Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by hval
Twenty four aircraft are better than twelve aircraft. Sixteen is better than twelve.
From MOD news recently: Royal Navy unveils carrier training facility
To keep up with the state-of-the-art technology on board sailors and engineers will be trained in a £1m building at HMS Collingwood in Fareham, Hampshire, which has been set out in the same way as an operations room on board the new carrier.
The personnel will be trained on the new mission system which links all the combat, communications and visual surveillance systems together by a fibre-optic network - these are usually separate on warships, allowing for a much more integrated way of working.
So Warfare Branch and Weapon Engineering types will be training for CVF, but not fixed wing pilots or deck crews?
I still think that the Government could make this into a success story, by leasing a few AV8Bs from the US (also worth considering other options and issues mentioned on this thread), and possibly either extending the life of HMS Illustrious post 2014, and/or speeding up the build and entry into service of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Additionally a radar equipped jet would help make up for the loss of ISTAR capability when Sea King ASaCs is retired before a replacement system is ready.
Things have changed since October 2010, not only the switch back to F35B for CVF and the need to prepare for a STOVL future, but also the world has changed - for the worse. The Harrier is the only type of aircraft (until F35B comes along) that can do STOVL shipborne operations, a capability I believe we need NOW. The US Marine Corps intend to carry on operating the AV8B into the next decade - and until 2025 or later if necessary.
Back on 17 December 2010, vecvechookattack wrote:
Why is this not happening? Would embarking foreign Harriers be too embarrassing for the Government?
To keep up with the state-of-the-art technology on board sailors and engineers will be trained in a £1m building at HMS Collingwood in Fareham, Hampshire, which has been set out in the same way as an operations room on board the new carrier.
The personnel will be trained on the new mission system which links all the combat, communications and visual surveillance systems together by a fibre-optic network - these are usually separate on warships, allowing for a much more integrated way of working.
So Warfare Branch and Weapon Engineering types will be training for CVF, but not fixed wing pilots or deck crews?
I still think that the Government could make this into a success story, by leasing a few AV8Bs from the US (also worth considering other options and issues mentioned on this thread), and possibly either extending the life of HMS Illustrious post 2014, and/or speeding up the build and entry into service of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Additionally a radar equipped jet would help make up for the loss of ISTAR capability when Sea King ASaCs is retired before a replacement system is ready.
Things have changed since October 2010, not only the switch back to F35B for CVF and the need to prepare for a STOVL future, but also the world has changed - for the worse. The Harrier is the only type of aircraft (until F35B comes along) that can do STOVL shipborne operations, a capability I believe we need NOW. The US Marine Corps intend to carry on operating the AV8B into the next decade - and until 2025 or later if necessary.
Back on 17 December 2010, vecvechookattack wrote:
Originally Posted by vvha
We still need FDO's and flight deck crews. HMS Illustrious will still be embarking Fixed wing aircraft upto and until 2014.
Additionally the RN has the problem of building up the cadre of fixed wing Pilots - they cannot all go stateside, and there is a need for them to increase numbers, train new ones, and no become to separated from the rest of the Navy.
Because of these last two points, other topics discussed on the same thread are worth looking at.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th Nov 2012 at 08:10.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi WE Branch,
As far as I am aware and I stand to be corrected, we are either having or going to have Royal navy fast jet pilots trained right from the get go over in the USA? Previously we have sent experienced pilots on detachment to the US Navy but now we might also be seeing pilot trainees learning their skill from US instructors and being taught the methods of the US?
Not only are there Dark Blue pilots over in America but I hear there might also be a few light blue who are desperate to do some real flying. Did i mention the French? Am I also correct to suggest there might a few military pilots on detachment with our French counterparts.
Can you PLEASE forget about the Harrier, it is dead, it is deceased, it is over, it has gone and my thoughts are it will NEVER be bought back into service for a 101 reasons none of which I am going to discuss as it would just add fuel to an extinguished fire. We are allegedly getting the 35B, the F-35B is allegedly the best aircraft for the task and we are allegedly getting that alleged best aircraft.
I like the 35B, I think it has potential, I just do not think it was the best option
As far as I am aware and I stand to be corrected, we are either having or going to have Royal navy fast jet pilots trained right from the get go over in the USA? Previously we have sent experienced pilots on detachment to the US Navy but now we might also be seeing pilot trainees learning their skill from US instructors and being taught the methods of the US?
Not only are there Dark Blue pilots over in America but I hear there might also be a few light blue who are desperate to do some real flying. Did i mention the French? Am I also correct to suggest there might a few military pilots on detachment with our French counterparts.
