Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you have a force mix of say 100/40 - F18/F35 ?
This would enable a potent combat force of F18s by 2020 and allow the run in of F35 as it trickles in to service.
Benefits: Earlier capability, allows run up to F35 ops, less expensive, is stealth really necessary beyond the opening days of a campaign?, preserves 'golden bullet' a/c, enables a/c redundancy, force flexibility (why take a ship load of F35s to an area when F18 is more than capable), maintenance, combat proven F18,
Negatives: Logistics, Engineering,.....
This would enable a potent combat force of F18s by 2020 and allow the run in of F35 as it trickles in to service.
Benefits: Earlier capability, allows run up to F35 ops, less expensive, is stealth really necessary beyond the opening days of a campaign?, preserves 'golden bullet' a/c, enables a/c redundancy, force flexibility (why take a ship load of F35s to an area when F18 is more than capable), maintenance, combat proven F18,
Negatives: Logistics, Engineering,.....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think that's the point of the memo - not cancellation, but a drastically reduced F-35 buy.
For over the last 20 years it's been mooted that what the DoD needs is small scale R&D programmes leading to a couple of Sqns of next generation aircraft. No great engineering costs for entry to service and logistics, just to retain the engineering skills and infrastructure to ramp up if needed.
In the F-22 the USAF reached that point. In the F-35 maybe the USN and USMC are as well...
For over the last 20 years it's been mooted that what the DoD needs is small scale R&D programmes leading to a couple of Sqns of next generation aircraft. No great engineering costs for entry to service and logistics, just to retain the engineering skills and infrastructure to ramp up if needed.
In the F-22 the USAF reached that point. In the F-35 maybe the USN and USMC are as well...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a little rich of the RAF to blub about access to the non-reciprocal exchanges.
Initially the idea of using USN/USMC cockpits to populate the RN cadre of FCBA/JCA came about as 20(R) could only provide a maximum IPS of 4 compared to a requirement of 7.
The current requirement to populate sensible levels of the RN rank structure with fixed wing experience, produce a cross section of rank and experience for JCA and to participate in the test and evalution of F-35 leads to a very clear need to get pilots of varying career profiles into cockpits.
The RAF has made it very clear that it will not help. If you think that this is out of necessity then that is up to you. Certain officers within the RAF have made their feelings about aircraft carriers and/or services operating them very clear.
QECV and F-35 are endorsed at the highest level. Why doesn't the RAF try to arrange a few Rafale-M cockpits to acquire the skill set - oh, AOC 1 Gp burnt that bridge didn't he? Would one like one's cake or to eat it Sir?
The RAF, or certain officers within it, would be the first to cry foul if the RN started making mistakes in operating QECV born out of lack of experience in FW ops. It seems ridiculous to me (given Haddon-Cave et al) that the RAF could even dream of a light blue only JCA cadre operating off a platform manned by personnel with no experience of similar operations.
Oh and by the way. When the RN asked the RAF for help the answer was 'No'. When the RAF asked for access to the current exchange programme it was told that it would have to free up a reciprocal arrangement for RN to fly in Typhoon. At about that point things began to get tricky.
Initially the idea of using USN/USMC cockpits to populate the RN cadre of FCBA/JCA came about as 20(R) could only provide a maximum IPS of 4 compared to a requirement of 7.
The current requirement to populate sensible levels of the RN rank structure with fixed wing experience, produce a cross section of rank and experience for JCA and to participate in the test and evalution of F-35 leads to a very clear need to get pilots of varying career profiles into cockpits.
The RAF has made it very clear that it will not help. If you think that this is out of necessity then that is up to you. Certain officers within the RAF have made their feelings about aircraft carriers and/or services operating them very clear.
QECV and F-35 are endorsed at the highest level. Why doesn't the RAF try to arrange a few Rafale-M cockpits to acquire the skill set - oh, AOC 1 Gp burnt that bridge didn't he? Would one like one's cake or to eat it Sir?
The RAF, or certain officers within it, would be the first to cry foul if the RN started making mistakes in operating QECV born out of lack of experience in FW ops. It seems ridiculous to me (given Haddon-Cave et al) that the RAF could even dream of a light blue only JCA cadre operating off a platform manned by personnel with no experience of similar operations.
