apart from fleet air defence I can't really think of anything CVF could achieve that a Cruise lobbing sub or Ocean couldn't.

While I admit they're nice to have, I dont think they're as vital as they used to be, unless someone can name a state we're likely to get into a mid ocean carrier battle with in the next 20 years?

Bluntend

28th Oct 2005, 14:55

The way China's economy is rivalling that of the USA, maybe in 20 years or so they'll provide the opportunity for some mid-ocean antics. I hope not but you never know...

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Oct 2005, 18:31

1. See the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) :cool:

2. Wouldn't another Ocean be more useful?

A larger version of Ocean, that can carry and operate V/STOL aircraft (ie JSF) has been suggested in some quarters as an alternnative CVF.

3. Seriously though, apart from fleet air defence I can't really think of anything CVF could achieve that a Cruise lobbing sub or Ocean couldn't.

Close Air Support for troops ashore? Organic Maritime Patrol? Organic AEW/ASACS?

4. I dont think they're as vital as they used to be....

Surely littoral operations make them more vital?

Pontius Navigator

28th Oct 2005, 19:03

I said <<AWAC that can keep up with the jets and exercise aircraft control is surely the primary mission. Warning the fleet of an approaching enemy air attack must be lower on the priority list>>

I did NOT say <<the Searchwater 2000 as fitted to the Mk7 Sea King has a much greater role than just AEW. That is why they are now designated ASACS. They also have the ability to support troops on the ground. This role was pioneered during the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula in GWII and utilised in many joint exercises since, such as supporting the Royal Marines during Ex Northern Lights in Norway.>> was not required or a role. To do this role with FJ control you need an aircraft with the speed and reach to get there.

<<Because...... HMS SHEFFIELD HMS COVENTRY>>
But fixed wing ASACS could do this further out. A 500 mile kill zone is better than 95.

Lyneham Lad

31st Oct 2005, 09:14

In today's Daily Telegraph 'Letters', from Admiral Sir John Woodward:-

Sir - Your article about the Jervis Bay (Arts, October 28) was not simply about the bravery of a single ship and a single man. It was about what I have called for many years the "Jervis Bay syndrome", which drove us all in the Royal Navy.

It is the force that made us put our main armament in the front of the ships, not the rear. It is the force that made us go forward when all our instincts were yelling to go back.

It is the force that makes our ships generally worth any two similar of our enemy's. And it is the force that gave rise to the British sailor's saying: "You shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke."

This week's "joke" is the announcement of an indefinite delay in the ordering of the new aircraft carriers (and presumably their aircraft). When combined with the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier, deployment of a naval expeditionary force against any but the most basic opposition, with no aircraft of its own, becomes the worst kind of joke yet dreamed up by an incompetent government.

I personally could not ask the modern sailor to "go forward" in these circumstances, but no doubt the politicians of the day will do so - from plain ignorance or refusal to face the facts.

Admiral Sir John Woodward, Bosham, West Sussex

WE Branch Fanatic

31st Oct 2005, 09:57

Perhaps this letter from Sandy Woodward should be on the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152)? Perhaps someone (Navaleye?) will put it there by the time I get home this evening?

Widger

31st Oct 2005, 10:29

WEBF...give it up. We've lost it, now lets move forward.

Let's put this Ocean theory to bed as well. getting Ocean to do a CVF role is akin to fitting AMRAAM to the Jaguar to make it conduct Air Defence, yes you could do it, but frankly it would be ridiculous.

If you compare Ocean to CVS (not CVF) there are some key differences.

OCEAN
Ocean cannot achieve the speeds required to get heavily laden FJ off the deck, particularly in light winds/heavy seas.
Ocean is designed to transport troops and their equipment to theatre and get them ashore by landing craft/helicopter.

