Royal Navy to Buy F18F

[SCAFITE]

Just picked this off the ARRSE thread and its on E-GOAT.

Should be an interesting bun fight between RN/MoD and Bae crying in their soup if its got any thruth.

138 F18Fs to save 10 Billion on JSF

Link R N to buy FA-18F instead of JSF. (http://www.arrse.co.uk/t138705/)

[dead_pan]

Same story reported in yesterday's Sunday Times

[Gnd]

We will get screw*d again by UK PLC, even with Richards and his UK thieves hating policy so just a story - can't even stop Wastelands from screwing us and that is for chickenfeed. What hope have we against pointless FJ purchases (Navy might have a better case for FJ than cold war standbys!)

[Trim Stab]

Interesting if Dassault respond with a tempting offer of Rafales.

[david parry]

Thats very nice, and will require Cat/Wires. Looks like a load of Pilots, Observers, FDOs,Chockheads and Badgers will have to go over the pond for a familiarisation course. As there is nobody in todays FAA that could operate, the day to day running of a Strike Carriers complex flight deck:hmm:

[snagged1]

Perhaps a stupid question:

Am not up to speed on the carrier program - would an F18 be able to take off and operate from the current design/is the deck lond enough (if catapaults and arrestors were fitted - can this be done?)? Are the lifts big enough?

If it can, sounds like a pretty sensible option price wise - proven jet, cheaper, etc vs unproven, more expensive jet?
That said, we would have to use electric catapaults... which are, also, unproven and thus a bit of a gamble? So not so ideal!

[dogle]

Janes reports new spending on catapult development -

Converteam develops catapult launch system for UK carriers (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100726_1_n.shtml)

[spannersatKL]

Why buy a 30 year old technology aircraft? Sounds like someones christmas list from long ago?

[Madbob]

Because we can't afford anything else!

MB

[pulse1]

Thats very nice, and will require Cat/Wires.

Where will the steam come from for the cat?

[Tashengurt]

Can't pretend to have enough knowledge of the F/A 18 or F35 to have an opinion other than that it does seem a little odd to be ploughing billions into an aircraft that has question marks over it's performance and payload at a time when we can't even afford our current fleets.

[philrigger]

;)

Same story in this thread;

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/221116-future-carrier.html

[Flarkey]

so, is this just the JSF for the RN? What about the RAF's JSFs?

If so, does this suggest an end for the Harrier and a reprieve Tornado?

Certainly makes financial sense but at what loss of capability?

[david parry]

Pulse 1 auxiliary boilers :ok:

[cessnapete]

We have at the moment pilot/pilots on Exchange with the USN on the Super hornet.

[Mick Smith]

The article was cut down significantly. This was the original text.

THE Royal Navy is set to save £10bn from the defence budget by dropping plans to buy the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built to fly off its new aircraft carriers.

It is set to swap the £13.8bn Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project for an improved stealthier version of the Boeing F/A18 Super Hornet which currently flies off US Navy carriers.

The potential move was discussed at a meeting between Liam Fox and defence chiefs last weekend to discuss cuts to be made in the ongoing Strategic Defence and Security Review.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” a senior defence source said. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate and even if we continued with it, we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”

The Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Boeing’s main US rival Lockheed Martin, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget with costs already put at £13.8bn and rising.

The 138 aircraft Britain planned to buy to replace the Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Royal Navy were originally supposed to cost a total of £7bn.

But they are currently expected to cost £100m each, making them effectively unaffordable given the dire state of both the defence budget and the nation’s finances.

The JSF programme was originally designed to be enough for both new aircraft carriers and four RAF squadrons.

Buying the more stealthy Super Hornet – known as the Silent Hornet - and cutting numbers to no more than 50 so there are only enough aircraft to fly off the carriers, will cut costs to less than £4bn.

That would save £2bn in development costs over the next parliament and a total of around £10bn over the next ten years.

The £10bn saving would be enough on its own to remove a substantial portion of the long-term cash shortages in the defence budget.

The MoD has already received confirmation from Boeing that it could make the improvements to the Super Hornet that the navy needs to produce the Silent Hornet.

The Silent Hornet will have a new internal weapons bay to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft and improved fuel tanks that would give it a longer range than JSF.

The aircraft is already able to carry more bombs and missiles than JSF and could be produced in time for the first of the two new aircraft carriers which is due to come into service in 2015.

The JSF programme has been beset by difficulties, with Lockheed announcing further delays last week and the British aircraft not expected to be delivered in time for the first carrier in 2015.

Switching to the Silent Hornet would reverse 30 years of flying short take-off and vertical landing aircraft from the Royal Navy’s carriers.

The version of JSF Britain planned to buy is a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft like the Harrier it was to replace. But the Silent Hornet is a conventional take-off and landing aircraft.

The new aircraft carriers are being built to take either type of aircraft, so while it will require the fitting of catapults and arrester hooks, it is not a major problem or cost to switch from one to the other.

A number of Royal Navy pilots are already trained to fly the Super Hornet off carriers having spent time on exchange with the US Navy.

The move will be bad news for the RAF, which offered to axe its entire fleet of Tornado aircraft in the hope that this would mean it would continue to get the JSF.

Now it is set to lose both its Tornados and its Harriers and not get the JSF, leaving it with a single attack aircraft, the Eurofighter, now known as the Typhoon.

This would in itself provide significant cost savings in that a single attack aircraft fleet is much cheaper to maintain and run than a number of different aircraft.

The JSF programme has been beset with difficulties. Britain initially joined it as a development partner and has already put £2bn into the programme.

This was originally expected to cost £7bn with a further £7bn for maintenance and upgrading during the life of the aircraft.

But Congress has reneged on repeated promises by US President George W Bush that Britain would receive full details of the technology on the aircraft.

This will mean that some elements of the aircraft can only be maintained by US technicians increasing costs still further.

The MoD refused to comment on any changes planned as part of the defence review but reiterated that Fox “has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made”.

[david parry]

BGG.. Dont need Cats!!! (or do you mean the steam for them) as in EMCAT/ Suppose you mean the Rampy thing??? So how will you get the AWACS airborne if we get them?

[wokawoka]

What BGG may mean is that today magnetic technology is available to launch cats as opposed to steam? Though to be fair since when as UK (plc) ever bought something up to date or ahead of its time. I believe the French are having them fitted to their carriers. Ours are the same as theirs, fitted for not with. Though they have opted for Nuke power which may help generate the power to operate those cats??

[Mick Smith]

They are expecting to use electromagnetic catapult (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100726_1_n.shtml)

[andyy]

What effect will an EM catapult have on the safety case for the a/c munitions?

Pity we didn't go down the F18F route many, many years ago & then the country could have a single fast jet fleet.

[Jabba_TG12]

I agree with Trim Stab.

It would be VERY interesting to see if Dassault smell blood in the water and offer a navalised Rafale. Very interesting indeed. That really would put the cat (pardon the puns) amongst the proverbial pigeons. Buying fighter aircraft from the French? Lawks a mercy...

....Or indeed wasnt there a Sea Gripen variant being touted? Arent BAe and Saab welded at the hip?


FWIW, I dont know if the F18F story will gather pace or whether its another silly season press story. I mean, its not as if we havent got a history of going goggle eyed over American platforms such as the F16 et al is it? When we're already locked into a contract to buy something else that we never really wanted? Much as the F18 may be a good idea, a proven platform and it may suit our politico-military ambitions better, I think the story will either gather pace very quickly or be chip wrappers within a week.

If Bae start squealing, then we know theres some truth in it. :p

[Bismark]

woka,

The UK (via the Fleet Air Arm) has been responsible for all major aircraft carrier developments: the aircraft carrier itself, lifts, arrested landing, angled flight deck, steam catapult, mirror landing sight (meatball), ski-jump, vstol etc. I am struggling to think of any other nation that has done anything with aircraft carriers except the USN - who have just built big ones!

I wonder, if the UK goes for F18, whether the RAF will get any look in at all as the FAA can do all training in the US, including carrier qualification.

[SCAFITE]

In my view this is a very savvy move from the RN, while the RAF are prepared to shaft everybody within their own service other than the Tyhpoon boys and wanting the Rolls Royce option for everything including the Tea Pots, this shows willing to accept a little less while keeping still a fine capability. Good enough for the USN/USMC should be good enough for us.

I am ex Royal Air Force and very proud of that fact, but the RAF are acting like tossers of the highest order.

The Eurofighter is a fantastic aircraft but trying to take Terry on or any other low tech lot is like delivering Spuds in a Porsche when you can use a transit van.

A mixture of High tech and less techy but at a fraction of the cost as got to be the way forward.

[Jackonicko]

Pity we didn't go down the F18F route many, many years ago & then the country could have a single fast jet fleet.

Yes, yes. What a pity. What a pity we didn't end up with one inferior aeroplane, rather than having better than the Super Hornet in service today, while looking forward to JSF tomorrow.

Perhaps we should have standardised on the MiG-29 or some other outdated, outclassed heap?

[Jackonicko]

Mick,

Interesting to read your original text.

I think you've got it wrong.

I believe that the sudden waving of International Roadmap Super Hornet, Sea Gripen and Marinised Typhoon at Farnborough indicate that while the Royal Navy may be re-examining options to the STOVL F-35B, and while CV may be back on the table, there is, as yet, no single agreed way ahead.

Moreover, I suspect VERY strongly that all of this is political, being played out largely to try to break the continuing logjams on ITAR and technology transfer.

If one wanted to be picky, one might point out that: "The 138 aircraft Britain planned to buy to replace the Harrier" have long been 66.

One might also point out that they are not currently expected to cost £100m each - since one of the biggest problems about the beknighted JSF programme is that no-one has the faintest clue how much they'll cost, nor exactly what one will get for one's money.

Buying "no more than 50" of anything would ensure that there were only enough aircraft to fly off one of the carriers.

There is no such thing as the "Silent Hornet". One journo tried to apply that briefing at SBAC and was immediately slapped down.

The International Roadmap will, as you say, have a new internal weapons bay to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft (though this will not be reduced to anything like JSF levels of stealth) but this will not allow it to carry more bombs and missiles than JSF in 'Day One' LO configuration, nor in non-stealthy, hang everything outside it configuration.

Nor would the new conformal fuel tanks necessarily give it a longer range than JSF.

Switching away from STOVL would not be good news for the RN, and bad news for the RAF, it would be bad news for defence and the taxpayer.

If we must have carrier aviation then STOVL imposes the smallest training burden, and allows aircraft to be used more flexibly. If we go back to conventional cat and trap operations, the training burden will be such that the squadrons will never be used for anything else.

[Ronald Reagan]

If the Super Hornet is good enough for the USN and RAAF then it should be for us! Either that aircraft or Navy Rafales! Lets forget this one engined wonder the F-35B! Who knows if it will even survive! Even the US Navy seems to have concerns about the F-35C!
I know Typhoon is better than Super Hornet at air to air but what about air to ground?
Could we not do most of our training with the US Navy? Sure many of you guys would enjoy that, saves us money and maybe makes the idea one which will work!
Imagine the pride of seeing 2 Royal Navy Carriers entering service. Each equiped with Super Hornet or Rafale! We do really need the two and not just one.

[Justanopinion]

I am told by 'senior' Navy Harrier mate that the Royal Navy has been sending young pilots off to America for a while now on a 'ghost' F18 Sqn in order to train them up, as the Harrier OCU has not had enough seats for the Navy to train many of their pilots- second hand info but he is out there on exchange as i type so may be quite a reasonable source.

Apparently the Navy had wanted to buy the F18 for their carriers 10 years ago but politically it was not acceptable at that time. His comment on the latest rumour being' nice aircraft but will be out of date in 10 years time'
Short term fix but if we are looking ahead then perhaps not the solution -

Just imagine if one of our senior politicians could 'undercover' boss our military organisations at shop floor level and see what really goes on and where cost savings could easily be made.

[chopper2004]

Justanopinon

How many Naval Strike Wing pilots past SeaJet and current GR7/9 jockeys have had F-18 experience? I can think of a couple of past 800/899/801 COs in recent years havign experience on exchange to VX-9 at NSAWC China Lake but they also flew other a/c there such as AH-1W and predominantly AV-8B.
Or to the USMC to fly F-18? There's quite a few RAF FJ crews that have gone on exchange to fly the USMC F/A-18s back then and now.

So say 3 in the last 5 to 10 years, for the FAA how many prior to that?

[Jimlad1]

(Have cross posted this from my ARRSE post)
The more I look into this, the more I think the RN is potentially playing an absolute blinder of a hand.
The buy of 50 airframes means that the RN is looking at pretty much the same sort of structure as in SHAR days – 899 with the OCU of 10-15 frames, 2 x front lines sqns (800 / 801) with 12 frames and the remainder in storage / trials etc. This is not far short of the original SHAR replacement figure of 60 airframes back in the mid 90s (I recall reading one of the first issues of AFM I bought on this subject). The result is that the RN will be able to deliver a maximum of 1 CVF with two sqns on board.
This has some interesting follow on implications. Firstly, a buy of 50 aircraft kills dead the concept that the RN is seeking to surge 2 airwings to sea at any one time. This means we can look to reduce supporting buys, such as MASC and maybe even MARS, potentially realizing savings. Additionally we effectively gain a carrier hull to do with as we want. Either we offer to cancel it – saving some (but not much) money, or we instead use its helo capability and declare the non strike carrier to be the replacement for HMS OCEAN – meaning we can kill the LPH(R) project too.
At the same time, the near term presents some savings options as well. The RN could offer to pay off a carrier (possibly Ocean, given her many problems and the fact she’s nearly life expired) and use the two remaining hulls purely in an LPH mode for the next couple of years, and allow the staff onboard to practice carrier strike with foreign airframes. At the same time, the RN puts forward a ‘delete Harrier’ option, bringing GR9 OSD forward to now. Some of the resultant savings get used as an enhancement option, and the RN spends the money in the US training on the existing F18 for the next few years. In other words, we use USN assets (I believe they still have a carrier dedicated purely for training) to regenerate the skills required for CTOL carrier aviation. Meanwhile the maintenance chaps go and learn how to fix the plane, and in 5-6 years time, the RN can stand up at least an OCU worth of carrier qualified pilots, and hopefully a squadron as well. This means that the CVF is an effective asset from day 1, and not an expensive bath toy floating round waiting for the JSF to be worked up.
We end up with the RAF looking clear losers from this – if the RN goes down the road of F18, then a Delete GR4 and GR9 option looks dangerously close to reality. The RAF is left with the Typhoon for everything, and the RN meanwhile has F18. A two aircraft FJ fleet, with roughly 200 airframes – if the funding is found to do some integration so we can use them properly, then this is a roadmap for the future. At the same time the UK can look to a future JSF buy, either as an attrition cum replacement for F18, or as the eventual DPOC / Typhoon A2A replacement.

[Rigchick]

So lets say we do get some (Updated with new motors etc), from a maint point of view a carrier aircraft is built to last (Brick outhouse comes to mind). If flown from land that gives you years of fatique life.

If we do then both the Light and Dark blue could use the same airframes even if the light blue do not fly from the decks.

We used to have a simulated angled deck at at least one airfield so would not be impossible to do again.

The two crew thing. Chap/Chapess in front does that pilot thing which another set of hands 'N' eyes to fight with. Yes in pure A2A single seat is as good(Possibly), but in todays CAS role talking to ground troops watching the pod feed and looking out for the ground at the same time. Now do that at night i think two seat wins. I seem to remember a two seat Fairchild A10- for bad weather night time. Only 1 was made, makes sense though.