Oh and by the way. When the RN asked the RAF for help the answer was 'No'. When the RAF asked for access to the current exchange programme it was told that it would have to free up a reciprocal arrangement for RN to fly in Typhoon. At about that point things began to get tricky.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all the dark blue honesty and candour – thank you; this is the clearest sign I have seen that RN ambition is to operate all aircraft afloat. It would be useful if this was made more prominent in Whitehall, then we really could crack on. And this I am afraid is why this problem generates pages and pages of arguing around the buoy here.
The new “small and perfectly formed” combat aircraft force of 2020 will not have room for inefficiencies. Because of the small size of the fixed wing FAA it has always struggled to recruit and retain enough aircrew to meet the requirement. Hence the solution has always been for the RN to operate a cadre within an RAF owned and operated force. The Newton study made this quite clear, although it never really addressed the proportions allocated to each Service in a mutually satisfactory way. I understand the agreed split was 66:33 to the RAF - is that still true?
If the issue is the attainment of embarked skill sets, then both Services need to grow them on exchanges. If the issue is FAA growth and sustainment then Defence needs to see the full (additional) costs of what that means and the risks inherent in delivering it against a small force size.
Of course, the RN could just aim to take the lot! So which is it?
The new “small and perfectly formed” combat aircraft force of 2020 will not have room for inefficiencies. Because of the small size of the fixed wing FAA it has always struggled to recruit and retain enough aircrew to meet the requirement. Hence the solution has always been for the RN to operate a cadre within an RAF owned and operated force. The Newton study made this quite clear, although it never really addressed the proportions allocated to each Service in a mutually satisfactory way. I understand the agreed split was 66:33 to the RAF - is that still true?
If the issue is the attainment of embarked skill sets, then both Services need to grow them on exchanges. If the issue is FAA growth and sustainment then Defence needs to see the full (additional) costs of what that means and the risks inherent in delivering it against a small force size.
Of course, the RN could just aim to take the lot! So which is it?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt P U G Wash,
The Newton Study. Not something you will see many from a service oft quoting due to the repeated conclusion that didn't say what was required.
The change to F-35C has changed the dynamic and isome take the view that F-35C is more of a 'computer game' that is suited more to the Observer/Navigator mind than the mandraulic motor skills required to keep a Harrier away from the ground. Combine that with the belief that stepping on and off a carrier is a couple of sim trips and you're current again actually suggests the future JCA force could happily cope with a chap/chappess who has straight B's at GCSE. I don't subscribe to those views for what it's worth and I know that they are only at the extreme end of some people's views.
All that said, on your point it concluded that both services would struggle to fill such a small force (JFH and the JCA force of the future) because the 'accumulator' of pilots in the RAF couldn't simply swap across to a STOVL aircraft from, say, a Tornado cockpit. Bad example. Typhoon cockpit.
Does that change now? Not really. The size of the entire fast jet fleet in the 2020 timeframe and the requirement to be 'single seat or bust' will not make it that much easier to populate a cockpit whichever side of the recruiting fence you sit on if the metrics of today are still used. The French Navy doesn't seem to struggle to filling its cockpit seats sat alongside the bigger FAF brother. Even Belgium manages it.
Who knows what MFTS will look like once we realise what we're actually going to train and if we have the concept configured correctly to meet the training requirements of future aircraft types.
There were many aspects of Newton that did ring true but some read those with Nelson's eye or made differing conclusions on the same statement (both sides by the way.)
I wouldn't in any way suggest that the RN is trying to take back fixed wing aviation in exactly the same way the RAF isn't trying to eradicate the Fleet Air Arm (fixed wing) because neither of those 2 outcomes were concluded by Newton nor are they endorsed policy.
As for the inherent risks and additional costs of delivering against a small force, maybe the lack of a RN requirement to deliver a 4* from such a cadre might actually be an efficient way to man that part of the RN and therefore the JCA Force?
The US mans its naval and marine air forces at less than 2:1 so we can clearly follow suit can't we? Oh, hang on....
But you are of course spot on. Defence really does need to see the manpower structure costs of delivering such a small total force of UK fast jets in the 2020+ timeframe.
The Newton Study. Not something you will see many from a service oft quoting due to the repeated conclusion that didn't say what was required.