CVS
CVS is designed to transport aircraft where they are needed and operate them. To conduct this task the CVS has better accomodation, briefing facilities, better recovery aids, better engineering facilities, better hangerage, the ability to produce lots of demin water, the ability to produce GOX, the ability to supply lots of bombs, missiles and bullets, the ability to supply and repair SE, the ability to process intelligence material, the ability to support mission planning systems, the ability to provide briefing facilities, the ability to provide fighter control (ship borne or airbornes) and much much more.

CVF
In comparison with CVF, there is no argument.
The ability to put combat aircraft, or support helicopters, into the air over international waters or inland during operations without support from a host natio

A potential 50 year service life

The carrier will support 42 Joint Combat Aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 Joint Combat Aircraft sorties per 24-hour period

The MASC airborne early warning aircraft is an airborne early warning aircraft to succeed the Sea King AEW helicopter. AEW variants of the EH101 helicopter and the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey are being considered for the MASC requirement (V22 or even Hawkeye will solve the distance issue)

The hanger deck, 155m x 33.5m x 6.7m to 10m high, accommodates up to 20 fixed and rotary wing aircraft. (which will also accomodate Chinook without removing the blades. CVS and OCEAN's lifts are too small)

Plus all the other benefits that presently come with CVS and more.

The RN have always been aware that a lot of their role is in support of the Army in particular and have always been the most "purple" of the three services. A good example is why all frigates and destroyers still have a 4.5 inch gun...to support troops on the ground. Most of the RN's large ships are there to support and transport the Army and Marines. You could argue that CVF and JCA has the same role as well...and so it should be. Air Power has never won a war..only battles..only troops on the gound can win wars. The strike capability that will be brought by both GR7A/9 in the near future and JCA next decade, will give the UK the ability to project power( often in support of troops on the ground) like never before. The advantage of JCA is that it will also restore the ability to defend those platforms from hostile Air attack.

Without CVF we had all better go and get other jobs. Not just those in the RN but Army and RAF too. Without CVF and i'ts escorts we will not have the ability to transport troops anywhere in the world in LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. No Army means no need for those Tankers, Transports, etc.

So we will revert to our Island and defend it against the enemy. See you boys in light blue have a future after all!

:ok: :ok:

ORAC

31st Oct 2005, 10:57

IIRC CVF will have a maximum speed of 25 knots, only 7 more than Ocean. Those off the shelf commercial IFEP engines.

Rakshasa

31st Oct 2005, 16:05

Hate to be pendantic but when I mentioned "another Ocean" I was thinking in terms of increased rotary/amphibious Ops support, not FAD. :}

pigfist

31st Oct 2005, 20:58

Hmm, an awful lot of bollox being spouted here. Lets just see what December brings from MinDP shall we. Perhaps he'll have something rosy in his sack from Santa Gordon. Hopefully at the expense of something f*$king useless like Tranche 342 of Typhooey. Sorry, the RAFs premiere AD fighter/fighter-bomber/multi-role thingy (delete as aplicable depending on the argument). Mind you at least its got a decent radar (nicked from the SHAR).

"Remember, everything has a pk of one if it hits you...."

ORAC

27th Nov 2005, 05:40

Sunday Times:

A plan to build two giant aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is in disarray amid repeated delays to the signing of the production contract and doubts over what aircraft will be available to fly from them.

The delivery date of the first of the carriers will now be pushed back four years to at least 2016. The overall cost is predicted to climb from £2.8 billion to as much as £4.2 billion.

Further complications have been caused by fears in America that the country’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, which it is proposed the carriers should deploy, may be scrapped. With Britain’s existing carriers, Ark Royal and Illustrious, due to be decommissioned by 2013, the navy faces keeping them in service or enduring a gap of three years with no replacements.

Janes Defence Industry: UK MoD distances itself from CVF in-service date (http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdi/jdi051027_1_n.shtml)

Hansard - Minutes of evidence (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/uc554-ii/uc55402.htm) 25th Oct

Hansard - Minutes of Evidence (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/uc554-i/uc55402.htm) 18th Oct

Worrying comments on the 18th reference the stealth of the UK JCA, namely we will not be getting the same aircraft as the USA. Cdre Henley stonewalls for a while, but has no real response to Mr Jones remarks as to his briefing in Washington by Lockheed.