Can you PLEASE forget about the Harrier, it is dead, it is deceased, it is over, it has gone and my thoughts are it will NEVER be bought back into service for a 101 reasons none of which I am going to discuss as it would just add fuel to an extinguished fire. We are allegedly getting the 35B, the F-35B is allegedly the best aircraft for the task and we are allegedly getting that alleged best aircraft.
I like the 35B, I think it has potential, I just do not think it was the best option
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
letter in today's Times suggesting we could have a cats & traps Carrier force with a fast jet force of 30 F-35A's & 33 F-18 E/F operated by the RAF/RN for the same price as a big buy of the STOVL version
operated by the RAF/RN
cats & traps Carrier force with a fast jet force of 30 F-35A's
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Harry letter in today's Times suggesting we could have a cats & traps Carrier force with a fast jet force of 30 F-35A's & 33 F-18 E/F operated by the RAF/RN for the same price as a big buy of the STOVL version
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etter in today's Times suggesting we could have a cats & traps Carrier force with a fast jet force of 30 F-35A's & 33 F-18 E/F operated by the RAF/RN for the same price as a big buy of the STOVL version
How many carriers cwould be converted for the money - assuming it is budget neutral?
Would it not be better just to have an F35a/b mix?
How are we, the UK, going to provide AAR to F35A?
One would have thought that the F-35C would have been a better RCAF option. Although it seems that they were very impressed by both the F-18E/F/G and particularly the Rafale during the Libyan war.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would have thought that the F-35C would have been a better RCAF option. Although it seems that they were very impressed by both the F-18E/F/G and particularly the Rafale during the Libyan war.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35A has space for fitting drogue & probe air refuel bits
'BEagle' said: "A question which the RCAF must also be asking itself..... To equip the CC-150T with a boom would cost CAN$ zillions - and the F-35A cannot, it seems, be fitted with a probe..."
Flying the F-35, Canadian Defence Review, October 2012
Flying the F-35, Canadian Defence Review, October 2012 | F-35 Canada
"In the October 2012 issue of Canadian Defence Review, Joetey Attariwala interviews former RCAF CF-18 pilot Billie Flynn who is now a Lockheed Martin test pilot on the F-35."
Canadian F-35 Aerial Refuelling Considerations (excerpt from 'Flying the F-35')
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...R-Oct-2012.pdf (0.7Mb)
"...According to Lockheed Martin, Canada has conducted a study to examine options for F-35 aerial refueling techniques. Lockheed Martin officials were not able to say what conclusions the Canadian study yielded.
Currently, the RCAF employs hose and drogue aerial refueling provided by CC-130H (T) and CC-150 aircraft. If the F-35A is adopted without any change, the Canadian way of aerial refueling would not be compatible. If one assumes Canada will retain its current aerial tanking technique, the options are to keep the current F-35A aerial refueling system and add the hose and drogue refueling piping.
The F-35A apparently has the space to accommodate this addition, however it would add weight to the aircraft, and would change the aircraft's center of gravity to some degree. We are unsure what implication the added weight and change in center of gravity would cause. Additionally, if the standard F-35A aerial refueling piping is retained, there would be maintenance required to keep that system functioning, even if it's not used.
If the standard F-35A aerial refueling piping is removed and only the hose and drogue piping installed, a change in the center of gravity would again need to be addressed and certified...."
Regardless of any of these options, it is unknown what costs would be associated to such modifications of Canadian jets...."
Flying the F-35, Canadian Defence Review, October 2012
Flying the F-35, Canadian Defence Review, October 2012 | F-35 Canada
"In the October 2012 issue of Canadian Defence Review, Joetey Attariwala interviews former RCAF CF-18 pilot Billie Flynn who is now a Lockheed Martin test pilot on the F-35."
Canadian F-35 Aerial Refuelling Considerations (excerpt from 'Flying the F-35')
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...R-Oct-2012.pdf (0.7Mb)
"...According to Lockheed Martin, Canada has conducted a study to examine options for F-35 aerial refueling techniques. Lockheed Martin officials were not able to say what conclusions the Canadian study yielded.
Currently, the RCAF employs hose and drogue aerial refueling provided by CC-130H (T) and CC-150 aircraft. If the F-35A is adopted without any change, the Canadian way of aerial refueling would not be compatible. If one assumes Canada will retain its current aerial tanking technique, the options are to keep the current F-35A aerial refueling system and add the hose and drogue refueling piping.