The change to F-35C has changed the dynamic and isome take the view that F-35C is more of a 'computer game' that is suited more to the Observer/Navigator mind than the mandraulic motor skills required to keep a Harrier away from the ground. Combine that with the belief that stepping on and off a carrier is a couple of sim trips and you're current again actually suggests the future JCA force could happily cope with a chap/chappess who has straight B's at GCSE. I don't subscribe to those views for what it's worth and I know that they are only at the extreme end of some people's views.
All that said, on your point it concluded that both services would struggle to fill such a small force (JFH and the JCA force of the future) because the 'accumulator' of pilots in the RAF couldn't simply swap across to a STOVL aircraft from, say, a Tornado cockpit. Bad example. Typhoon cockpit.
Does that change now? Not really. The size of the entire fast jet fleet in the 2020 timeframe and the requirement to be 'single seat or bust' will not make it that much easier to populate a cockpit whichever side of the recruiting fence you sit on if the metrics of today are still used. The French Navy doesn't seem to struggle to filling its cockpit seats sat alongside the bigger FAF brother. Even Belgium manages it.
Who knows what MFTS will look like once we realise what we're actually going to train and if we have the concept configured correctly to meet the training requirements of future aircraft types.
There were many aspects of Newton that did ring true but some read those with Nelson's eye or made differing conclusions on the same statement (both sides by the way.)
I wouldn't in any way suggest that the RN is trying to take back fixed wing aviation in exactly the same way the RAF isn't trying to eradicate the Fleet Air Arm (fixed wing) because neither of those 2 outcomes were concluded by Newton nor are they endorsed policy.
As for the inherent risks and additional costs of delivering against a small force, maybe the lack of a RN requirement to deliver a 4* from such a cadre might actually be an efficient way to man that part of the RN and therefore the JCA Force?
The US mans its naval and marine air forces at less than 2:1 so we can clearly follow suit can't we? Oh, hang on....
But you are of course spot on. Defence really does need to see the manpower structure costs of delivering such a small total force of UK fast jets in the 2020+ timeframe.
Last edited by FB11; 29th Aug 2011 at 14:18.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Interesting snippet in the latest AW&ST article about the Works memo and the possibility of either the B or C being cancelled. Looks like the B is no longer considered a viable option and the Rafale M is rearing it's head...
.........If the F-35C were to be canceled, the U.K. would withdraw from the program and "look for a European solution" to it's requirement for a carrier fighter, a senior U.K. official said in Washington earlier this month....
.........If the F-35C were to be canceled, the U.K. would withdraw from the program and "look for a European solution" to it's requirement for a carrier fighter, a senior U.K. official said in Washington earlier this month....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF should concentrate on its own game rather than trying to make the FAA extinct.
I think that this is something that the RN doesn't really understand - the RAF isn't trying to destroy the FAA, it simply believes that it should be responsible for providing air power.
ORAC, do you believe that?
i would have thought that if 'C' was cancelled the UK would get an superb F/A-18E/F/G deal from the US by way of apology/compensation/bribe not to go elsewhere.
is Rafale still in production - and for how long?
is Rafale a better carrier-borne (or indeed land-based) fighter/strike/reece/tanker than F/A-18E/F/G?
would Rafale 'fit' better into the RAF/RN than SuperHornet?
i would have thought that sharing an aircraft - and therefore, potentially, carriers, with the USN would have been far 'better' that sharing with the French - if only because they have more carriers. is this true?
i don't know any of these things, but if the RAF/RN are viewing a particular plan B it would be nice to put the 'right' answer in MP's minds asap...
i would have thought that if 'C' was cancelled the UK would get an superb F/A-18E/F/G deal from the US by way of apology/compensation/bribe not to go elsewhere.
is Rafale still in production - and for how long?
is Rafale a better carrier-borne (or indeed land-based) fighter/strike/reece/tanker than F/A-18E/F/G?
would Rafale 'fit' better into the RAF/RN than SuperHornet?
i would have thought that sharing an aircraft - and therefore, potentially, carriers, with the USN would have been far 'better' that sharing with the French - if only because they have more carriers. is this true?
i don't know any of these things, but if the RAF/RN are viewing a particular plan B it would be nice to put the 'right' answer in MP's minds asap...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
i would have thought that sharing an aircraft - and therefore, potentially, carriers, with the USN would have been far 'better' that sharing with the French
Britain and France to share aircraft carriers
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the RAF isn't trying to destroy the FAA, it simply believes that it should be responsible for providing air power.