LowObservable

27th Nov 2005, 12:16

Henley and Burbage were both pulling a lot of g trying to evade that question. One clue is that Burbage's comment about "codings" should almost certainly read "coatings". In fact there are three layers, as it were, to reduced radar cross section - shaping (which everyone accepts is the same for all versions, no news there) edge construction (leading and trailing edges and inlet lips) and surface treatments.
It's pretty clear from this evidence that the non-UK export model will be different from the US model. What's not clear is whether the US and UK models will be the same in terms of edges and coatings: the aircraft that rolls off the line may be identical, but it may not be the same once it is painted or if it gets some new edges added.
The "meet the same requirement" line is also subject to interpretation. It's entirely possible that the UK aircraft meets the requirement but that the US aircraft (or some of the US aircraft) exceeds it.

Jackonicko

27th Nov 2005, 12:33

No external ASRAAM carriage. Lock before launch will be fun.....

No internal Storm Shadow - the UK's primary 'Day One' stand off weapon.

No Paveway III - a 2,000-lb weapon when Cdre Henley says: "The requirement for the UK, if I could just clarify is actually one 1,000 lb bomb either side. The original requirement for the UK was just that. There was never a requirement for the UK aircraft (and the requirement document laid it out) that we would have a 1,000 lb weapon either side so we could carry two 1,000 lb bombs. At one stage in the programme we believed that we had enough spare capacity in the STOVL aircraft to move towards a common weapons bay with the other variants, which has a 2,000 lb capacity weapon bay. That is not the same as saying you can fit two 1,000 lb bombs. It means you can fit a single 2,000 lb class weapon. The UK does not have any 2,000 lb class weapons in its inventory, which is why a 1,000 lb class weapon was being deemed suitable."

And an overweight, under-stealthy jet whose programme unit cost (according to the US GAO) has already reached $100 m. The equivalent Typhoon cost is similar - at c.£61 m (for the 232 jets on order, additional aircraft would come in at a unit cost of c. £42 m).

And a programme which the US GAO wants to delay (to de-risk) because key production decisions are presently scheduled to be taken long before supporting R&D, test and demonstration work has been completed.

Great.....

althenick

27th Nov 2005, 14:55

I wonder if it's worth staying in this partnership with the yanks?

1/ Were not getting the full spec A/C, If that is the case then shouldn't the MoD be negotiating a comesurate unit price for them?

2/ Do we really need stealth? Last time I looked, some canadian Scientist had managed to trump it? Why not build F18 under licence?

3/ If the UK are getting into bed with the frogs WRT CVF then not do a deal with them to supply Aircraft? Design spec's for hardware say?

4/ the UK builds some of the best avionic systems in the world (Captor & Blue Vixen springs to mind) Why not buy F35 Airframe only and design in home made systems.

or....

5/ Dust off the Buccaneer design drawings, Reproduce the Jigs, Design in new avionics and engines,and were technically feasible use Carbon fibre. Once in service launch it from one of the new carriers and fly it at low level over the White House, whilst dropping stink bombs.
:E (well I can dream can't I?)

Yours Jingoistically
Al

JFZ90

27th Nov 2005, 14:56

As I interpreted the replies there is no difference in the UK and US variants re stealth. Nobody was hiding anything. The committee was chasing a non-story and they failed to recognise the frank and honest replies for what they were. I find it quite worrying that the cynical attitude of the questioners prevents them from recognising a truthful answer when they hear it. They come across as cynical fools to me, infact more like ignorant story hungry journos than a defence committee. Is it just me?

ORAC

27th Nov 2005, 15:08

That the specification is the same in absolutely no way implies or assumes the product is the same....

WE Branch Fanatic

27th Nov 2005, 19:54

How hard do you think Blair and Co argue the UK's corner when it comes to things like technology transfer?