[andyy]

Perhaps we should sell off all our Typhoon & go for a ingle fleet of just F18F?;)

[Wrathmonk]

We are discussing the F model here are we not? Which, forgive me if I'm wrong, is a two-seater. If the RN believe they can take this aircraft on without RAF 'jointery' where exactly are they going to get/train their WSO's from? If they say they can retrain current RW observers then they are admitting that they are over manned in that department - if the F18F bid fails then guess what? Some sharp eyed Air RP or Army RP chap is going to notice the RN-admission of over manning in Navy RW observer manning and raise an option to delete said posts. If they say then can train them from scratch at Culdrose over the next 5-6 years the Financial Officer on whichever company has won the MFTS contract there will be rubbing his hands together with glee as he prepares to add several 'noughts' to the end of the cost of the re-negotiated contract (and to add on Jimlad1's view - an OCU of 10-15 aircraft and two 12 strong squadrons requires approximately 60 crews minimum (using a lowish crewing ratio and non availability factor) and including an allowance for OEU etc. Thats a lot of back seaters to train up from scratch (and then hope the USN will keep current until our aircraft / carriers are available)).

The alternative, and better option, is to follow the jointery route. The RAF could offer up JFH and some of the GR4 fleet in return for an equal (as was agreed for F35) share of the F18F manning. RN observers (and pilots) could be fed through the GR4 route now thus making the transition smoother in the long term. And forget 800/801/899/1(F)/IV(AC)/20(R) numberplates - be brave and just call it the Carrier Air Group (or something suitable that our Allies will understand!), commanded alternatively by a Wg Cdr and a Cdr (with an EXO of the opposite colour cloth) and have 3 squadrons underneath (let's call them A, B and C Sqn (where A and B are the operational outfits commanded by sqn ldr / lt cdr and C Sqn is the Conversion Unit (again alternatively commanded by sqn ldr / lt cdr) - stop the rank creep now!)

The problem with these options is both the heads of the Air Force and the Navy want total control (and I suspect part of this is being badly briefed by over-zealous staff officers at OF4/OF5 rank trying to make a name for themselves....) - neither wishes to lose face or not on my watch etc etc. Hopefully General Richards will knock some heads together (he may need to stand on a box to do it :E) and everyone will come out of SDSR "winners" (or at least not total losers). Except the Army - who can only win!

Sadly I fear that as it requires compromise from both sides it will never be allowed to work :hmm:

[david parry]

Andyy No problem what so ever !!! The Emcat system stands alone and has no EM effect on aircraft, Just like the EM Loop system for flight deck Comms many moons ago:ok:

[Mick Smith]

Jacko
You may well be right that all CV options are on the table - though the MoD certainly asked Boeing if they could make the necessary changes to the Super Hornet and since they can, it must be in the driving seat.

But as for this being a negotiating ploy, I cant see it. It would have zero effect on the UK getting JSF earlier or getting technology transfer.

This is all about money now, any of the cheaper CV rivals beat JSF on that basis.

[Rigchick]

Mick, Totally agree with last sentence. MONEY!!!

A lot of projects that "In the long" term could be cheaper are now undo-able.

SARH, DTR for example. We can not afford the start up costs!

If this idea of F18F has any future it can only be good. An aircraft that is still good for carrier ops and yet is less compromised for land use, if you have runways.

[cessnapete]

One Royal Navy exchange pilot on F18 Super Hornet in USN now. Should be ship qual soon.

[Trim Stab]

Is there an FAA fixed-wing echange post with French Marine on Rafale's?

[david parry]

Cessnapete...... Thats O/K ,what about the most important guys !!! Chockheads and Badgers????

[vecvechookattack]

Mick, Totally agree with last sentence. MONEY!!!

A lot of projects that "In the long" term could be cheaper are now undo-able.

SARH, DTR for example. We can not afford the start up costs!

If this idea of F18F has any future it can only be good. An aircraft that is still good for carrier ops and yet is less compromised for land use, if you have runways.

Very true but we may find that the MODs commitment to SARH could be withdrawn and that Soteria may have to go it alone.

[trap one]

If we do go the F18F route then we could also go for the F18G, The EMCAT would also be able to get the E2/COD airborne which to me makes a shed load more sense than the JSF route.

[GreenKnight121]

OK... a few comments from the "other side of the pond"...

Am not up to speed on the carrier program - would an F18 be able to take off and operate from the current design/is the deck lond enough (if catapaults and arrestors were fitted - can this be done?)? Are the lifts big enough?

Yes, CVF is large enough.
Yes, the design set aside both space & weight to enable catapults and arresting gear to be fitted.
Yes, the Super Hornet is smaller than F-35B when its wings are folded, and the lifts on CVF are sized to run F-35B with room to spare.

Where will the steam come from for the cat?

As previously mentioned, neither the USN's EMALS (which is to be installed on CVN-78, currently under construction and due to enter service in 2015) nor the EMCAT that the UK is developing, need any steam. Both are powered by electricity.
CVF has a purely-electric ship propulsion system, provided by four Wärtsilä 38 diesel engines (~ 40MW total) for cruising and low-speed maneuvering, and two Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 gas turbine (36MW each, 72MW total) for high-speed power.

The design allows for 1 or 2 more MT30s to be installed easily, thus providing all the power needed for EMALS/EMCAT.

Pulse 1 auxiliary boilers http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

No donkey boilers (see above).

BGG.. Dont need Cats!!! (or do you mean the steam for them) as in EMCAT/ Suppose you mean the Rampy thing??? So how will you get the AWACS airborne if we get them?

The USN will be launching/recovering E-2D Hawkeye "AWACS" aircraft with their EMALS... just like they currently do with their "old-tech" steam cats & hydraulic arresting gear.

What effect will an EM catapult have on the safety case for the a/c munitions?

None whatsoever. EMALS is designed to have no effect on the aircraft, munitions, or flight deck personnel (other than to throw the aircraft & munitions off the "pointy end" at a high rate of speed).

If properly designed, neither will EMCAT.

{edit: on the "future carrier" thread, there are those questioning whether CVF will be fast enough to generate enough "wind over the deck" to use catapults.

Let me reassure everyone that speeds above 25 knots won't be needed... only the underpowered F-14A had any trouble being launched from the USN's older, weaker catapults... the C-13s aboard all of the USN's current carriers were capable of launching any aircraft in the inventory at full-load at well below top speed and in "0-wind" conditions.

EMALS will be at least that powerful, and from what I have read, probably more powerful (capable of launching aircraft at full load while anchored). }

What BGG may mean is that today magnetic technology is available to launch cats as opposed to steam? Though to be fair since when as UK (plc) ever bought something up to date or ahead of its time. I believe the French are having them fitted to their carriers. Ours are the same as theirs, fitted for not with. Though they have opted for Nuke power which may help generate the power to operate those cats??

The French have only one carrier, with nuclear power & modified USN steam catapults.

Their plan for PA2 (which would be their second current carrier) was a modified CVF (with the same CODLAG propulsion as CVF), but with donkey boiler(s) and steam catapults... no EMALS and no nuclear power.

Good enough for the USN/USMC should be good enough for us.

The USMC plans on replacing all its current "early model" Hornets with F-35B... they do not have, nor do they intend to buy, Super Hornets.




One thing that deciding on installing "cat&trap" now would do is to enable a decision later (once costs are more fully understood) to make a later buy (2020 perhaps?) of F-35C to augment the F/A-18E/F purchase, to "upgrade" the RN's aircraft to enable more tactical/strategic options.

[Skittles]

Is the new, 'more stealthy' version really called the 'silent hornet?'

That one needs a rethink.

And what is the difference between these aircraft and the standard hornet?

[mick2088]

I remember we had the same discussion over another article in the Sunday Times (if I recall) a few years back that claimed that the F-35 had been canned - what followed? Contracts for the IOT&E F-35s were signed and then it was announced that there wouldn't be a decision over the production F-35 buy until 2014 when the start of multi-year buys is/was supposed to take place. Okay the government changed and the money isn't there (and it wasn't then), but still. Also, Tom Burbage was quoted in the FT last week as saying that he had not been informed that the UK was looking at anything else or that it was planning as most expect to reduce its buy.

You'd think though that they are looking at something else now. Surely, this coalition government wouldn't be mad enough when this strategic defence review is published in October is to try to justify to the public and the armed forces cuts, redundancies, base closures, programme cancellations, scrapping Tornado fleets, etc and then several pages later state the need and commit to buying 138 new jets at big expense even if they are bought over a 15-20 year period, or 66 over a shorter period if they are still going to cost more than anything else when it appears that there are now other serious options. Or would it?

[GreenKnight121]

Is the new, 'more stealthy' version really called the 'silent hornet?'

That one needs a rethink.

And what is the difference between these aircraft and the standard hornet?


There is no such thing as the "Silent Hornet". One journo tried to apply that briefing at SBAC and was immediately slapped down.

Boeing is consistently referring to their new-model Super Hornet proposal as “Super Hornet International Road Map.”

Super Hornet mods added to export list: AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/super-hornet-mods-added-to-export-list-25567/)
Super Hornet mods added to export list By: Chris Pocock; Military Aircraft; July 21, 2010
Boeing announced here yesterday a set of potential enhancements to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that it will market to export prospects. They include an enclosed weapons pod that is intended to lower the aircraft’s radar cross section. The countries currently evaluating or expressing interest in the Super Hornet include Brazil, Denmark, India, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, and Qatar.

There are six elements to what Boeing calls the “Super Hornet International Road Map.” The first is already under development and was seen by AIN during a visit to St. Louis last month. This is the Next Generation cockpit, which brings to the F-18 the large (11- by 19-inch) one-piece, touchscreen display, seen previously only on the Lockheed Martin F-35. Such a display helps improve the fused presentation of the integrated sensor suite that is already a big Super Hornet feature. The new cockpit could be made available for deliveries in 2013, according to Shelley Lavender, Boeing’s vice-president Global Strike Systems.

The other enhancements would be available from 2015, she said. These include the enclosed weapons pod, which would be carried on the centerline station, and may possibly be partially faired into the fuselage. It is sized for four AIM-120 AMRAAMs, but can also take air-to-ground weapons. According to Mike Gibbons, the Boeing F/A-18 program manager, an element of stealth was already designed into the Super Hornet. “We inserted some offerings from our Joint Strike Fighter proposal, in terms of shaping and materials,” he said in St Louis last month. Stealth on the aircraft is complemented by the active electronic warfare system, he added.

Conformal fuel tanks can straddle the upper fuselage, and confer an additional 10 percent range, according to Lavender. An enhanced performance engine (EPE) version of the GE F414 would provide a 20-percent increase in thrust. India has requested this extra power. The final two enhancements on offer are an internal IRST (infrared search and track) system, carried in the nose, and a spherical missile and laser warning system, housed above and (presumably also) below the airplane.

With a “hot” production line likely to be secured until at least 2015, thanks to the 124 aircraft for the U.S. Navy that are now being negotiated as a third multi-year buy, Boeing is confident of securing future exports of the Super Hornet. To date, only Australia has bought, and deliveries are underway. The price of the aircraft currently being delivered to the U.S. Navy is roughly $54 million, which indicates that the international Super Hornet is “a lower cost platform,” according to Gibbons.

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/cenciotti/USS%20Nimitz/Super%20Hornet%20upgrades/Slide.jpg



{edit: Ok... why does PPRuNe convert the a in laser to the @ symbol? In the original text, and in the text shown in the edit mode, it appears correctly, but is changed in the displayed version. Answers?}

[Skittles]

Thanks for that GreenKnight, very informative.

I'm all for this. Dump the overpriced and over-regulated F-35 by the wayside and pick up a tried and tested machine that is loved by pilots and engineers alike.

The fact that America is willing to sell the F-18's at this point in the development of the F-35 surely says something.

Edit: I love it when they use terms like 'increased survivability.'

[GreenKnight121]

These enhancements are considered "very low risk", as they are designed to be able to be fitted to any existing block II or better F/A-18E/F/G as well as to new production aircraft.

They are also separate items, and can be fitted in whatever "mix & match" combination a customer chooses.

[SSSETOWTF]

Gents,

There's a lot of uninformed pish about the costs of the F-35 in the original article and on this forum. UK PLC stands to make a profit out of its participation in the JSF program.

We could all run around gnashing teeth about the sticker price of the airframes themselves (which are still cheaper than some other not-even-very-comparable-in-capability aircraft). Or you could step back and look at the industrial participation in a program that's going to churn out 3000+ airframes over the next few decades. Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, BAE Systems and literally dozens and dozens of second tier suppliers will do very well out of the UK's involvement in the JSF development program. The UK Treasury will get more money in tax from the sales of these components than it pays for the 138 aircraft we want. UK PLC as a whole does even better out of the deal. If the UK packs up its toys and goes Boeing, I wouldn't expect LM to be quite so keen to let contracts to UK firms when they come up for renewal.

If you go F-18F, you may pay a lower sticker price, but you get a less capable airplane, and you're unlikely to get anywhere near the same industrial participation. So you're almost certainly going to have to take money out of the Treasury to pay for them.

So do you really want to cut off your nose to spite your face? If it comes down to money (which it will), you'd be very foolish to unpick the last decade of UK work that's gone into the JSF program, particularly if it's just because you've been playing Top Trumps with 'number of engines' or some other reason that hasn't been thought through terribly well. Just my 2p.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!

[Say again s l o w l y]

So Boeing could end up winning the original JSF fight after all...

[Postman Plod]

Unless we're effectively going to defer out F35 purchase to a later date (2020-2025), and buy something that we can afford, train on, and use now until the F35 comes on stream? Obsolecense then ceases to be a problem. I mean surely 2015 looks optimistic anyway?

Maybe we will be cutting our noses off to spite our face, but frankly a massive proportion of the cuts across ALL departments will involve cutting our noses off to spite our face! Probably to a point where in a normal economy the amount of cuts talked about would result in me paying hardly any tax, so I now wonder exactly what my tax money will be paying for in 5 years time cos I guarantee I wont see my tax decrease!!

As for Ocean, excuse my civvy ignorance, but I thought Ocean wasn't that old?! How can it be end of life already?? and what problems has it been encountering? I seem to think it wasn't built as a hardened warship as such, and built to commercial specification, but I don't know if I remember rightly there!

[XR219]

Boeing is consistently referring to their new-model Super Hornet proposal as “Super Hornet International Road Map.”
That might be a good title for a PowerPoint slide, but it's a rubbish name for an aeroplane. Even "Silent Hornet" is better than that! :bored:

[LowObservable]

There's a lot of uninformed pish about the costs of the F-35 in the original article and on this forum.

Hmmph. I know that there is a slagging contest between LockMart and the Pentagon auditors about estimated costs for the jet, but the cost numbers for the B/C according to the customer's accountants are scary. F-22-level.

[GreenKnight121]

But it isn't an aeroplane... nor a new model of an existing aeroplane.

What it is, is an "option package" that can be applied in any combination the customer chooses, to any existing or new-build Super Hornet.

A "new name" isn't rational for this... unless you use it like auto manufacturers: "Chevy Blazer with Cheyenne package"... "Super Hornet with Upgrade package A".
Oh, yes... they already have a system for that... the "block #" system.

[GreenKnight121]

And those accountants have been consistently wrong in their predictions of how much the various LRIP aircraft will cost... LM has consistently delivered them at well below the ever-increasingly-hysterical estimates.

Do we know what the real costs for full-production aircraft will be?

No, and neither do the accountants or Lockheed-Martin.

However, LM seems to be delivering aircraft at costs closer to their estimates than to the accountant's predictions, so I'm not all that worried... yet.

[Jimlad1]

"As for Ocean, excuse my civvy ignorance, but I thought Ocean wasn't that old?! How can it be end of life already?? and what problems has it been encountering? I seem to think it wasn't built as a hardened warship as such, and built to commercial specification, but I don't know if I remember rightly there"

She was built to commercial standards and has been worked very hard ever since. She was originally designed for a 20 year life (2018), but is by all accounts a maintenance nightmare and a lot of hassle. Ocean is a good example of what happens when you try to do maritime aviation on the cheap!

[Royalistflyer]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong:

JORN has proved that even "stealth" aircraft can be observed by long range RADAR - at least under some circumstances.

The FA-18 in its proposed new form is fairly "stealthy" - at least low observable.

It is faster than earlier models

It is optimised as an attack aircraft

Other packages can be mounted on some specialised versions

It is available almost immediately

It is half the cost of the JSF

It will carry out most if not all of the RNs requirements of the JSF

It is likely to be usable beyond 2025

The new carriers can/will be fitted with electromagnetic catapults

It will fit into their lifts.