The RAF are not best positioned to do this.
We need to bring the Carrier / Maritime Airpower / Strike experience which is currently being built in the States with the FAA into the UK F35 programme by way of the FAA/RAF mix currently proposed.
Of course the RN view it as maritime air power therefore slipping conveniently into the RN (FAA) arena
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the role of the embarked aircraft was purely maritime, for example air defence of the fleet (SHar), anti surface / sub surface (helos) etc then it makes sense for it to be FAA as it is a purely maritime effect.
I think that this is something that the RN doesn't really understand - the RAF isn't trying to destroy the FAA, it simply believes that it should be responsible for providing air power.
It would appear that the concept of "Jointery" isn't as advanced as we would like to believe.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is ridiculous, it's based on the basis of who flies aircraft as opposed to the task.
Lets posit carrier UAV instead of manned aircraft (and that's only 3-4 years off)
Lets posit carrier UAV instead of manned aircraft (and that's only 3-4 years off)
We are fragged to get F35 C, Carrier variant JSF, and we need to be able to fly it from sea therefore the relevant experience is required.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Defense Systems: Navy test replicates UAV landing on carrier
The first ever successful test of a carrier touchdown of an F/A-18D surrogate aircraft, replicating maneuvers of unmanned aerial vehicles, was completed on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) by the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program office (PMA-268) July 2, according to a Navy press release.
The fact that the Navy was able to launch and land the surrogate is an indication that it is getting closer “to demonstrating that a tailless, strike-fighter-sized unmanned system can operate safely in the carrier environment,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, program manager of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System.
The Navy has worked for more than five years to plan for and update the ship’s systems to read the UAV’s data, and also integrate both networks with Precision Global Positioning System, all in preparation for the 2013 goal of an “autonomous landing of an actual unmanned, low-observable relevant aircraft on the aircraft carrier,” according to Engdahl.
Navy orders study on UCLASS concepts
The Navy wants an Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft — or UCLASS — to fly off its carrier decks by 2018, and to that end it has awarded Boeing a contract to study just how it can get there, the aerospace company said Monday. Basically, from Boeing’s announcement, it sounds as though the Navy wants to lay down as much groundwork as possible to prove that it’ll be possible to take an aircraft, get it out to sea, on the cat, into the air and then trap it back on board.
From Boeing’s announcement:
The first ever successful test of a carrier touchdown of an F/A-18D surrogate aircraft, replicating maneuvers of unmanned aerial vehicles, was completed on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) by the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program office (PMA-268) July 2, according to a Navy press release.
The fact that the Navy was able to launch and land the surrogate is an indication that it is getting closer “to demonstrating that a tailless, strike-fighter-sized unmanned system can operate safely in the carrier environment,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, program manager of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System.
The Navy has worked for more than five years to plan for and update the ship’s systems to read the UAV’s data, and also integrate both networks with Precision Global Positioning System, all in preparation for the 2013 goal of an “autonomous landing of an actual unmanned, low-observable relevant aircraft on the aircraft carrier,” according to Engdahl.
Navy orders study on UCLASS concepts
The Navy wants an Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft — or UCLASS — to fly off its carrier decks by 2018, and to that end it has awarded Boeing a contract to study just how it can get there, the aerospace company said Monday. Basically, from Boeing’s announcement, it sounds as though the Navy wants to lay down as much groundwork as possible to prove that it’ll be possible to take an aircraft, get it out to sea, on the cat, into the air and then trap it back on board.
From Boeing’s announcement:
Boeing has received a $480,000 study contract from the U.S. Navy to support pre-Milestone A activities including development of a concept of operations, an analysis of alternatives, and an investigation of potential material solutions for the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program.
“The Navy wants UCLASS in the fleet in 2018,” said Jimmy Dodd, vice president, Advanced Boeing Military Aircraft. “Boeing has been delivering carrier-based aircraft to the Navy since 1925. With Boeing’s broad experience in unmanned systems and rapid prototyping, and nearly 90 years of carrier-based aircraft know-how, we are prepared to meet that schedule to support the mission and requirements the Navy establishes. This contract is the start of that.”