And now from Janes: Threat to UK Naval Industrial Base (http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni051124_1_n.shtml).

LowObservable

28th Nov 2005, 07:05

Jacko,
No EXTERNAL Storm Shadow either, if you want to recover it in VL.
JZF90: The committee was after a straight up-or-down answer - are the UK and US versions identical in terms of Stealth or not? "I'm not aware of any differences" doesn't count. It means "I'n not accessed into the LO configuration of the US aircraft."

bighedsmallface

28th Nov 2005, 12:16

Widger,

Your Jaguar/AMRAAM comments are quite right - it would be ridiculous to give anything more potent when we are consistently clubbing F3s with the mighty 9L! ;) Ducks head below sandbags and awaits banter from anyone not on 25 Sqn (the worst fighter sqn in the world).:E

JFZ90

28th Nov 2005, 17:45

LO - not sure I agree that "I'm not aware of any differences" doesn't count.

If you believe this then what you are in effect saying is that Simon isn't aware if there are differences. I find this hard to believe for someone in his position and it doesn't seem credible that he would not know about these things.

Conversely, if he is aware of some differences then by saying "I'm not aware of any differences" he would in effect be lying to the Defence Committee - I see no reason for him to do this as it would be an enormous and unnessary risk on his part, as team records will prove his knowledge of such variations and could land him in a lot of trouble. All he need say if there were differences is that there are slight variations but the UK model still meets UK requirements. Who would care? LO is overated anyway.

soddim

28th Nov 2005, 18:40

bighedsmallface,

Would you like to enlarge on your deprecating assessment of 25sqn?

Compared with many squadrons I have served on it was an excellent can-do, did-do outfit with first class people from top to bottom and enjoyed a good reputation at work and at play.

Has this all changed, and why?

I know this is off-thread, but what the hell!

The Rogue

28th Nov 2005, 19:22

"Compared with many squadrons I have served on it was an excellent can-do, did-do outfit with first class people from top to bottom and enjoyed a good reputation at work and at play."

It still is!

Guess bighedsmallface wasn't good lookin enough to fly F3's

soddim

28th Nov 2005, 19:27

Didn't have to be good looking when I was on 25.

Just good.

LowObservable

28th Nov 2005, 22:58

In 1977-78, the boss of USAF Aeronautical Systems Command If I remember the division name correctly) didn't know that Have Blue was being developed in his own shop. So "I'm not aware" is a perfectly honest answer.

ORAC

29th Nov 2005, 06:20

DefenceNews: U.K. Drops JSF Weapons Upgrade, Reduces Programs

Britain has dropped a key weapon upgrade package from the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and reduced the numbers or capabilities of equipment purchased on several major programs, a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) published Nov. 25 has revealed.... the biggest cost-saving measure the report reveals is a 659 million pound reduction in planned JSF spending. Some 368 million pounds of that resulted from an MoD decision to ax, for the time being, the Block IV weapon upgrade planned for the aircraft around 2022.

The ministry declined to state which weapons that will affect. However, analysts said plans to integrate the Storm Shadow cruise missile, Brimstone anti-armor weapon and Selective Precision Effects At Range weapon on the joint Royal Air Force/Navy aircraft may have been put on the back burner. Raytheon’s AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), Paveway IV precision-guided bomb and the MBDA Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile have been earmarked by the MoD for the aircraft when it enters service around 2014. Now it looks as though those weapons will arm JSF until at least 2025.....

Hopes that Britain’s JSF force will eventually be equipped with the MBDA-developed Meteor also have been muddied following news of the Block IV decision. The MoD never committed to Meteor on JSF, but has considered it as a longer-term option, perhaps even as part of Block IV. However, an MoD spokesman said Nov. 21, “There are no plans, no funds and no intentions to consider the [Meteor] missile” for the Joint Combat Aircraft.

That took MBDA by surprise. A spokesman said the company “is not in a position to comment, as we are not aware of any decision from the U.K. MoD.”