It will be available virtually simultaneously with the first of the new carriers.

Both the carrier and the aircraft could go to the USA for training.

While there may be a long-term financial return buying the JSF, our financial problems are immediate and need an immediate remedy.

While it doesn't do all the tricks of the JSF, it is a proven, extendable aircraft.

To my mind there is no argument. We need the FA-18 "stealthy" version and we should buy it now. Why is my logic faulty?

[andyy]

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

If we have paid our entry ticket for the JSF club then I don't see why we will not still reap some benefit of the forecast 3000 JSF sales. Just because we drop our measly 100 & something order should not mean that BAe etc can't benefit from the remaining sales. Granted RR will be a bit hacked off if the USMC cancel the STOVL version.

[Load Toad]

That might be a good title for a PowerPoint slide, but it's a rubbish name for an aeroplane. Even "Silent Hornet" is better than that!

Nothing would beat 'Special Patrol Group'.

[Not_a_boffin]

Jimlad

One of the reasons that Ocean is a "nightmare" is that virtually no logistic support was included in the contract. By that I mean that tech pubs are limited to OEM catalogues (hardcopies only), limited or no training support and a complete b8ggers muddle of equipment. Imagine a ship where the sewage treatment plant can't even be serviced properly (because the design didn't include adequate isolation provision), where the system regularly blocks and where several hundred royals are regularly to be found processing their vittles on a daily basis. It's not the commercial standard thats the problem, but a cr@p design in the first place.

[Jimlad1]

Not A - totally agree, having spent plenty of time onboard her, I'm in no hurry to return! The only thing that can be said is she's an improvement over Argus who was trialled in the role previously!

[Torquelink]

SSSETOWTF makes a fair point. I can't see the US or all the other export customers being happy that BAE and other UK companies continue to benefit from 3,000 shipsets of work when the UK is no longer a customer. I suppose that, if a smaller number are purchased just for the RAF, continued participation may be justified but, presumably, any purchase of F18s would scupper the F35 completely.

[LowObservable]

SSSETOWTF & GK

I would not write off the accountants quite so glibly. At best, the LM cost numbers being tossed around today
- mostly concern the A model
- don't include the propulsion system, which on the B especially is well over budget
- are a "unit recurring flyaway" that has hardly ever been used before
- are valid only if partner and US orders proceed on the schedule established before development was slipped earlier this year

It seems that the current negotiations over the LRIP-4 contract are about risk. The government doesn't want to sign a low-ball contract, only to find two years down the line that the real costs are much higher. LockMart doesn't want to lose money in that event.

Underlying this is the fact that it is not a normal sale. The Pentagon needs the jets and has already invested several tens of billions in the program, and has terminated all alternatives, so whatever the jets end up costing, it can't simply tell LockMart to go pound sand. Fixed price, FPI or whatever is all somewhat irrelevant.

Find a good history of the C-5A program...

[ORAC]

Or the F-111.....

[Herc-u-lease]

and not 6 months ago, we were considering whether we could buy super tucanos for a CAS role.

just a thought

[whowhenwhy]

Buy the FAA some F18s, sort out Typhoon and as the A-G capability properly comes on line phase out the GR4, hopefully by which time F35 is online. Bin Harrier, buy a lesser number of F35 and have a force mix of F18 and F35?

What do we think?:E

[fleigle]

Will they want it kitted out with RR engines then???? :uhoh:
:E
f

[Jig Peter]

What !!! And have another Spey Phantom ???

[Tallsar]

We could always call it the Phantom Mk4 just to make sure eh?
:eek::)

[Squirrel 41]

Forgive me, I just don't see this. I think that this has all of the elements of a great RN canard: Super Bug is no match for F-35, which the RAAF has underscored by buying both.

Who knows whether or not the QE/PoW/CVF (perhaps we should call the design "Shazza", to go with "Dave") survives the SDSR? The main point is that the UK will slim its number of FJ types to two - Typhoon & something else. Based on the premise that we can't afford to buy any new aircraft for most of the next decade, the short-term choice is between:

- Some GR4s (and either Marham or Lossie);
- All the Harriers (and Wittering)
- All the Harriers and some GR4s.

What I can't see is retaining all the remaining Harriers because of CVF at the expense of the GR4s, as the GR4 is simply more capable and much more useful.

Personally, I would chop QE CVF and Harrier, and replace GR4 with Dave-C in the 2018-2022 period. But if we go ahead with CVF, could we lease some carrier capable jets / buy some used F-18A/Cs pending the arrival of Dave-C? It's going to be a better choice than buying a new type (Rafale or Super Bug) that will not offer the capability of Dave come 2022.

S41

[LowObservable]

Used Classic Hornets are all ganz geschagget - like the population of Venezuela. broken down by age and sex.

This whole "Super Hornet FA1" imbroglio is interesting insofar as it rates only two plausible explanations - it's either quite serious or a theatrical move aimed at influencing the budget cutters, the USG or LockMart.

And although I'm sure Boeing would offer a whole bunch of work on the mods to the UK, I would guess that the idea hinges on keeping the core of the aircraft pretty common to the USN version.

[astronaute]

You Britons are very complicated !:hmm:

Just buy the Rafale M, who is better than the JSF,F-18,Typhoon,Gripen, Mig29K or Su-33.:ugh:

The Rafale M is at 60 millions US $

And at least it is european !:ugh:

[frodo_monkey]

Rafale better than JSF and Typhoon?! :rolleyes:

[Agaricus bisporus]

Surely cats and traps give a vastly greater opportunity for progress and development in the future than the utterly limiting vertical/ski-jump option. Think COD, AEW, let alone a less payload limited strike force. How does the mega-price mega maintenance swiss-watch F35 alone with no prospect of real back-up/support or true carrier ops answer to that?

Looks like a no-brainer to me. Bring it on! The FAA back in business as a real fighting force with a future and potential for development. With the money saved we can have Hawkeyes too...and convert the poor old baggies for proper helo tasks. And so on. And on. And on.

Who in the world are we going to come up against that squadrons of the "30yr old" F18 will disadvantage us c/f a mere handful of the F35? No one! That's who.


Result! Bring it on!
Before we know it we'll have a Navy to be proud of again, instead of one to be sorry for.

[The B Word]

Agreed, result! (if it, indeed, comes off) :D

[stinkydocker]

Maybe with the savings they could buy us Junglie Helo crews some decent cabs,we have put up with the SK for decades and would utilise the Chinnock to provide a truly awesome capability......

Do a deal with the Yanks bulk buy Hornet and Chinnock happy days....

HM RN & RM leading the way once again.........

[GreenKnight121]

LO...

While LM's predictions of costs are low-balled somewhat for PR purposes, I firmly believe that the government accountants are deliberately high-balling theirs... and by a greater margin than LM's fudging.

I fully expect when the F-35 enters full-rate production, that when each batch is delivered at a particular price (likely 10% or so above LM's predictions), the accountants will then predict a 30%-40% increase for the next batch.

And that, no matter how often they are proved wrong, they will continue to vastly inflate their predictions of the next batch.


There is precedent... just look at how Denis Healey killed CVA-01... he presented a price to Parliament that included a CVA-01, its aircraft, its escorting T82, and other costs... and told them that was the cost per CVA-01 "just the ship, nothing else"!

For some reason, the government accountants are deliberately inflating their estimates of F-35 costs far above what simple error can account for.

[Bobinthecar]

LowObservable

This is the second time I have seen you post inaccurately about JSF cost. The numbers being tossed about for all models are usually either the Total Flyaway Cost which comprises airframe, engines, avionics, and any other equipment that come "standard" with every JSF of each type (A B and C will have different numbers here). Plus basic startup costs which allowances for each operator’s required modifications. Or the other number being bandied about is the Total Flyaway Cost or Unit Cost. This consists of the above plus delivery costs, training costs, technical documentation and other support costs.

In all cases price in the is given with engines and avionics. True the total program cost is unknown at this time because no one knows what the actual procurement volume and rate will be. Suffice to say the higher the volume and rate the more costs come down. Don’t however be fooled into thinking the price is being given ala Typhoon IOW basic airframe and nothing else for 40M.

[rock34]

Haven't laughed so much for ages! Thanks for the morale boost with your witty joke! :D

[Unchecked]

Utilise the chinook ?

You can't even spell it ! :p

[astronaute]

No !!!!

The rafale M is flying over A-stan, it is a omni-role airplane, not a expensive piece of junk, who will never fly operationally as the F-35 ! About the Typhoon, it is a good air to air aircraft, but only on that role !

Anyway, good look for the FAA, with the F-35 or the F-18 !:hmm:

[xenolith]

You all seem to be overlooking the Fireball XL5 and Supercar option.........

[mick2088]

That Supercar idea might be the answer. Cheap as chips with its 60s-era technology and it would only need the Royal Navy to recruit funny but strange looking puppets to pilot to it. If that goes over budget (as it most likely would) and belly up, the UK could always look at restarting a production line for Thunderbird 6 instead, thereby safeguarding jobs for the British aerospace industry. Sorted. :ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

No !
No to what?
The rafale M is flying over A-stan, The AV-8B and A-10 also flew over A-stan, so what? That doesn't make them suitable future strike aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm.
it is a omni-role airplane, not a expensive piece of junk, who will never fly operationally as the F-35 !
Your logic fails. Both Rafale and F-35 are multi role aircraft. Rafale is currently operational. So too is the F-18F. Funnily enough, the RAA seems to prefer the Super Hornet to the Rafale. Why do you think that is?
About the Typhoon, it is a good air to air aircraft, but only on that role !
Just to keep you current with the history of Military Aviation, the F-16 Falcon started as an air-to-air fighter, and ended up through various blocks and mods as a decent air-to-ground platform. Typhoon may go through a similar evolution, but that depends on requirements and budget, as well as parallel tech advancement.

EDIT: sorry, looks like Typhoon is already air-to-ground certified, back in 2008. :O Oops, wasn't keeping up.

[cornish-stormrider]

So we are agreed then - Bin Dave, chop harriers and gap till Big Lizzie gets wet, order up some plastic superbug.

Leave gr4 till bugs get here, chop gr4 and buy more bugs - common fleet twixt crab and matelot, crab have bugs and tiffin.

all other money into SH/AT

Where is my consultancy fee?

[27mm]

Probably the best summing-up I've heard in a long time - nice one!

[cornish-stormrider]

doff's fez in salute - "I thank you"

[LowObservable]

Follow-up: Deliver conformal tanks, weapon pod, Selex IRST and Meteors to US Navy to retrofit late Block II Bugs, and for the extra Block IIs that they buy when LockMart presents them with the real price for Dave-C.

Develop Phoon to full potential with some of the $ saved by Dave-B cnx, and fill the gap left when LockMart presents them foreign suck..., I mean the international partners with the real price and schedule for Dave-A.

[minigundiplomat]

35 Billion black hole in procurement, 25% cuts across the MOD to save 5 Billion a year, and £20 Billion in Trident costs to cover.

If you lot think 2 new carriers, JSF or F18 are arriving anytime soon, you are dreaming.

The RN will consist of Albion & Ocean, a few subs and very few escorts. RM and CHF may survive, with the Merlin if they do.

The RAF will consist of enough Typhoons to guard the UK, no Nimrod, no RJ, no tankers, no Puma/Merlin and very possibly no A400M. I can't realistically see the new Chinooks arriving either.

The Army will be minus an amoured brigade with a smaller logs chain and minus anything else they can chop around the edges. Lynx will go and Wildcat looks iffy.

I'm afraid Mr Osborne stiffed any procurement plans when he threw us the Trident funding hospital pass.

Sitting here debating whether you'll get F18 or JSF may pass the day, but flies in the face of reality. I'll post a 'I got it hugely wrong' thread on Oct 22 if I have, but can't really see it.

[knowitall]

"The rafale M is flying over A-stan,"

does it still need an entandard/mirage to hold its hand/carry the targeting pod for it?

[cornish-stormrider]

MGD - I'll hold you to that one but I suspect your assessment is more righter than moine!

[Finningley Boy]

I don't care so long as there is plenty of stuff to see at the Airshows!:ok:

FB

By the way, has anyone thought about the idea of splitting the Army between the R.A.F. and R.N.:)

[Ian Corrigible]

The RN will consist of Albion & Ocean...

They're keeping Ocean? Problem solved!

Ocean flight deck length = 170m
Sea Fury takeoff distance = 170m (ish)

Just need to work out how to hang a Meteor on VR930 (http://www.royalnavyhistoricflight.org.uk/aircraft/seafury.htm) and we're sorted.

'Course, after my consulting fee, and the £2.7 Bn 10-year PFI PBL support deal we'll need to put in place with BAE, she'll only be available for ops one day a month. Less if the RNHF insist on taking her to shows.

:E

I/C

[LowObservable]

http://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/french-knights1.jpg

[knowitall]

astronaute

I'll take that as a yes then

[astronaute]

The yes is, you WILL NEVER GET the F-35 !:hmm:

[High_Expect]

Astro - why don't you go off a google 'French military victories' come back to us when you find some. Now there's a good 13 year old.

Lowob... Nice!

[diginagain]

If Converteam do get the task of coming up with an EMCAT, I hope they make a better job of it than their efforts onboard my current place of employment.:ugh:

[knowitall]

"The Rafale is on the block 3, soon it will be on the 4, then it will do everything you can ask to an omni-role fighter !"

only 25 years after it first flew, impressive!

Rafale's development process has been just as troubled as jsf in its own way, its merely further down it by virtue of being older

[astronaute]

Dream on mate ! The Rafale is flying out of the PAN and CVNs.

All the F-18 pilots ( USN) are impressed by the plane.

Recall me what kind of naval fighter do you have !!!:hmm:

[ORAC]

May I point out that the planned UK JSF buy is in penny packets until the '20s. We literally plan to buy a handful. The inevitable slippage is moving that to the right.

The intention at the moment is to save money - as soon as possible. What on earth leads anyone to think the government would even consider buying a new type - in numbers - which would require a large up front payment?

I would suggest that the likely option, without a current threat requiring a carrier, is to retire the GR7/9 force early, try and sell off the first CVA to India or elsewhere (including the GR7/9 wing as air assets), and look at harmonising the entry into service of the second CVA to coincide with the purchase of the F35C.

Time to adapt the design for EMALS and spread the cost.

[Dysonsphere]

Hmmm having 1 CVA is not an option as 1 will allways be in refit / working up so having only 1 would mean no CVA for 2/3 years at a time makes the whole idea pointless.

[Ronald Reagan]

After visiting Landivisiau in 2008 I decided then you had the best Naval Air Arm in Europe with the best jet! Its better than Super Hornet (which is still a great aircraft). With your current force it probably makes you 2nd best navy in the world next to the USA, with you currently having the best Naval jet in service. We are not exactly in the same league which is really sad to say. One politican after another has failed this country.
We should try and be more like you! Even after the upcoming cuts and closure of places such as Reims and Cambrai you will still have far more than we do.

[Easy Street]

A couple of points of order regarding Rafale's multi-role status:

1) It's not currently deployed in Afghanistan
2) It cannot use a laser designation pod, so cannot do any ISR, and has to fly with an M2000D to spike its bombs in.

It was a short-term deployment to make a sales pitch. Its capability is not worthy of comparison with other multi-role aircraft as things stand.

[Radar Command T/O]

I would suggest that the likely option, without a current threat requiring a carrier, is to retire the GR7/9 force early, try and sell off the first CVA to India or elsewhere (including the GR7/9 wing as air assets)

Tell you what, why don't we simply stop paying billions of pounds to India in the form of aid, which they only use to purchase our military harware? Then we could afford to keep our CVF/JSF/F18F etc....

Just a thought.....

[cornish-stormrider]

because we pay them aid so they act as a buffer against the rise of the pakistan based jihadi uprising - basically its a bribe....

when it does come it will go to india first....