The UCLASS system will consist of an air segment, a connectivity and control segment, a Carrier Vessel-Nuclear (CVN) segment (launch and recovery), and a systems support segment. The work on the eight-month contract, according to the Navy’s Broad Agency Announcement, will conceptually demonstrate that a UCLASS system can provide a persistent CVN-based Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance and strike capability supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 time frame............
“The Navy wants UCLASS in the fleet in 2018,” said Jimmy Dodd, vice president, Advanced Boeing Military Aircraft. “Boeing has been delivering carrier-based aircraft to the Navy since 1925. With Boeing’s broad experience in unmanned systems and rapid prototyping, and nearly 90 years of carrier-based aircraft know-how, we are prepared to meet that schedule to support the mission and requirements the Navy establishes. This contract is the start of that.”
The UCLASS system will consist of an air segment, a connectivity and control segment, a Carrier Vessel-Nuclear (CVN) segment (launch and recovery), and a systems support segment. The work on the eight-month contract, according to the Navy’s Broad Agency Announcement, will conceptually demonstrate that a UCLASS system can provide a persistent CVN-based Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance and strike capability supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 time frame............
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 time frame............
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I would suggest that for a USN CVN wing including AAR, AEW, COD, Ew etc; then it might well be seen as "supporting".
But for a planned planned RN wing of 12 aircraft, a force of "persistent Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance and Strike" UAS would be able to perform all required tasks except AD and to propose the loyal toast in Taranto night.
And if I was worried about organic AD it wouldn't go to sea without an effective AEW and with an aircraft with a limited load of AAW Mx...
But for a planned planned RN wing of 12 aircraft, a force of "persistent Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance and Strike" UAS would be able to perform all required tasks except AD and to propose the loyal toast in Taranto night.
And if I was worried about organic AD it wouldn't go to sea without an effective AEW and with an aircraft with a limited load of AAW Mx...
Last edited by ORAC; 4th Sep 2011 at 20:48.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
UK carrier to receive second EMALS production shipset
UK carrier to receive second EMALS production shipset, Fox confirms
By Peter Felstead 9/12/2011
Defence Security Report
"The second production shipset of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) being developed by General Atomics for the US Navy's upcoming Gerald R Ford-class aircraft carriers will be fitted to Prince of Wales, the British Queen Elizabeth (QE)-class carrier that will be configured for the F-35C carrier variant (CV) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the UK Defence Secretary has confirmed.
Speaking to Jane's in the run-up to the Defence Security and Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition, held in London from 13-16 September, Dr Liam Fox said: "We now have a slot for the EMALS catapult system being fitted. It will be fitted first of all to the Gerald R Ford , then the next slot will be for the British carrier and the next slot will be for the American John F Kennedy carrier. So we've got that confirmed from the Americans now; the Americans have successfully tested it."
The US Navy first used EMALS to launch a manned aircraft, an F/A-18E Rhino strike fighter, on 18 December 2010 at the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) EMALS trials facility at Lakehurst, New Jersey...."
By Peter Felstead 9/12/2011
Defence Security Report
"The second production shipset of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) being developed by General Atomics for the US Navy's upcoming Gerald R Ford-class aircraft carriers will be fitted to Prince of Wales, the British Queen Elizabeth (QE)-class carrier that will be configured for the F-35C carrier variant (CV) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the UK Defence Secretary has confirmed.
Speaking to Jane's in the run-up to the Defence Security and Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition, held in London from 13-16 September, Dr Liam Fox said: "We now have a slot for the EMALS catapult system being fitted. It will be fitted first of all to the Gerald R Ford , then the next slot will be for the British carrier and the next slot will be for the American John F Kennedy carrier. So we've got that confirmed from the Americans now; the Americans have successfully tested it."
The US Navy first used EMALS to launch a manned aircraft, an F/A-18E Rhino strike fighter, on 18 December 2010 at the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) EMALS trials facility at Lakehurst, New Jersey...."
Suspicion breeds confidence
From the Evening Standard.
UK planes to fly from US carrier | News
I'm not how they arrive at their conclusion.
UK planes to fly from US carrier | News
I'm not how they arrive at their conclusion.