Meteor already is slated for service on British Eurofighter Typhoons, and the goal was to have a single BVRAAM type in the British inventory. The government agreed to an interim deal last year with Raytheon to continue supplying AMRAAMs for the Tornado F3 and Typhoon until Meteor enters service in 2012.

Sidelining Meteor on JSF for the foreseeable future would be a blow to MBDA. British integration of the weapon on what could become the modern era’s most successful fighter program is a key step in the European missile maker’s battle for supremacy with Raytheon in the air-to-air market. Britain is the lead nation in the pan-European program to design and build Meteor. The weapon has been selected by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain for the Typhoon, by France for the Rafale and by Sweden for the Gripen. All those nations are partners in Meteor. The MBDA design beat out an advanced version of AMRAAM in a bruising battle for the British contract to arm Typhoon and later possibly the JSF.

In September, MBDA reported it had redesigned the Meteor’s fin configuration to make it easier to integrate on British JSFs.

Norway goes wobbly on JSF (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1372822&C=airwar)

Navaleye

29th Nov 2005, 09:56

The government agreed to an interim deal last year with Raytheon to continue supplying AMRAAMs for the Tornado F3

Continue??? AFAIK they are not carrying them yet as the on-going process of integrating them into the F3 is far from over. Should just about be complete as they reach their OSD. The govt is also sitting about 200 AMRAAMS from the FAA inventory.

Jackonicko

29th Nov 2005, 10:48

Soddim,

Things were obviously different in the days of the Vampire NF10.....

:E

soddim

29th Nov 2005, 16:11

Jackonicko,

Now there's an aircraft I would have liked to fly.

Alas, I was on 25 much later after they got fighters to put the missiles on.

Widger

15th Dec 2005, 14:31

Amongst all these depressing posts about PVR rates etc some good news.

Yesterday shares in VT and BAE were given a boost as the government released £300m for the final design of the CVF. This was the first in a two stage "main gate" process and as such is a small but significant step in the right direction.

VTs chief executive was quoted in the Torygraph as saying " we are pleased to contribute to the design, planning and build....today's announcement demonstrates tangible progress in this important project"

Hurrah and Hussar!!!!

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Dec 2005, 16:47

See this from Navy News (http://navynews.co.uk/articles/2005/0512/0005121501.asp)

Also this from the RN site (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/content.php3?page=1&article=985).

Already posted a link to the Sea Jet thread on page one........

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Dec 2005, 13:31

When is Main Gate due?

ORAC

17th Dec 2005, 07:45

DID: ".....The CVF will be built in sections, and then the sections will be fitted together. Subject to value-for-money and cost-effectiveness considerations, plans for the construction and assembly of the ships in yards owned by members of the new expanded Alliance include:

The bow (block 1) and final assembly at Babcock Rosyth
Hull block 2 at VT Group Portsmouth
Hull block 3 at BAES Barrow
Hull block 4 at BAES Govan........

BEagle

17th Dec 2005, 08:12

Hope they've got some good bolts/glue to stick that three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle together...

Or, seeing that it's for the navy, golden rivets?

pubsman

21st Dec 2005, 09:32

Update from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4546742.stm

EU Referendum

21st Dec 2005, 13:40

Future Carrier and
Joint Combat Aircraft
Programmes
Second Report of Session 2005–06

Now on line:

here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/554/554.pdf)

Data-Lynx

25th Jan 2006, 07:43

The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article340859.ece) carries an article today on Britain and France to share the CVF programme. The Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/54937.html) and the Qatar Peninsular (http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=United+Kingdom+%26+Europe&month=January2006&file=World_News200601253237.xml) offer more detail and comment from the Secretary of State, Dr John Reid. The Memorandum of Understanding should be signed by the end of the month and staged payments have been agreed to be made by France in recognition of the investment the UK has already made in the design. This will comprise £30m now and £25m in July with a further £45m at the end of the demonstration phase if France decides to continue with the project. There are details to be wrapped up but we have agreed on the arrangements for the management of the project for the next 12 months.