Cynical ain't we

[glad rag]

When you take a step back and look at the "big picture" where HMG are prepared to cause financial anguish to literally millions of families over tax-credits being scrapped (along with the provision of HMR&C to reclaim as much as they feel fit) then the carrier program really does shrink in overall importance to the population in general.
I know it's not "right" but that's a realistic outlook.
The choice has been made quite clear to the MOD.

Trident or carriers+lots of other equipment types.

This lot are planning post AFG, and expeditionary warfare is not on the list of "too-does" post AFG.

[Postman Plod]

Well no, the MoD don't have a choice over Trident - lets be fair - its ringfenced! I'm quite sure if the MoD had a choice, they'd pick carriers and lots of other equipment types every time!

[StopStart]

Financial anguish? Benefits? Do me a favour. We spend more on benefits than we reap in income tax. An unsustainable state of affairs - the defence budget pales into insignificance next our bloated welfare state yet no-one in Govt has the plums to say or do what 90% of the country is thinking they should...

[NutLoose]

No doubt we will re-engine it with a British engine resulting in the slowest most powerful and expensive F-18 ever built..... We will not get the source code for the avionics so will be cap in hand to the USA when ever we want to update something, on top of that we will change the weapons fit, the avionics fit and the in flight refuelling fit just to ensure it is no longer compatible with anyone elses F-18's and then we will have the fighter we never wanted, shortly following delivery we will cancel the carriers and the Royal Navy will pass them to the RAF who in future years will have to buy Amercian surplus versions to bolster the fleet whilst then having 2 variants on the books, neither really compatible with the other.....

:p

[Dysonsphere]

No doubt we will re-engine it with a British engine resulting in the slowest most powerful and expensive F-18 ever built..... We will not get the source code for the avionics so will be cap in hand to the USA when ever we want to update something, on top of that we will change the weapons fit, the avionics fit and the in flight refuelling fit just to ensure it is no longer compatible with anyone elses F-18's and then we will have the fighter we never wanted, shortly following delivery we will cancel the carriers and the Royal Navy will pass them to the RAF who in future years will have to buy Amercian surplus versions to bolster the fleet whilst then having 2 variants on the books, neither really compatible with the other.....


And lets call it Phantom II just to make sure.

[BEagle]

A group of detainees at Campsfield House immigration detention centre in Kidlington were on hunger strike last night.

Detainees 'are on hunger strike' (From Oxford Mail) (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8309593.Detainees__are_on_hunger_strike_/)

Some new Darwin Award contenders - with their own solution to part of the UK's 'unsustainable state of affairs', perhaps?

Anyway, as regards the FAA's postulated Sea Hornet, surely no-one would be stupid enough to mess with a proven design?

[Heathrow Harry]

like the Phantom you mean...............

[dangermouse]

there already was a Phantom II (the F4)

so it'll have to be the Phantom III !

DM

[astronaute]

Aéronautique navale : Les liens se renforcent entre Français et Américains (http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=107691)


Rafale Marine : Le point sur le programme (http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=111922)


Le groupe aérien embarqué en images (http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=109569)


YouTube - ‪Charles de Gaulle et Rafale au Afghanistan‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wZ0Q_hB6m8)



Dream on.......brits !:ok:

[Rigchick]

No doubt we will re-engine it with a British engine resulting in the slowest most powerful and expensive F-18 ever built..... We will not get the source code for the avionics so will be cap in hand to the USA when ever we want to update something, on top of that we will change the weapons fit, the avionics fit and the in flight refuelling fit just to ensure it is no longer compatible with anyone elses F-18's and then we will have the fighter we never wanted, shortly following delivery we will cancel the carriers and the Royal Navy will pass them to the RAF who in future years will have to buy Amercian surplus versions to bolster the fleet whilst then having 2 variants on the books, neither really compatible with the other.....

USN aircraft are already using the same flight re-fuelling system as us.

We can get the re-engine thing right from time to time. Our Apache is far more powerful then the USA version (Ok it was very late) Also various Wirlwind/Wessex types.

Agree the F4 was trashed by the Speys. They really did only just fit!! (The engine change kits included fag papers to check for clearance!) Should have bought the F4Js all along .

[27mm]

Granted the F4s with Speys were a maintenance mare, but the ones I flew were awesome beasts, especially in the RAFG LLAD role - even more so when we took off the underwing tanks. Ask anyone from that era that tangled with us (and that includes Viper and Hornet drivers).

[glad rag]

What part of either

"then the carrier program really does shrink in overall importance to the population in general."

OR

"I know it's not "right" but that's a realistic outlook."

Do you want me to explain? the politicians may be swinging a large axe but will be looking to show "balance" to the populous.

[Jimlad1]

Oh lordy, the lunatic Frenchman is back.

For those that don't know, our poster 'astronaute' is the latest handle used by a particularly obsessed (and probably mentally ill) Frenchman who has posted across the internet on a range of handles, including 'Thunder' 'Sampiax', Gogo, Gn, Gilles54.

His method of operation is simple - he will flame, flame and flame again, with endless links and posts of pure drivel to 'prove' that anything French is perfect, and anything British is a failure.

He has been here before, and was banned very quickly when he started picking a fight with Jackonicko, and several pilots suggesting they didnt know what they were talking about on the Rafale, and that they were just idiot amateurs.

May I suggest we mag to grid the poster in question ASAP please, he is a troll and nothing more than that.

[LowObservable]

Comment dit-on "troll" en francais?

[Archimedes]

Jim - he hasn't claimed to be a former member of the Armee de l'Air (hinting at some FJ experience and an expertise in aeronautics greater than Camm, Mitchell, Bloch/Dassault combined) yet, so are you sure it's the same bloke?

If it is, he was Gegene [sic?] last time, wasn't he?

[glad rag]

Never mind that rubbish, do his points stack? up if not why not.

[Jimlad1]

Archimedes- I think he's the same one, I did a quick trawl through his other posts, very similar in style and language. Tendency to get rattled easily, and utterly appalling language, merged with xenophobic posts and single minded desire to prove that Rafle > Anything :-)

[Archimedes]

glad rag - if it is the same chap, experience shows that his points often sound terribly reasonable but are general/generic in nature. And they are couched in that Blairite style whereby what's said is not untrue but creates an impression not fully sustained by the facts.

(We haven't yet hit the point in his usual MO whereby his posts denegerate into priapismic xenophobic pro-Rafale mud-slinging, bolstered by some dodgy reference to the laws of physics which 'prove', according to him, the superiority of Rafale to anything designed by those of an Anglo-Saxon bent.)

However, in answer to your direct question, let's look at what he says:

Just buy the Rafale M, who is better than the JSF,F-18,Typhoon,Gripen, Mig29K or Su-33.:ugh:

There is, for obvious reasons, no proof that the Rafale is better than JSF. Certainly, in terms of the avionics, if the F-35 (if it happens) appears with sensor capability only 60% as good as intended, it knocks Rafale into un chapeau cocked. Is it really better than the F/A-18? He thinks it is, insists it is, but offers nothing approximating to reasonable evidence that it is.

Since there is no Seaphoon, the point about Typhoon vs Rafale M is moot, and the debate over which of Rafale and Typhoon is better in general can go on for years without adequate resolution - only when a number of people who've a reasonable number of hours on both types (i.e. exchange bods between Typhoon & Rafale fleets) can make a comparison will that one be settled, if it ever will be.

Likewise Gripen - no carrier variant, not under consideration for CV(F) - at least at the moment, despite the SAAB graphics department's best efforts.

MiG-29K and Su-33 are irrelevant anyway, since I can't see us buying either of those.

The Rafale M is at 60 millions US $

To which the response is for what - do we get the airframe cheap, but at hideously high support costs?

And at least it is european...

A very Gaullist view - the importance of origin mattering more than capability on offer to our poster.

Then -

No !!!!

The rafale M is flying over A-stan, it is a omni-role airplane, not a expensive piece of junk, who will never fly operationally as the F-35 ! About the Typhoon, it is a good air to air aircraft, but only on that role !


As has been pointed out, it has been used over Aghanistan, but it isn't omni-role yet, since it lacks designation capability. Again, an assertion about the F-35. Expensive - yes, looks like it will be, even allowing for supposedly impressive low operating costs; piece of junk - still to be proven; never fly operationally - who knows?

And we get the standard-issue statement from Rafale proponents suggesting that Typhoon is an air-to-air only platform, ignoring the fact that (unlike Rafale at present) it can self-designate LGB, and has been able to do so since 2008 and the declaration of multi-role capability.

And, of course, this is assertion - the chap offers no hard evidence to prove his point, probably because he has none, and unless several XI(F) chaps I know have been lying harder than a politician with a dodgy expenses form, I believe him to be wrong. What's more the evidence that is available contradicts him - note the way in which some of the problems in terms of finding the time to train for air-to-ground, integration of PWIV, etc, etc have been mentioned by people who fly Typhoon, without any suggestion that the air-to-ground capability is the chimera astronaute wants us to believe, taking his word over that of those who fly the Typhoon.

This is then followed by (and note the slight ramping up of the xenophobia):

At least it is flying on operation, not like the plastic junk that the gringos want to sell you !

Again, a bit of a non-point, since the Rafale has been around a tad longer than the F-35. And the point can be taken to absurdist extremes thanks to its inherent lack of relevance, since it could just as easily be said that at least the Fairey Battle was flying on ops in 1940, unlike the strange all-wooden thing de Havilland were trying to sell the RAF at the time...

The Rafale is on the block 3, soon it will be on the 4, then it will do everything you can ask to an omni-role fighter !

What about the Super-trash or the Typhoon ? I don t ever talk about the gringos junk F-35 !

Note the inherent contradiction here - last time round, the Rafale was an Omni-role fighter, but now it isn't - at least at the moment - as omni-role as we were meant to believe from that posting. And when is 'soon' for the arrival of Block 4? Does this give the aircraft the same or better capabilites than (say) Super Hornet? It's all blustering assertion again.

There's no attempt to comprehend what F/A-18E & F can actually do (they can guide their own weapons onto a DMPI and the fun that can be had with the decoupled cockpits on the latest F-models possibly put the SH ahead of the Rafale)

The Rafale is the only option to allow the FAA to have an equipement up to date, with no snags and a reasonable price !

We have no clear price comparison on the overall packages between the Rafale and the SH. What, exactly, would the TLCs look like for the each? What would the support package look like? What about weapons clearances - how much would it cost to get (say) Brimstone on Rafale versus on the SH? What about workshare for British industry? Experience of working with the US suggests that there'd be some, whereas experience to date of working with Dassault (AFVG, Jaguar) suggests that it might be lacking. It might not.

The problem is that his points are generally spotterish assertions drawn from public domain literature telling us how wonderful the aircraft is, without any proper consideration of all the factors which would influence any putative procurement of Rafale or F/A-18E/F to say what the best option is. It's simple assertion that upon closer examination is based entirely upon the fact that that Rafale is a decent aircraft (not disputed), will have additional capability added (ditto), but because it isn't American, is European, and - even better - is French, is therefore the best option.

That, to me, doesn't stack up.

[Entaxei]

Ignoring the French Connection & posture, a couple of additional ingredients for the mix occurs to me;

When Hoon the Loon announced the original signing of the agreement to part fund the F35 development and purchase them for our two new carriers, all to be delivered in 2010/2012, if memory serves correctly, he triumphantly declared that never again would GB produce a fighter aircraft. Which is a political mindset that still seems to be at large and may be in the way of ditching the F35, a lot of political clout went into achieving that position. Labour has always stated that UK armed forces should not exist, despite being the biggest user.

On the other hand, I feel that the chances of the alternative RR engine for the F35 coming to fruition are rapidly decreasing, granted the increasing NIH (Not Invented Here) posture being adapted by the US political arena, witness the contract award to Airbus for the new Tanker fleet, that was immediately rescinded as Boeing lost and the cries that have already gone up about the additional cost of the RR option.

So all in all, more fuel to the arguement that says dropping the F35 and taking on the enhanced F18 is the only practical way forward, both in terms of cost and sensible timescale, (imagine - having the aircraft ready at the same time as the carriers?), given our current financial problems. We would still need to have both carriers, as you cannot run a navy with a single ship main deterrant, that has to be taken out of ops for the odd year or so, but fitting nuclear propulsion would provide enhancement and we could buy this from the US, they have the technology and it would be a good quid pro quo for the F35 cancellation, to strengthen the ground attack, buy a few Warthogs with hooks! :E

[airborne_artist]

As we say in France " if you want to see a country full of morons, just cross la Manche ( Channel) heading North !

What we say about the French can't be printed on Pprune :}

[Finnpog]

A marinised Warthog!!

That would be a hoot if tooled up with AGM 84s as well as the Avenger when the Red Navy comes through the GIUK gap.

(How very Tom Clancy and Cold Warrior-esque)

[Lonewolf_50]

A marinised Warthog!!
The Royal Marines would love that. :ok:

I was once asked by a US Marine friend (infantry MOS) why the US didn't put the A-10 on carriers. I had to think about that.

Beyond it's being slow as hell and thus needing to tank to get anywhere "from the sea,"


I don't think they built it with a folding wing mod,
Undercarriage and main members not beefed up for CV landings
The Marines at the time were in love with the Harrier
(that curious version that kept flipping upside down)But I wonder, sometimes, if a closer look at CAS, and roles and missions, might not have lead to a marinized Warthog.

The Marines are still pissed that the US Navy decommissioned the four battleships ... hey, where's our Naval Gunfire Support, ye swabbies! :mad:

[camelspyyder]

How do the French define operational??

From what I've seen Rafale is able to carry out flights overseas only when accompanied by a proven 20 year old shepherd aircraft.Every Rafale on the flypro sausage side was always with a Mirage 2000 to show it the way. Maybe we could get lease Thunder City's Lightnings to help Typhoon into combat??

CS:)

[Brain Potter]

.... it could just as easily be said that at least the Fairey Battle was flying on ops in 1940, unlike the strange all-wooden thing de Havilland were trying to sell the RAF at the time...

Oh come on Arch! His country's official "participation" in that scuffle also ended in 1940, so he cannot be expected to appreciate the parallel that you are drawing.

[mr fish]

sorry to be trivial on a important topic, but it's been on my mind since the start of this thread,

would uk hornets have the "false canopy" painted on the underside?

also, do we have a requirement for a few GROWLERS??

[barnstormer1968]

mr fish, I wondered the exact same thing.

As the false canopy looks so very effective, would it not be worth painting some false missiles/tanks on the upper wing surfaces too?

Come to think of it, if someone would paint the name on the side of the A400 that would help too:}

[LowObservable]

Not sure that the Sea Hog would work very well. Big spot factor even with folding outer wings, and the USN likes the main gears a long way aft so that the jet doesn't tip on a rolling deck.

[NutLoose]

Could be another cunning ploy,

Aka the we have cancelled the TSR2 and are buying the F-111

Out of interest how many fast jet pilots do the navy actually have?
enough to field a football team?

[astronaute]

You brits you like to talk to yourselve ! Why in hell one of my post has been withdraw ?:confused:

As I told you before, you wont get anything close to the Rafale !

You are just good to follow the gringos and buy the ****s they want to sell you !

Now, you can continue jerking off about the F-35 or the F-18 !

My case is resting !


Ps You still fail to give me the answear, why the Rafale is not good enough for the RN and FAA ?

:rolleyes:

[Buster Hyman]

Oh come on Arch! His country's official "participation" in that scuffle also ended in 1940, so he cannot be expected to appreciate the parallel that you are drawing.
Didn't they just switch sides for a few years? :confused:

[Thelma Viaduct]

As we say in France " if you want to see a country full of morons, just cross la Manche ( Channel) heading North !

Don't get English southerners confused with the rest of England.

Southerners have more in common with france than they do England.

i.e. An English man's home is his castle.

Southerners can't even pronounce 'castle', they stick an 'r' sound in to it for some inbred reason, therefore they're not really English.

South England is for all intents and purposes Northern france, neither inhabitants actually sound English.

[astronaute]

Didn't they just switch sides for a few years?


I know ,in June 1940, the brits did run away with their tails between their legs !

Why didn t you stay to fight the germans ?

[Buster Hyman]

Why didn t you stay to fight the germans ?
Well, nobody else was....

[astronaute]

Oh surprise ! You are not so good after all !:mad:

[Buster Hyman]

Sorry...didn't watch it...I got distracted reading this (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/poignant-fromelles-ceremony-for-reburial-of-ww1-fallen-20100131-n5u6.html).

Back to topic I say...

[Finnpog]

Parce que il y a personne sauf la France qui a choisi les avions de Dassault pour leur militaires.

But I have always thought it looked stunning, and the photos on the web of Flotille 12 (IIRC) about USS John Stennis showed it off remarkably.

[Tigger_Too]

http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr224/jythill/FRUNSC.jpg

[mick2088]

Ps You still fail to give me the answear, why the Rafale is not good enough for the RN and FAA ?Other than no-one buying it and dubious support costs. Probably a lack of compability with some weapon systems in the UK inventory. No presence for Dassault or Snecma in the UK military market and no way the MoD would get away with allowing Dassault and Snecma here when BAE Systems provides fast jet through-life services and Rolls-Royce engine support. Granted, Thales is here but their specialisation doesn't include fast jet and engine support. And would France really grant sufficient ToT of the Rafale to the UK to enable BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce to fiddle around with it unless they are really that desperate to sell it. To put it simply, the Rafale - whether it is the best plane around, the worst or nothing much to shout about - won't ever figure in the selection. And if it did, it would be right at the bottom of the list.

[Finningley Boy]

Astronaute, speaking as a Scottish Briton, and therefore more British than anyone, I personally would love for our Navy to have the Rafale!

The F35 A or C should, together with Taranis, be the Tonka replacement!

And all Nuclear equipped. This may be the answer to the expense of Trident and it's replacement. I believe SLCMs and ALCMs are what we Brits ought to consider as a Trident replacement, if cost is such a prevalent concern.:ok:

FB

[Kalex]

It seems to me that the real problem is not the JSF, but the carriers. Aldready expensive on paper, they will be even costlier on completion, so Britain might need to reevaluate this single choise. If you get something in the region of 30.000t (Italians too would be interested), RN could find the money to buy (say) 40 naval JSF, and RAF another 50. None would be pleased with the compromise, but RN will have a good portion of what it needs and RAF will have something to start with. This interim solution could save some 5-6bn (rough estimates - 2bn from the carriers and 4 from the fighters) and leave the doors open to new orders in the near future. As far as i know construction of the first keel has aldready begun, so there is little time left for this option, but it is still possible.

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Super Hornet (or Rafale). They are both good in their own right, affordable and have plenty of improvement ahead. It's just that the F-35 is the only option that can cover both RN and RAF.

[timex]

Oh surprise ! You are not so good after all

Well you could be saying that in German.............

[airborne_artist]

Well you could be saying that in German.............

...or Russian - they only stopped going West because the Yanks and the Brits were heading East at the time :}

[glad rag]

Oh dear, looks like some of you were correct, incl, Archimedes.
Please accept my apologies for doubting your honest opinions. :):O

[Entaxei]

There is little or no point in having the Ruffle, everything is labelled in French, which may be OK as the 19th Century language for cooking but pretty useless for 21st Century technological expression.

Also someone mentioned Thales, at present they are involved in the carriers design. Given that the de Gaulle came out a nose too short, if we switch to the F18, we would best remove Thales from involvement with the carriers, re-measure the flight deck and change all measurements to Imperial and labels to English.

The overall result would likely be faster implementation of design and build with resulting cost savings and ..... the Americans would understand everything!!

All round win!! :ok: :E

[GreenKnight121]

OK, here's a better view... Canada's F-35A contract they just signed.

The Canadians have agreed to pay 9bn Canadian dollars ($8.5bn; £5.6bn), which comes out to $138.46 million Canadian; $130.77 million US; £86.15 million each for 65 F-35A... a "price for the package of one airplane and that airplane's share of what is needed to get the squadrons running"!

Plus more for a 20-year maintenance contract.

Note that "Maintenance support contracts" do NOT mean that the operating Air Force does nothing and needs no equipment... it means that maintenance functions above squadron level are the responsibility of the contractor... the operating Air Force still needs all the squadron-level equipment & supplies... which is part of the initial contract (the $9 billion Canadian in this case).

During the news conference, Mr. MacKay would not say how much Canada would pay for each jet. Although he did indicate that the 9 billion Canadian dollar figure includes other costs like training, improvements to airbases as well as simulators.

A Canadian procurement official, who spoke on the condition he not be identified, said that the government was assuming that it would pay 90 million Canadian dollars for each F-35 although it anticipated that the final cost would be much lower.

Tom Burbage, a top Lockheed manager for the program, said the company expected to sell the planes to Canada for $60 million to $65 million each, not accounting for maintenance, parts or inflation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html

So Canada is getting their F-35As for below $85 million each (US)... and likely about $75 million US each (taking the half-way point between Lockheed & Canada).


As the more informed around here were aware of.

[Mad-Air]

Hello Chaps!

1. There is alot of spare concrete at Somerset International - Could be filled by ALL Wildcats when we (the MoD) get them.
2. Still spare concrete - Whatever lovely shiny new toys the RN get could still be based there.
3. Close Wattisham airfield.
4. The MoD budget is four times smaller than the NHS budget.....
5. We don't really know whats gonna be happening around the corner, is Mr A L Q'Ida (spelling!), gonna come out in some other guise? Or shall we start worrying about the Chinese or perhaps Venezula?
6. Will we ask to "Britishise" any new (to the UK) aircaft, or go down the raod of buying "as proved" & off the shelf AGAIN?!!!

Well either way, itr is gonna prove very interesting come the end of October.....:ok:

[Trim Stab]

Other than no-one buying it and dubious support costs. Probably a lack of compability with some weapon systems in the UK inventory. No presence for Dassault or Snecma in the UK military market and no way the MoD would get away with allowing Dassault and Snecma here when BAE Systems provides fast jet through-life services and Rolls-Royce engine support. Granted, Thales is here but their specialisation doesn't include fast jet and engine support. And would France really grant sufficient ToT of the Rafale to the UK to enable BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce to fiddle around with it unless they are really that desperate to sell it. To put it simply, the Rafale - whether it is the best plane around, the worst or nothing much to shout about - won't ever figure in the selection. And if it did, it would be right at the bottom of the list.


All good points, but has Rafale already really been entirely ruled out?

If FA18 really is a serious option, then surely any study would have to compare it with Rafale.

Or, if not, the FA18 rumour is just that...

[ICBM]

Believe the US call this sort of rumour Horsesh*t!

I don't think the Govt would support the RN buying F-18F at all and here's why:

Dr Fox has gone on record saying that the SDSR will be looking for a UK Fast Air solution for '2020 and beyond'. Sadly that will rule out an F-18F unless we decide to replace Eurofighter with it - the platform is still a 4th Gen fighter with a slightly better AESA radar, so not exactly a quantum leap forward in technology for the money you could spend elsewhere.

HMG are going to be making swathing cuts to the UK FJ inventory that will help pay for a platform that will have contemporary, as well as future, growth; i.e. the most appropriate, affordable, variant of F-35 to match whatever SDSR decides is our 'role' in the modern World.

My personal view is that GR4 is going to go the way of the Jaguar (and perhaps the Harrier may also too) however, a Govt that wants to support Afghanistan until 2015 can still continue to do it with Harrier at a much-reduced cost to the UK tax payer whilst still providing top notch CAS for the guys and girls in the thick of it on the deck.

Rafale is pants quite frankly - and you think that the French would sell you the same version as theirs? No, seriously, non.

[LowObservable]

GK - As far as I am aware, among the "parts" not included in the $60-$65 million prices touted by Lockheed is the big metal thing in the middle that makes it go.

Also, LM is still in dispute with the government's own accountants over the real cost of the F-35A.

[vecvechookattack]

not exactly a quantum leap forward in technology for the money you could spend elsewhere

That sounds like the Lynx Wildcat and we are buying a !!!!

[glad rag]

and you think that the French would sell you the same version as theirs? No, seriously, non.

And you believe that any country will give you parity? we didn't, the yanks certainly won't either, no matter what kind of contract you think you have.

[GreenKnight121]

GK - As far as I am aware, among the "parts" not included in the $60-$65 million prices touted by Lockheed is the big metal thing in the middle that makes it go.

Well, since "fly-away" indicates that the aircraft has to be complete enough to fly, I would suggest that you provide proof of that rather unbelievable claim... otherwise you owe the folks at LM an apology for the slander and "alternate definition of truth".


Also, LM is still in dispute with the government's own accountants over the real cost of the F-35A.

Well, since LM has now delivered several sets of test aircraft and 3 rounds of LRIP aircraft for well below the costs "the government's own accountants" predicted, and are in negotiations for a fixed-price contract for LRIP 4 that looks like it will be signed for 20% below what "the government's own accountants" told Congress they would cost, I "respectfully" suggest that "the government's own accountants" have their heads up their ar$$es!

[ICBM]

And you believe that any country will give you parity? we didn't, the yanks certainly won't either, no matter what kind of contract you think you have.

I'm afraid I don't understand your banter old chap! :rolleyes:

What if you don't need parity and are overwhelmingly pleased with what they tell you you're going to get? Then it doesn't matter to be honest, does it?!

As for our cheese eating sisters across La Manche, they'd sell their children if it was profitable. I don't see us ever buying their cheap Eurofighter-like rush job.

[ORAC]

Definition of Unit Fly-away Cost Used by DOD:

The standard definition of aircraft unit fly-away cost is found in the DOD Financial Management Regulations. Standard unit flyaway cost elements include the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments; engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including production tooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurement appropriations); divided by the procurement quantity.

Flyaway cost does not include research and development, support equipment, training equipment, technical data, or spares.

[Phil_R]

My personal view is that GR4 is going to go the way of the Jaguar

What I don't quite understand is that we seem to have quite recently spent lots and lots of money upgrading Tornado ground attack aircraft with some sort of new LCD display in the back seat.

Similarly, I recall some rather extensive and presumably expensive wiring upgrades being done to Jaguar shortly before they were withdrawn.

I'm sure the generalised whining about MoD procurement procedures is well enough aired on this forum, but - for christ's sake.

Phil

[subsonicsubic]

I am not sure whether the F18 will perform the role better than JSF. What I do know is that I was extremely proud to know that our two new carriers were to field ground breaking new aircraft.

It saddens me that we are now going to purchase a 30 plus year old design (that lost to the F16) to project UK power overseas.

I an extremely proud of the UK armed forces. I can't help but feel sad that our branches have been "pruned" by the mismanagement of our welfare and immigration policies.

:(

Best,

SSS

[subsonicsubic]

And before I get nailed by the realists;

Lightning, Buc, TSR, Hunter, Concorde et al.

Can you apply a fiscal value to national pride?

Sorry for the rant.

Best,

SSS

[dat581]

Lost to the F-16? You better have a closer look at history, the F-16 only just won the USAF fly off but did not even get off the drawing board for the Navy, turning it into a carrier capable aircraft was considered way to hard. The basic configuration might be 30 years old (have another look at it's history, it's more like 40) but it has been redesigned, has new engines and avionics and is proven to work. And the best thing about it is it's not French! :rolleyes:

[tonker]

I first saw the Eurofighter mockup model in the Missile museum at RAF Newton and that was 1982, and we are only now building up it's numbers and capability ie Air to ground to that of the F18 A/E which it has from the start.

Makes way for a small batch of Growlers!(que..you live in the north east, there aren't any small growlers jokes)

[Rigger1]

what F-35 is capable of

Shouldn't that be ... will be cabable of, hopefully.

Also let's remember what the F22 was capable of at the same period in it's development .. on paper, great. Now in service, when reallity kicks in, not a lot.

The SuperHornet is not a legacy platform, it's widely accepted to be a 4.5 generation aircraft and it's proven, it's available, oh and compared to the F35 it's cheap.

[ICBM]

The SuperHornet is not a legacy platform, it's widely accepted to be a 4.5 generation aircraft and it's proven, it's available, oh and compared to the F35 it's cheap

Superhornet is a re-worked design of a legacy aircraft with a newer radar - call it 4.5 Gen if it makes you and Boeing feel better about where it really lies in the future - next we'll be seeing 4.75 gen, 4.99.... For the long game it is a bridge capability if you wish to upgrade your older F-18 while awaiting F-35 or simply cannot afford to buy an entire fleet of 5th Gen.

I believe that when F-35 production ramps up we'll be surprised at how reasonable the flyaway cost is for what you get. You want legacy then fine, it will cost less because Boeing are being pushed out of the fighter market by Lockheed for what will be the THE future long-term western strike platform. Hell I bet they even subsidise the cost from their airliner sales just to make it attractive.

AOA won't win a war of the future so why buy into it now?

[VietTaff]

With the cuts that are coming the only time we will see Brits in an F35 they will be on an exchange posting.

[Pontius Navigator]

What I don't quite understand is that we seem to have quite recently spent lots and lots of money upgrading . . .

Unfortunately the Government spending and value for money is different from yours or mine.

Money spent is money gone. Money that would be spent is money that can be saved from future spending.

If you had just serviced your second car for Mrs R, new exhaust, new tyres etc etc you would hardly get rid of it simply to save running costs and replace it with a new one would you?

[tonker]

It doesn't matter how good the F35 COULD be. We are a bankrupt little island off Europe. We can't AFFORD it:ugh:

[Phil_R]

Once again posting with trepidation, as a guest... but -

If we want a new ground attack aircraft, why don't we just bloody well make one, while we've at least the shade of the ability to do it? It strikes me that Typhoon is essentially a British aircraft which could have been done without outside involvement, to the net benefit of the project in terms of reduced wrangling over the specification. Keeping it in house means that it doesn't have make a huge dent in the balance of payments, provides lots of employment, and, what d'you know, other people (well, Saudi) might buy them, to overall positive fiscal effect.

Oh, and don't dither over the spec, keep changing the spec, change the spec when you don't understand what the full consequences will be, or sign up to some ridiculous deal whereby government money covers every possible mistake the manufacturers make. Then you might get something with decent clarity of purpose, in a timely manner, within a respectable distance of the original quote.

And you might actually be able to take some schoolkids to RAF Little Wrinklybum and show them one, and those of them which wish to be engineers on such highly diverting projects would have an ice cube's chance in hell of actually becoming such.

Is there anything wrong with this picture? Serious question.

[Squirrel 41]

Phil,

Welcome - always good to get an external view.

Is there anything wrong with this picture? Serious question.

Yes, a few things.

Oh, and don't dither over the spec, keep changing the spec, change the spec when you don't understand what the full consequences will be, or sign up to some ridiculous deal whereby government money covers every possible mistake the manufacturers make. Then you might get something with decent clarity of purpose, in a timely manner, within a respectable distance of the original quote.

Well, the MoD/RAF is notorious for changing specs and off-take numbers, as well as for writing rubbish contracts and stuffing themselves. So this is a pretty major problem.

If we want a new ground attack aircraft, why don't we just bloody well make one

See above. And what threat environment do you want this new jet to work in? Unless reasonably benign at ML, then it starts to get rather pricey VERY quickly - we're not talking about zero-timed Hunters with Litening pods, I'm guessing.

other people (well, Saudi) might buy them, to overall positive fiscal effect.

Extremely unlikely to provide "overall positive fiscal effect" (which I assume means a profit). The only way you can demonstrate that most aircraft exports make a profit is to write off large portions of the R&D and then show that you've made a profit on the incremental sales. I'd be interested to see the costs for Al Yamamah (sp?) to see if we actually made any cash on the Saudi Tornado deals if you were to include the cost of the Tornado R&D.

Of course, if you write off the R&D, then you could even make Concorde profitable.... but it didn't do much for the taxpayers or the BAC shareholders.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, and I'd love to be proved wrong, but....

S41

[LowObservable]

GK

LM has been claiming a couple of sets of numbers.

One is a $49.5 million unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) that does include the engine. A few snags, though. You are not going to get the airplane for the URFC because there are always non-recurring costs in there for "ancillary equipment" (things like weapon pylons/adapters). It's priced in 2002 dollars, and you don't have any of those. It's also not the price today, but an average if you build 2,200 jets between now and 2037. And from a UK viewpoint, it's also worth remembering that the F-35B and F-35C are and always have been much more expensive than the F-35A.

And indeed, this chart that they use all the time omits the engine.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=b4b25b5925&view=att&th=12993306267a93fb&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_gb50nq3a0&zw

So I suggest you take your talk of slander and go back to f16.net.

[GreenKnight121]

Did you notice ORAC's post?

The one where he cites Definition of Unit Fly-away Cost Used by DOD:

The standard definition of aircraft unit fly-away cost is found in the DOD Financial Management Regulations. Standard unit flyaway cost elements include the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments; engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including production tooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurement appropriations); divided by the procurement quantity.

Flyaway cost does not include research and development, support equipment, training equipment, technical data, or spares. You see that? include the costs of procuring airframes; engines;

If LM is citing "unit flyaway cost", then it HAS to include the cost of the engine!

Where can WE see "this chart that they use all the time" that "omits the engine."? You conveniently "forgot" to provide a link.

And since I have never been on f16.net, I laugh at you.

Try to belittle me because I call you on your BS?

[servodyne]

I'm new to the forum but have read with interest the views of many regarding the possible purchase of the F/A-18 Silent Hornet by the UK. Although this will be decided above our pay grade, a small thought to ponder. Passive stealth is a perishable quality, with the improvements in electronic detection stealth technologies become less effective. The Russians are currently experimenting with wing leading edge 'anti stealth ' radars built into their next generation fighter to counter the F-35 and F-22 reduced RCS stealth capabilities. Without its stealth capability the F-35 becomes an aircraft that lacks payload, range and speed, all qualities needed in a good fighter if it is to survive in a hostile environment.
An aircraft supported by a modern EW platform will stand as good a chance as any of 'getting through' to it's target so, maybe a package that includes F/A-18 SH and E/A-18 G's might not be such a bad purchase in these financially stressful times. We will have to wait and see what our lords and masters decide!

[LowObservable]

Anyone?

Is there something strange about the link? Was that very large chart invisible? Or is GK suggesting that I fabricated it? If so, I hope he will come out and say as much directly.

I logged out and could still see it, so if anyone can help GK it would be useful.

Meanwhile, here is some more discussion:

Lockheed: F-35 Can Compete On Cost | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/06/18/01.xml&headline=Lockheed:%20F-35%20Can%20Compete%20On%20Cost)

Yes, as I noted above, there is a cost that can be presented as $60 million, although it is based on URFC (which nobody much ever used until now), and won't apply until at least 2018-2019 delivery dates, and is the A-model that the RN is not going to get, and depends on all the international partners sticking to their delivery dates, even though IOC and testing have slipped.

[cornish-stormrider]

I have been keeping schtoom about this one for a week or so just in case - not wanting to blow my own trumpet but I am distantly related to a VVIP ( no names no clues or I get a black Omega tail ) and we had a very interesting natter at a little family shindig. Said VVIP has a big input into the upcoming pain.

I voiced the side of the end user of kit - bloody industry etc and VVIP voiced the point of MOD/RAF keep buggering about with the spec.

We agreed on this, make no mistake - said VVIP is damn clever and well aware of various things and while there is going to be pain, oodles of, the gubmint is trying to walk the line between getting us out of debt and keeping us a viable nation with the needs of everybody, mil included.

Don't believe all you read in the mail or torygraph....

I wish I could say more but I can't - just keep faith with each other and STOP THE BLOODY INFIGHTING.

I also would like f-18g over a dave we might never see. All of you fretting that we wouldn't have the best shiny toy - we've managed it ever since we began haven't we?

[Biggus]

LO,

I can't access your chart on my system either - but I can see that you have posted something, and I don't doubt your integrity!!!

[Phil_R]

Well, the MoD/RAF is notorious for changing specs and off-take numbers, as well as for writing rubbish contracts and stuffing themselves. So this is a pretty major problem.

I have a little experience of this, from the supplier side, so I can't disagree - but it seems a little lame to posit this as an reason why we can't be trusted to make our own aircraft. I mean, fix it! Easier said than done I'm sure but good grief.

And what threat environment do you want this new jet to work in? Unless reasonably benign at ML, then it starts to get rather pricey VERY quickly - we're not talking about zero-timed Hunters with Litening pods, I'm guessing.

Sorry, ML? Medium level? Remember, I ain't got no Cranwell. But this depends what you want, which is a tricky question, of course. The thing is, this does speak back to the "stop fiddling with the spec" issue. Tornado seems from what I've read to be a superbly successful ground attack device and it is not doing anything like what it was originally designed to do. At some point, it's necessary (and fiscally responsible) to decide on something and let someone make it without constantly trying to ensure it's perfectly optimised for whatever might be happening next Wednesday, which, by the time the thing takes flight, will be out of date in any case.


Extremely unlikely to provide "overall positive fiscal effect" (which I assume means a profit)


Well, no, that's specifically why I didn't say profit; selling them is aimed at amortising the cost of having some yourself. But really, again, isn't this hopelessly lame excuse? I appreciate the US military-industrial complex is a rather special case, but I suspect that there was a time when outfits like English Electric and Blackburn would have been surprised to hear that it's impossible to run a business building military aircraft.


Of course, if you write off the R&D, then you could even make Concorde profitable.... but it didn't do much for the taxpayers or the BAC shareholders.


Sure, fine, but if you're going to make them anyway, why not ensure that UK government spending is at least spent and taxed and re-spent in the UK.

No?

P

[LowObservable]

Thanks, Biggus - let's try this.

Lockheed Martin Chart (http://www.sendspace.com/file/qiqgng)

Apologies for annoying Sendspace link, but it's the best I can do right now.

CS - We're not to believe the Mail or the Torygraph... but the story that started all this was in the Times.

[GreenKnight121]

So I have to download and install someone's downloader program (that I know nothing about... either program or company) in order to download that file to see your chart... very nice.

You can't just put up a link to where you found it.


Perhaps you are referring to one of the charts here?

F-35 JSF Program: When is ?Affordability? Not? (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-090710-1.html)

And yes, URF... not the same designation.

And with the clear labeling of the differences I don't see anything to support any accusation of deception and underhandedness.


Of course, Airpower Australia is the same group that insists that Australia should have bought the more-expensive F-22... which is not even available for export (and which blindly refuses to even acknowledge that fact).

So, baseless accusations of deception and skullduggery are only to be expected from them... too bad you believe them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

As a Canadian I was distressed when the government announced we were committing to the F35. The one huge advantage to the CF18E/F is there is cost certainty. Nobody knows what the final unit costs for the F35 will be but if the cost do not increase from the latest upward revison, (now at least 1.5 times the cost of a F18E) it will be the first modern military aircraft program that manged that feat from this (early) point in its development.

Finally how good is good enough. Who is the realisitic enemy that cannot not be defeated by a generation 4.5 fighter now or even 20 yrs from now ?

In the last 40 years the kill ratio for Western Airforces is in the order of 100 to zero.

[hulahoop7]

The F35 is not just about shooting down enemy SUs / MIGs, it's primarily about getting in an out of places safely.

[ORAC]

The F35 is not just about shooting down enemy SUs / MIGs, it's primarily about getting in an out of places safely. But only, it would seem, when used in conjunction with the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) - which may not be made available to other F-35 purchasers....

Will F-35 Customers Get Advanced Jammer? (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp?storyID=news/awst/2010/08/09/AW_08_09_2010_p46-243841.xml&headLine=Will%20F-35%20Customers%20Get%20Advanced%20Jammer?)


...........The Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have not made any decisions regarding the release of Next Generation Jammer technology, although the NGJ is expected to be vital to the strike aircraft’s survival in heavily defended enemy airspace (see p. 48)......

Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations.....

[Rakshasa]

Someone remind me what the point of us paying to be Tier 1 partners was again?

[glad rag]

Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations.....

Now, you know that ALL F35's will be "equal" it's in the contract, :*:*

[LowObservable]

GK - I was not accusing anyone of underhandedness. Most of the numbers out of LockMart have been appropriately labeled and qualified. However, once those get more widely reported (as in the post to which I originally responded) the qualifiers get stripped away.

LM says that eventually, at full rate, the F-35A will cost as much as a comparably equipped F/A-18E/F. Who knows, they may accomplish this (despite derisive snorts from St Louis). But to talk of a $60-$65 million price in the context of the RN's deal is misleading, because the UK will be buying B-models off the later LRIP batches and the early MYPs, if the whole shebang stays on schedule.

[SSSETOWTF]

Rakshasa,

Reasons for paying to be a Level 1 partner:

Getting in early has meant that over a hundred UK suppliers are now involved with building the aircraft and we have a very significant piece of the industrial participation. So when the US and other nations buy 3000+ airframes, the money the UK Treasury makes in tax on the sales of all those components will more than cover the UK money that's been invested so far and will also pay for the UK airplane buy. In simple terms, over the life of the program the UK government gets the airplanes for free, and should make a tidy profit (or if you're a cynic, you could say that there's plenty of margin for cost growth). You'll find it hard/impossible to get a deal like that if you buy any other airplane - F-18, Rafale, or Typhoon.

It also gets us a lot more access to the Program, at an earlier stage, than any of the other Partners.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[ColdCollation]

"In simple terms, over the life of the program the UK government gets the airplanes for free, and should make a tidy profit "

... probably none of which will make its way back into the defence budget as an offset. Even a fraction of the total would be, erm, helpful.

[Rakshasa]

SSSETOWTF, Thanks for the breakdown. It easy to forget the commercial aspects of the deal when thinking purely in terms of defence and as Cold Says, You'd think or hope that some of the lovely tax revenue might find its way back to the Defence Budget.

Of course if it did, we'd also have a plentiful supply of flying pigs to strap bombs to....

[ICBM]

Quote:
Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations.....
Now, you know that ALL F35's will be "equal" it's in the contract, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif

Point is that F35 does not need NGJ. Sure, it 'could' provide some added capability, depending on what that actually is, but NGJ is a program that would have applicability to many platforms such as F-18G for self-protection. My point is that NGJ is a separate program which UK have not bought into - it has nothing to do with the F-35 contract so your argument in terms of platform parity is sadly a bit flawed there.

Completely agree with SSSETOWTF's points on industrial share aspects too - tends to get overlooked on what Level 1 partner status gives UK.

[LowObservable]

SSSETOWTF

Can you expand on that calculation? The biggest UK-domiciled piece of JSF is part of the airframe - let's say 15 per cent by value of airframe and systems, which may be 35 per cent of the whole deliverable air system. So the VAT on that is one per cent of the value of the complete air system... so to make our money back on 138 aircraft they would have to sell (click click whirr) 13800 jets.

Yes, there are also the ejection seats and other bits, and some of the B propulsion system (but the Bs are never going to be more than 15 per cent of the production run), and some of the F136 if it doesn't get canceled, but a lot of the RR propulsion work is being done in Indianapolis. Likewise, BAE's biggest chunk of the system is in Nashua.

[Biggus]

Let us say that MOD wants to buy a new tank. There are two options available. One is a German tank costing £6M each, and one a British tank costing £10M each (the numbers are made up!!). The actual performance of each tank is broadly similar.
Which should MOD buy.....?

Its obvious isn't it, the German one. That is the approach the new CDS says he will take when he is in office.

However, let us look at it more closely.

For every German tank we buy, £6M goes out of the UK economy to Germany and, unless the Germans use some British parts in their tanks, that is the last we ever see of it.

Looking at the British tank. It is built by a firm in Swindon say. For every tank we buy £10M circulates in the UK economy:

The tank firm makes a profit - and pays the government Corporation tax.
The tank firms workers get paid - and pay income tax to the Government
The firm and workers both pay national insurance contributions to the government
The workers spend their money in Swindon shops - and pay VAT to the government as they shop
The Swindon shops in turn pay VAT, their workers pay income tax, etc....
The tank firm employs UK subcontractors, each of which pays corporation tax, national insurance, their workers, VAT, their workers pay income tax, etc, etc......


How much of that £10M the government has spent on each tank comes back to it one way or another in taxes. Probably over 40% I would say.

So from the UK plc point of view the British tank is probably actually "cheaper", and far better for the country as a whole. However, that doesn't help the MOD budget which is not getting any benefit from having "bought British", and is simply paying £4M per tank more than it wants to!

[kkbuk]

Exantai, it may have escaped your notice but Rolls-Royce build a rather superb nuclear reactor that is presently pushing the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines around the world's oceans. No need for American involvement whatsoever.

[SpudmanWP]

Thanks, Biggus - let's try this.
Lockheed Martin Chart (http://www.sendspace.com/file/qiqgng)
Apologies for annoying Sendspace link, but it's the best I can do right now.

LO, do you have the original doc for that graphic?

[ORAC]

ts obvious isn't it, the German one. That is the approach the new CDS says he will take when he is in office.

However, let us look at it more closely.

For every German tank we buy, £6M goes out of the UK economy to Germany and, unless the Germans use some British parts in their tanks, that is the last we ever see of it. Bollocks

I think you'll find that every country buying such equipment insists on offsets against other parts or products built in country - in many cases in excess, up to 130%, of the purchase price.

[minigundiplomat]

Let us say that MOD wants to buy a new tank. There are two options available. One is a German tank costing £6M each, and one a British tank costing £10M each (the numbers are made up!!). The actual performance of each tank is broadly similar.
Which should MOD buy.....?



I love this analogy.


The chances of the UK tank having similar performance on paper are good [in reality - zero]. Because all UK companies know the MOD is a cash cow, we then get bumraped over spares, upgrades and through life support.

Two things scream out at me here.....

1. Why German, and not US?

2. Why is the economy in Swindon [ or anywhere else] as important, or more important, than a soldiers life?

[Biggus]

Right, first of all I'm just a pond life JO on a flying base, I'm not a senior officer, and I have not worked in MOD at any stage.....

In my last post I was trying to point out what I believed (possibly incorrectly) to be the financial return for the UK of "buying British". It was also partly to point out that LO's calculation of having to sell 13800 jets before the UK government got sufficient return (tax) from various UK companies involvement in the project for the 138 we might buy to be "free" was probably very pessimistic.....

Having said that:

Deliverance

Half my point was that the government doesn't return any of the benefits to any department that buys British, whether that be Defence, transport, agriculture, etc, etc..... Departments are encouraged to buy British to help the UK economy, but it doesn't help the departments individual budgets, in fact it may hinder them. Any benefit to the country goes into the general pot (in the same way that your road tax doesn't pay for roads) rather than any attempt (which would probably be a nightmare to manage) to "credit" an individual departments budget.

Minigun

I was trying to keep the example as simple as possible. To that end I stated (however unrealistically) that the performance of each tank was similar - so a soldier is as safe/unsafe in one as in the other. In which case (your point 2), how is a soldiers life effected by the choice made in my hypothetical case?

Why Germany and not the US? Why not, its a hypothetical example for goodness sake. I could have picked Spain, Denmark, Brazil, etc and it wouldn't matter. It was just an overseas country vs the UK. The US was just too obvious and boring to pick.... Anyway, the Germans make good tanks :ok:

Why Swindon? Why not, it was the first name that popped into my head, and no, I'm not based at Lyneham.

It was a hypothetical example of a UK vs overseas purchase of military equipment, and the money recouped by the UK government in each case. Don't get so bogged down in unimportant details.


ORAC

No need to swear. :)

Whilst I was aware, and have read about, industrial offsets, I thought they were more usual in larger scale projects. I didn't realize they were as common as you seem to imply. Does this mean that the much trumpeted sale of Hawks to India, mentioned in Cameron's recent visit there with a trade delegation, is actually going to cost the UK more than it earns us (in that we have had to agree to offsets with India)? In which case I wouldn't have thought it was worth celebrating!


Gents, I tried to put down my thoughts on why the government is keen to "buy british" whenever possible, without the individual government departments involved getting any benefit. I tried to pick a simple example. As I wrote it I could see more any more ways in which the money spent makes its way back to the Treasury. I may have been wrong, and stand ready to be corrected (ORACs comment re offsets?). This is a discussion forum after all.....:)

[ORAC]

Offsets In International Arms Trade - Need For A National Policy (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume12/mrinal.html)

......The British defense industry was quick to grasp the increasing importance of offsets. The British Defense Manufacturers Offset Group was established in 1990. The members exchange knowledge on offsets and share expertise to deal with different countries. It is also creating a data bank wherein the offset policies of the major arms buying countries have been compiled to enable the members to negotiate effectively.

In addition, the Defense Export Services Organization under the British Ministry of Defense provides support and offset advice to British arms exporters. It also administers the policies for seeking offsets from the producers who export to Britain. The British call it Industrial Participation (IP). Under the British IP policy, a minimum of 100 per cent offset is essential for all contracts over 50 million pounds for French and German companies, and 10 million pounds for all others. It further stipulates that offsets have to be defense related, new and of equivalent technical quality; and have to be fulfilled within the period of the main contract and at no extra cost. It permits both direct and indirect offsets. Incidentally, the UK’s offset benefits exceed 5 billion pounds, with the USA being the main provider.......

[glad rag]

No point trying to point out common sense to this lot Biggus (:)) their views are, for some, way to firmly entrenched to cede any debate.

On the grander front, I feel that in a decade (or two) these times will be viewed by military historians as the point when the RAF consolidated it's loss of direction in the pursuit of "air power", having been led along a certain path by leaders whose mindsets were purely one dimensional and motivated by a strong helping of presumptuousness.

[bobward]

Excuse this thought from an aging civvy.

It seems to me that we've been here before. way back in the 1960's Hawker's were building this super VTOL jet called P1154. It was Mach 2 capable, V/Stol, and was planned to be bought by the RN and RAF in large numbers - save costs, interoperable etc.

The the Navy pulled out and bought the Phantom. The RAF then cancelled as it was too expensive and bought....more Phantoms. Anyone else get a feeling of deja vu here?

:sad::8

[Entaxei]

Thanks for the memory jog re the Trident boats being Roller powered, I had forgotten that. So that leads to an image of the CV hulls being stepped, 4 x Rollers stacked two high; when the hull is on the step - no worries about STOL or Ski Jumps - lots of problems solved - maybe creating a few more!! - but still leaving the F/A 18 the winner and more reduced costs. :D

As an aside and an example of where leading technology can lead you ;

A few year back I went on board a Trident boat at Faslane, walked along the deck to the large hatch, where to my surprise, the hole in the deck was surrounded by a fence of scaffold tubes to stop anyone falling in, with a wooden builders ladder to climb up, then reverse position and descend down via another longer wooden ladder to get onboard, all secured by ropes. :ugh:

In the meantime, yes, as usual with Rolls, those engines are magnificent and would be ideal for the CV's with minimal expense in design - or did the last lot sell off the division involved when they got rid of all our nuclear design and manufacturing capability to the rest of the world, before placing requirements for same, out for bidding. (Thank God they hav'nt tried to nationalise and produce our Beer yet - but keep looking, some bright s*d might).

However, and with apologies to Mods for major thread creep, but, if a boat can be carried on a ship - but not a ship on a boat - it'll take a hell of a ship to carry a Trident Sub. :E

[Could be the last?]

It seems the RN (FAA) are already pushing guys to the F18 on exchange. Even the new guys coming out of Valley are getting slots across there (USN). I wonder if they already know something????

[Buster Hyman]

I feel like its time for a gratuitous piccy of our new ones... It's no Pig, but I still sleep well at night! :ok:

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/media/news/img/Growler.jpg

[aviate1138]

If they wait just a little bit longer won't there be lots of earlier F-18s going cheap? Think of the money saved. After all if it is a need to put wings on a new carrier and then parade off some snitty Third World country whose inhabitants won't know the difference between an early [very cheap] and late [much more expensive] model F-18. Let's face it with the reduction in hours flown, why buy anything flyable at brand new prices! They will never reach anywhere near their time-expired/weary wings date.
In fact seeing as the Royal Navy has been told not to upset those naughty pirates why not build some Pinewood Studios replica battleships [all phoney but looking authentic] at a fraction of the normal cost and save even more money?

I just do not understand why we shell out billions in aid to third world countries and decimate our own armed forces [ who are essential for our well being].

[Obi Wan Russell]

aviate1138:

If they wait just a little bit longer won't there be lots of earlier F-18s going cheap? Think of the money saved. After all if it is a need to put wings on a new carrier and then parade off some snitty Third World country whose inhabitants won't know the difference between an early [very cheap] and late [much more expensive] model F-18. Let's face it with the reduction in hours flown, why buy anything flyable at brand new prices! They will never reach anywhere near their time-expired/weary wings date.

The USN/USMC F/A-18 As/Bs and Cs/Ds won't be of any use to anyone, they may not have reached the end of their airframe hours but they have used up their allotment of cat/trap cycles and cannot be flown from the deck anymore. Useful for spare parts mainly but not much else.

In fact seeing as the Royal Navy has been told not to upset those naughty pirates why not build some Pinewood Studios replica battleships [all phoney but looking authentic] at a fraction of the normal cost and save even more money?

In the same vein, why doesn't the RAF just make do with lots of wooden/plastic Typhoon mockups on their airfields? That way they can make do with just the real Tiffies they have now and save a fortune on operating costs. Alternatively since the Russians only seem to send relics from the fifties to probe our airspace, how about we reply by intercepting them with Hawker Hunters? They might take the hint... I hear we have some back in service at the moment anyway, why not task them with northern QRA? And the army can buy lots of inflatable tanks like they did in WW2. Fooled the nazis in '44...:ok:

[Double Zero]

There is no way in this or any other world that the Royal Navy is going to go to the hassle & expense of using F-18's, new or old, or Rafales for that matter; the only reason the CVF's are being made 'easy' to fit cat n' trap' is so that they are easy to sell off, once the labour governments' committment to provide jobs has worn off.

I am not pro-labour by any means, but I do do think of history in my short span; wasn't it a certain M.Thatcher who all but sold 'Invincible' a fraction before the Falklands War ?

If you thought Bliar & co. were bad, wait 'till you see the Tories in action; savaged any good project 1960's onwards, ( I don't think the TSR2 was a great idea in hindsight, and just take a look at the thing without rose tinted glasses ).

It would be amazing if the CVF and F-35 both get through cuts, but the F-35B and British Fleet protection / power projection is useless without the carrier.

If we have to go ( relatively ) cheap, let's keep the carriers as they are multi-purpose, and, yes I've said it before, for Christ's Sake get some AMRAAM equipped Harrier 2+ !!!

[GeeRam]

If you thought Bliar & co. were bad, wait 'till you see the Tories in action; savaged many good project 1960's onwards, ( I don't think the TSR2 was a great idea in hindsight, and just take a look at the thing without rose tinted glasses ).

TSR.2 was cancelled by a Labour Govt. as was the P.1154 'supersonic Harrier' ;)

[Double Zero]

Only after being stuffed by Conservative and American moves; even the fairly far left Tony Benn ( thought little of him until moderately recent interviews, now have a high opinion, this chap needs a serious listening to ) fought for the British Defence Industry & for that matter Concorde;

Rather different from Thatchers' attitude, 'you Mark have this bit, X, have the train system, etc...

And I don't vote Labour !

DZ

[glad rag]

There is no way in this or any other world that the Royal Navy is going to go to the hassle & expense of using F-18'sAnd that stunning statement way well, however inadvertently, detail the eventual reason for the demise of RN fixed wing aviation, because if you think F18's are too expensive.....

Anyway, Hook Down, Wheels Down, proper Naval Aviation...YouTube - Hook Down, Wheels Down - The Story Of The United States Navy's Aircraft Carriers (ca 1970's) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I6XJCEi-GU&feature=digest)

[Jetex_Jim]

So from the UK plc point of view the British tank is probably actually "cheaper", and far better for the country as a whole.
10/10 for arthimetic. 0/10 for missing the point that the army ends of with a lousy tank. (something about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing?)

[Biggus]

0/10 for not reading the question properly, especially where it said......"the actual performance of each tank is broadly similar".

Or for not reading that it was a hypothetical situation where I deliberately removed performance of the item (tank) as an issue in order to discuss the purely financial aspects!


Or are you just saying that all British kit is crap........?

[Jetex_Jim]

Or are you just saying that all British kit is crap........?
No, but I agree, this bit makes your proposition totally hypothetical:
......"the actual performance of each tank is broadly similar".

[Dr Jekyll]

For every German tank we buy, £6M goes out of the UK economy to Germany and, unless the Germans use some British parts in their tanks, that is the last we ever see of it.

So where do you think they will spend £6M sterling?

[Biggus]

Loan/give it to Greece...... ;)

[Extg3]

We are discussing on this thread buying the F18 E\F as a strike aircraft. Surely we need to be also thinking about some sort of air defence aircraft? Something along the lines of the Sea Gripen, which appears to have a developed version of the same engines as the F18.

[Dr Jekyll]

Who will spend it back with us.

[Easy Street]

We are discussing on this thread buying the F18 E\F as a strike aircraft. Surely we need to be also thinking about some sort of air defence aircraft?

The US Navy consider the F18 E/F to be good enough as an air defence aircraft. It should probably therefore be good enough for us as well, in this post-"gold plating" era.

Having just 1 multi-role type embarked gives massively increased flexibility, allowing the proportion of aircraft assigned to DCA / OCA / CAS / AI etc to be varied according to the situation and not the availability of assets. This was one of the reasons why they tried strapping bombs to F14s and eventually retired them. We are also trying to reduce the number of different types we operate to economise on logistic support.

[Extg3]

I hadn't realised the F18 was used in the air defence role. In that case makes sense to buy the one type.

[GreenKnight121]

The USN uses the single-seat F/A-18E as its replacement for the F-14 tomcat as "fleet defense fighter" and the two-seat F/A-18F as its replacement for the A-6E Intruder as "all-weather medium attack" aircraft.

However, both aircraft are nearly as proficient in each other's roles as in their prime role, so either one is often found performing either role.

[Buster Hyman]

How much were you guys quoted again???

Stealth fighters cheap at $140m (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/stealth-fighters-cheap-at-140m/story-e6frf7l6-1225909569574)


Ian McPhedran
From: Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/)
August 25, 2010 12:00AM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/08/24/1225909/570066-f35-jets.jpg
The F35 Joint Strike Fighters are fifth-generation jets. Source: Supplied



AUSTRALIA will pay a "fly away" price of less than $60 million each for up to 100 of the world's most advanced stealth fighter jets.

But the total will be more than double that for a package that includes weapons, sensors, training and lifetime support for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter.
At $140 million, the single-seat jets will be cheaper than the 24 two-seat Super Hornets bought by the Howard government for $6.6 billion or more than $220 million each.
The multi-role jet is powered by the biggest fighter engine ever built, which propels it at almost twice the speed of sound and it is virtually invisible to radar.
In addition to stealth, the aircraft is completely fly-by-wire with electric controls, fully networked with pilot voice recognition and a helmet mounted display offering "see through" features that enable the pilot to even look down through the jet.
Australia is buying up to 100 jets from the US Air Force under a so-called foreign military sales deal.
For the first time the aircraft maker, Lockheed Martin, has provided a "firm" price to Australian taxpayers in 2010 dollars.
During a briefing at Lockheed Martin's huge state-of-the-art JSF factory at Fort Worth in Texas, project chief Tom Burbage revealed that Australia, as one of nine global partners, would pay less for its planes than Israel, which has ordered 20 of the fifth-generation fighters.
"Your average cost of buying your fleet of aeroplanes will be at that number ($60m) or maybe slightly below it," Mr Burbage said.
Israel last week said it was buying 20 JSFs for a total outlay of $2.75 billion or about $140 million each based on an initial fly-away cost of $92 million, the same figure as early Australian aircraft.
Mr Burbage also revealed that the hourly flying cost of the JSF would be about 20 per cent below the RAAF's fleet of F/A-18 Hornet fighters.
"That has been fairly stable for the past two or three years," he said.
The first two RAAF jets will be delivered in 2014 when pilots will train on them at Eglin air force base in Florida.
The initial operational squadron of 14 planes is due in service by 2018.
Mr Burbage said the biggest challenge for the program was managing the global supply chain for aircraft components.
Up to 70 per cent of costs come from the supply chain that includes manufacturing centres in many countries, including $120 million for 180 projects in Australia so far.

[oldnotbold]

So, if this turns out to be true. Australia will pay 'only' $140 million each for the F35. ..

Correct me if I am wrong but, unlike Australia, the UK is looking at the -more complex and expensive- F35B STOVL version, so this Australian costing -if accurate- does not mean very much at all in terms of the proposed UK buy of a different, more complex and more expensive aircraft.

For Carrier operation the Super Hornet or, if it is affordable, even the F35C looks a much better bet for UK. For one thing Cat and Trap could give you Hawkeye AEW.

EMALS is now going very well. CVF is designed to take it. Fit it. Buy Super Hornet and a few Hawkeye. Seems to be the way the RN's minds are running since so many FAA pilots are training with USN on Hornets.

What is better for most purposes maybe 8 F35B and Helo AEW or 24 Super Hornet and Hawkeye AEW?

[GreenKnight121]

Re-read the ******* post, oldnotbold!

AUSTRALIA will pay a "fly away" price of less than $60 million each for up to 100 of the world's most advanced stealth fighter jets.Yes, that is a "without engines or radar" cost, but read further down:

Israel last week said it was buying 20 JSFs for a total outlay of $2.75 billion or about $140 million each based on an initial fly-away cost of $92 million, the same figure as early Australian aircraft. That "$140 million each" includes airfield modifications, ground support equipment, initial spares, and other "start-up costs"!!!!

Also figure in that those are Australian dollars, since the link was from an Australian news paper!

The Canadians just signed a contract for 65 F-35A... for C$138 million per total (US$130 million), and their Defense Minister said that Canadian dollar figure includes other costs like training, improvements to airbases as well as simulators.

NO MORE THAN C$90 million (US $85 million) of that was for the actual aircraft, everything else was those "start-up" costs I mentioned above.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html?_r=1

[ORAC]

Hmmm. I found another comment, from a different article by the same reporter, of the same briefing, much more interesting. You either take all the points reported with a pinch of salt, or accept all as true. But I would suggest not cherry picking the ones you prefer........

Adelaide Now: Australia flies away with strike fighters for $60m each (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/australia-flies-away-with-strike-fighters-for-60m-each/story-e6frea8c-1225909593661)

AUSTRALIA will pay a "flyaway" price of less than $60 million each for up to 100 of the world's most advanced fighter jets.

However, the final price will be more than double that for a total package that includes weapons, sensors, training and through-life support for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

At about $140 million each the single-seat jets will be cheaper than the 24 two-seat Super Hornets purchased by the Howard government for $6.6 billion, or more than $220 million a copy.

The multi-role JSF jet is powered by the biggest fighter engine built, that propels it at almost twice the speed of sound. However, Australia's aircraft will not be as stealthy as the U.S. version........

Ian McPhedran travelled to the US as a guest of Lockheed Martin

[oldnotbold]

Firstly the reporter travelled to the US as a guest of LM, which has to make you wonder.

Secondly, as I posted before UK is looking at the STOVL 35 B, not the Australian or Canadian version. Even people who really like F35 admit that the STOVL B version is going to cost a fair bit more than the A or C versions.

If what I read is correct the STOVL B version also has a much shorter range and can carry only half the payload of the A and C versions.

[oldnotbold]

According to the Israeli Defence Ministry their F35's will be around $100 million each, and since they will get them, more or less, free under a US Military Aid Programme I tend to give more weight to this than other sources, as they have no need of 'spin' to their public.

"The price tag for each plane, according to the ministry, is around $100 million. But there are experts, including Yiftah Shapir of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies, who expect the cost to soar to around $150 million per plane, bringing the total cost of the 22 planes the IAF is seeking to obtain to over $3 billion"

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/inside-intel-who-wants-the-stealth-fighter-1.308907

[Adour]

Who are these FAA pilots training with the USN? I know there has been a lot of rumour about it, but has anyone actually gone as part of a new FAA plan (rather than just usual exchange guys).

Moreover, if they are out there, who is paying, what are they going to do for 5 years or, what are they going to fly when they get back if they are just doing a quick qualification and CQ?

Adour

[oldnotbold]

Found this on another forum

RN sends cadre of pilots to train on US carriers


"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 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 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."

It is worth noting that these are FAA pilots, not RAF.

[Ivan Rogov]

Just maybe the RN sees the Harrier going in the SDSR and is trying to keep a cadre of FJ drivers interested. The title of the thread and the totally unfounded speculation are classic Pprune, please keep it up :D

Unfortunately in the real world the CVs and JSF will be extremely lucky to survive the chop, I haven't heard anything from Dr Fox that requires them and the axe will have to swing hard on some big projects in order to make the savings required :{

[oldnotbold]

I think it will be the the RAF and Army heavy equipment that takes the big hit in this round of cuts. I Found this on another forum. It makes good sense to me.


" ...Of course the Navy is going to have EMCAT - if they have to move heaven and earth to get it. It keeps them in the game. So whether it is F35 or F18, those carriers will have catapults. Don’t you get it?

And while I am on it, here is another thing some of you don’t get:

Jointery is over. Where is the jointery in the RAF pronouncements that RAF pilots only will fly F35? Where is Jointery in trying to kill off Harrier in order to kill off fixed-wing FAA? Where is the Jointery in announcing that F35 will operate from land bases most of the time?

And I don’t you see? The Navy has dealt itself a Get-out-of-Jail-Free-Card. It’s called F18. Buy F18 themselves i.e. from their own agreed budget and the tables are reversed - the RN gets its fixed-wing FAA back under its own control.

There is no way that the Navy is not going to try for that. And it’s got an awful lot going for it - F18 appears cheaper and promises to save a lot of money. Whether or not it is and will is irrelevant. It’s the cheap package presented in the NOW that counts with the decision makers. But the real clincher is Sovereign Control. Because no-Sovereign Control means huge amounts of - you’ve guessed it, money. Money to the outfit that’s got you by the short and whatsits.

It is the dream of every corporate to tie their customers into a close relationship which they control. For there lies untold wealth. I know, I’ve seen it happen a few times now. I’ve worked for the screwer, where obscene amounts of money were extracted from the locked-in customer who couldn’t do anything about it - if indeed they knew what was happening. And I’ve worked for the Screwee where the company was in the grip of a large corporate who charged enormous amounts of money for services - and do you know Management didn’t question it. They felt safe and protected and more importantly their jobs were safe and protected. And most of these, both screwer and screwed, were large American corporates.

So the RN’s get-out-of-jail card is completely financial and in these straitened times is therefore very powerful. All these arguments about the relative merits of one plane over another matter nothing. We only have a few weeks to go and then the unceasing wittering will stop.
And Amen to that brothers.


I agree with this post just about 100%. It is what I have been banging on about

Leave aside every argument about LM and the F35B, (although Israel are saying their F35's - which will be considerably less expensive than F35B- will be about $100 million each. Why should we believe that over other figures? Because Israel will actually get them more or less free under the US military aid programme, and they have no need to cook their figures for public consumption. Inside Intel / Who wants the Stealth fighter? - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/pr...stealth-fighter-1.308907) ) it still comes back to the very long running history of the RN and the RAF and control of the FAA.

The RAF, having already spent something like four times the amount of money the QE Class Carriers will cost on Typhoon -optimised for Air to Air combat and yet to be deployed operationally or do any harm to anyone except the British Tax payer- planned to kill off the joint Harrier force and saw F35B, among other things, as final victory for the RAF flying all British fast jets, with the added bonus that the RN would greatly ease their constant deployment problems by actually transporting their aircraft to the war zone.

STOVL was an RAF concept and came about because the RAF believed its airfields in Germany would not last long in the face of a Soviet attack. The RN adopted STOVL only because it did not get CVA, in the 1960's, and did not have a large Carrier that could operate CATOBAR aircraft.. When CVF -the now building QE Class Aircraft Carriers- was being designed all systems of operation were looked at. The RN's, realistic, view was that STOVL and CATOBAR both had pros and cons, Some people at MoD actually favoured CATOBAR, but the RAF, for its own reasons, was adamant for STOVL. Since, for the RN actually getting the Aircraft Carriers into Service was the main thing, at that time they sided with the RAF, since doing anything else risked the RAF coming out against the Aircraft Carriers, as they had with CVA, with disastrous results for the RN.

The CVF concept has gone through various stages. Put very simply: Large- smaller- large. At one stage they were looking at a very large ship with 'gold plated' systems including very large amounts of automation, very fancy radars, high quality self defence systems and very advanced propulsion and prop systems, etc. It all started looking very expensive. A smaller ship in the 30,000-40,000 tons area was looked at and a lot of work was done on it, but, in the end it became obvious that any money saved was not worth it in terms of the operational limitations on a smaller Aircraft Carrier. The design grew again in size, but lost most of the 'gold plated' options. The RN, because they lacked any real commitment to STOVL, ensured the design could, easily, be fitted for CATOBAR.

The world turns and you have an economic crisis, a change of Government and a new Defence review-round of Defence cuts. Whatever LM claims, the British Treasury does not like the look of the costs of the F35B programme at all. The Royal Navy, having recently breathed a huge sigh of relief having seen its longed for QE Class Aircraft Carriers actually start building, is not about to let the RAF F35B programme sink them.

As everyone and his dog, who follows the doings of the Royal Navy, knows the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers are the future of the RN, the RN has watched over them, worked hard and sacrificed for them for years now. To be a front rank, first class, Navy you have to be able to do Carrier Strike and serious CAS. The Royal Navy is not the USN, but it is the Royal Navy and British Admirals certainly do not see it sinking into some kind of European style coastal defence force, not on their Watch. So the RN has a plan, ready and waiting, buy Super Hornet F18: It will be on cost and on time, it is a battle proven design that the USN intends to operate for at least the next 25 years and it will be able to do anything the British Government wants it to do. It gives interoperability with the USN (and, in due course, CATOBAR might well allow RN Aircraft Carriers to have excellent AEW aircraft) and says the RN, actually a very high proportion of our FAA pilots just happen to be slated for training -on F18- with the USN, so we can save money with our own, independent of the RAF, training pipeline... So we can have our Fleet Air Arm back. ... That's the same FAA that, since WWII, has actually provided UK with extremely good value for money and has always actually been able to do the job it is designed for. The Royal Navy may not have the large PR Department of the RAF, but they go on, quietly and efficiently, doing the vital job they are paid for in the UK National interest.

And as for the RAF, don't be totally surprised if they end up with Typhoon and, perhaps, some Tornados, to compensate for no F35B any time soon, or, maybe, Typhoon and F35 but in very small numbers and over a very long time."

[oldnotbold]

Well it was RAF that was making noises about all F35's being flown by RAF pilots, and F35's leaving the RN Carriers as soon as possible for land bases and it was the RAF that was happy enough to kill off the joint Harrier force. The RN has also never forgiven the RAF for 'moving' Australia while helping to kill off the CVA Carriers in the '60's.

The future might be F35, although I hope not F35 B for UK. Having said that F35, and certainly F35 B, could go the way of F22: Priced out of the market, especially if orders keep getting cut or even cancelled, as well may happen.

[ORAC]

According to the Torygraph the decision is to scrap the F-35B order and buy the F-35C instead. In that context the USN training for the RN crews makes sense.

That does mean fitting Cat & Trap to the carriers, but the option is built in; it also allows for the option of buying Hawkeye AEW off the shelf, rather than a rotary AEW.

In the slightly longer term it opens the option of replacing the Tornado force with a smaller force of either F-35A or F-35C. with the radiply reducing commonality between the two models, and the flexibility of being able to cross train if and when required, then a future RAF F-35B would seem logical.

The Torygraph does seem to totally misunderstand the situation, however, as if they think the "cheaper" F-35C is somehow inferior - rather than superior in both range and payload.

Torygraph: Jump jets to fall victim to spending cuts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7970372/Jump-jets-to-fall-victim-to-spending-cuts.html)

[Jayand]

Jeez oldnotbold do you want salt and vinegar on those chips of yours?

[oldnotbold]

Fly Navy ;)

[Jetex_Jim]

The big question, that everybody at Warton must be asking, does BAe get to keep its big piece of the F35 action, if the UK is no longer funding the STOVL version development?

[glad rag]

Fly Navy http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

...if the sources at the employment agencies are correct, not after October matey, ................................unless you sit under a jesus bolt.

:uhoh::{:{

[tlamdweeb]

Is it not the case that the original decision to adopt the STOVL F-35B allowed some 'trades' in CVF performance? I understand that USN CVNs are capable of some pretty eyewatering (for a ship) speeds in order to recover damaged FW a/c by giving them suffcient wind over deck to recover if, for example, their flaps/slats etc. are inoperable.

Can CVF operate F18 safely with it's current powerplant? Is there a risk that yet another requirement change will drive extra cost (and delays) into the CVF programme?

[Not_a_boffin]

A bit. Yes. Yes. No.

[LowObservable]

Brevity is the soul of wit - though I hear in some quarters that we are back to the Dave-B solution again.

[The Helpful Stacker]

In a post strewn with inaccuricies and cast aside shoulder chips its difficult to reply to it without writing yet another essay, so rather than bore all I'll stick with just the one, almost throwaway, line from from the chucklemeister, 'Oldnotbold'.

The RAF, having already spent something like four times the amount of money the QE Class Carriers will cost on Typhoon -optimised for Air to Air combat and yet to be deployed operationally or do any harm to anyone except the British Tax payer-

Wasn't the F15E, one of the most successful strike fighters in the US arsenal for many a year now, a development of an aircraft designed originally as purely an 'air superiority' fighter, without even the slightest consideration to dropping bombs?

No matter what you read on 'Rum Ration' the Typhoon in UK service was always designed to have an air-to-ground role, but the priority was to replace the Tornado F3 initially (thus an emphasis on the air-to-air) and replace the Jaguar GR3's at a later date (with those aircraft in the initial tranche, with so-called 'austre' A/G capability, being upgraded to full capability as the later tranches enter service).

[oldnotbold]

This round of Defence cuts is going to fall on the RAF, Army Heavy equipment and Senior Officers. The RN, as everyone knows, is now very stretched indeed, while the Army is taking the main burden of the very long COIN war in Afghanistan.The Navy could very well lose more Type 42 Destroyers, which will leave the escort force even shorter, but there is very little fat left on the RN or the British Army.

ps
I do not read Rum ration, but do check out ARRSE...

[Biggus]

oldnotbold,

Considering the age of the type 42s, the fact that most now don't carry sea dart missiles any more, and the fact they are about to be replaced (at a ratio of 12:6 :() by the type 45, I don't see how getting rid of more type 42s now would save anything much in the medium to long term.......

Especially as there are only 5 left as we speak.

[cessnapete]

JSF or F18?

The Janes report is correct. The first of 12 'straight through' RN FAA pilots starts with VFA-14 on the F18E this month.

A compressed USN training /tactical weapons course on the T-45A and then the F18E/F Super Hornet OCU, included carrier qualification on a flat deck conventional carrier 'fixed wing' CATOBAR.
(The first student RN FAA pilot to do so since the 70's)

The pilots are intended to serve a full USN operational tour, as opposed to an exchange posting, and apparently is paid for by the RN directly.

'Embedds' for an embryo FAA air group for the new RN carriers?

[Bookend]

Doesnt that sort of thing go on in NATO all the time? It *could* be a coincidence...

[Entaxei]

Where any studies/figures ever produced comparing costing/advantages of nuclear propulsion for the cv's - interesting possible conflict there with the French already using it for CdG, the EU greens and labour/lib dem 'no nuclear at any price anywhere'.

Incidentally, what is the current tally of serious surface RN warships, i.e. not including river launches, RIB's, survey, RFA etc., but units with a GUN that they can (or are allowed to) fire. When labour came to power I made it approx 52 out of a total of about 110 (plus the upholders up for sale - nice & shiny) - I recently estimated 15, (the type 45's can't last much longer, even if we had the oil available).

p.s. The river Fal fleet does not qualify. :E

[TheWizard]

Well, this is the American take on the situation. Seems we may need to borrow US aircraft and crews to keep the 'British Empire' going!!
UK May Borrow F-18s for Carriers (http://www.military.com/news/article/uk-may-borrow-f18s-for-carriers.html?col=1186032325324)

[glad rag]

I think the term "British Empire" tells you all you need to know about that article.

[Buster Hyman]

I recognize the UK will seldom deploy without others, including the US. However, it did just that during the Falkland campaign and likely does so periodically to show the UK flag globally.Hmmm...just brushed aside a few little facts for the sake of the article. That's as far as I got sorry.

[proudfishead]

Entaxei,

Incidentally, what is the current tally of serious surface RN warships, i.e. not including river launches, RIB's, survey, RFA etc., but units with a GUN that they can (or are allowed to) fire

The Royal Navy ORBAT is currently

2 x Invincible Class CVS (with 1 further at [very] extended readiness)
1 x LPH
2 x LPD
5 x Type 42 DD
4 x Type 22B3 FF
13 x Type 23 FF
1 x T45 (with 5 to follow)

That makes a total of 28 FF/DD and above sized assets, with a further 4 OPV/OPV(H) and 16 MCMVs, exluding the Survey, Submarine and RFA elements.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I like the idea that the RN has its own secret stash of money that it can nip-out and buy something without the rest of the MoD being involved.


You don't think the sailors of yore spent all that captured Spanish gold on wine, women and song do you? Being the wise salty seadogs there were they put a portion of the money into a high interest bond for a rainy day and its just about to come to fruitition.

Certain in the know members of the senior service are currently pawing over the military version of the Argos catalogue, little pens at the ready whilst others, of a more traditional bent, are phoning around various museums trying to work out how much they'd want for a slightly used Gannet or Sea Vixen.

Why else would there be a pipedream thead about the RN buying F18Fs (circumventing the MoD who usually purchase kit for the various constituent parts of the military) or the rash of "remember when we flew these" type threads?

Just read between the lines, it where the real meat is....;)

[oldnotbold]

"Since, most people seem to agree that you are only looking at a buy of about 50 aircraft now, you are only going to have about 24 jets, in peacetime, on the one operational Aircraft Carrier, no matter what aircraft UK buys. Except if they buy F35B the jets will, almost certainly be, RAF, not FAA, and you really will see an empty Carrier much of the time.

STOVL F35B may or may not work as advertised and may or may not get cancelled and may or may not be affordable, by UK. It is impossible to know these things now.

The fact is UK could go for about 50 Super Hornet and, UK would know, for a fact, A) they will actually do what its says on the tin. B) they will be delivered when UK wants them. C) they will cost more or less exactly what UK is told they will cost.

None of that is true of STOVL F35B.

Super Hornet is, relatively low cost and very low operational risk. F35B is high risk and might very well be very high cost. One is a certainty and the other a gamble."

[Entaxei]

Proudfishead

Thank you very much for that breakdown. I had omitted the CV, T42's and the oncoming T45's, which is not quite fair, but at least its a bit better than I had envisaged, although no thanks to either the previous government (who liked to posture on a strategically placed warship) or the MOD, whose ambition appears to be, to become superior in total numbers to that of the entire armed forces!. (memo to self - don't get political - don't get political ......)

The Helpful Stacker

Presumably by meat, you mean the fillings choice is either corned beef & pickle or mousetrap. ;)

oldnotbold

That is the most succinct summation I have seen to date, amidst all the various postings, which actually takes into account the reality of our current position as a nation, actual facts and costs versus theoretical performance, timing and costings - and ignores the siren call of having the possible latest and greatest regardless of actual need. Thank you.