The F-35A apparently has the space to accommodate this addition, however it would add weight to the aircraft, and would change the aircraft's center of gravity to some degree. We are unsure what implication the added weight and change in center of gravity would cause. Additionally, if the standard F-35A aerial refueling piping is retained, there would be maintenance required to keep that system functioning, even if it's not used.
If the standard F-35A aerial refueling piping is removed and only the hose and drogue piping installed, a change in the center of gravity would again need to be addressed and certified...."
Regardless of any of these options, it is unknown what costs would be associated to such modifications of Canadian jets...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 5th Nov 2012 at 17:48. Reason: format
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ JAO - Particularly as the F-35B & C are to replace C&D model Hornets and the Harrier II+ and not the E/F/Gs IIRC.
Last edited by Finnpog; 5th Nov 2012 at 17:49.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finnpog @ JAO - Particularly as the F-35B & C are to replace C&D model Hornets and the Harrier II+ and not the E/F/Gs IIRC.
Last edited by Justanopinion; 5th Nov 2012 at 18:35.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay to be different
If RCAF want to re-engineer the refueling system for the Dave A they will have to pay a shed load of money to do it, as would we if the RAF went down that route. The other option would be to fit a boom to CC-150 / Voyager and train up a cadre of boom operators. That too will be very costly!
With little spare money for either option in both Canada and the UK I just don't see it happening.
Better and cheaper to buy Dave C which has the large weapons bay, larger internal fuel load and a probe already.
Just bacause it's the carrier variant does not mean you need a carrier to go with it, as Ausses and Canadians have shown with F-18.
With little spare money for either option in both Canada and the UK I just don't see it happening.
Better and cheaper to buy Dave C which has the large weapons bay, larger internal fuel load and a probe already.
Just bacause it's the carrier variant does not mean you need a carrier to go with it, as Ausses and Canadians have shown with F-18.
If the RAF version needs a tanker to get the aircraft near to where it needs to be, would it not make more economic sense to buy another one or two boats then?
Last edited by BEagle; 6th Nov 2012 at 15:35.
Thread Starter
I thought that the switch from F35C to F35B was justified (in Parliament) on the grounds that we would get two operational carriers instead of one, would get the capability earlier, and would have less of an issue with respect to skills. But to my simple mind, doing so whilst still not having our own jets this decade falls short of having a coherent plan. We have a STOVL capable ship (and will throughout most of this decade), a STOVL future to prepare for, STOVL experienced pilots, and allies with STOVL aircraft. Is it just me that thinks a piece is missing from the jigsaw?
From what I have heard, building a cadre of pilots for F35B (including ramping up numbers) is proving to be a bit of an issue for the RN. I recently heard a couple of interesting rumours from people in the know, but to avoid another circular argument (and to protect my anonymity) I will not repeat them. Neither mentioned Harrier per se, but one was carrier related, and the other WAFU (maintaining skills/training a fixed wing cadre for the future/UK based stuff) related.
It would help of course there was a jet in RN hands (other than the two NFSF(FW) Hawks) for fixed wing pilots to fly when not stateside - and it would make sense (to me, at least) for it to be capable of flying from HM Ships Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth.
SDSR may have killed Harrier in UK hands, but the aircraft continues to by flown by other nations. The US Marine Corps are prepared to continue operating the AV8B until 2025 or beyond. If only we could lease a few, as I suggested here....
Previously USMC Harriers (or those belonging to the Navies of Italy or Spain) have been embarked about Illustrious or Ark Royal to maintain the skills of carrier personnel. I understand RN deck crews have demonstrated they still have the skills - but will this still be the case in x years time if they have no practice?
If I wanted to prepare to run a marathon, I would not start by cutting one of my legs off. But then again we are talking about politicians...
Finally, there is the capability gap issue. Everyone seems to agree that the world has changed a lot since SDSR, but our defence and security policy has not caught up. Not that having thrown away the tools for the job discourages our politicians from speaking loudly and writing cheques that others cannot cash - such as this talk of increasing the UK military presence in the Gulf.
Originally Posted by goljo
As far as I am aware and I stand to be corrected, we are either having or going to have Royal navy fast jet pilots trained right from the get go over in the USA? Previously we have sent experienced pilots on detachment to the US Navy but now we might also be seeing pilot trainees learning their skill from US instructors and being taught the methods of the US?
It would help of course there was a jet in RN hands (other than the two NFSF(FW) Hawks) for fixed wing pilots to fly when not stateside - and it would make sense (to me, at least) for it to be capable of flying from HM Ships Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth.
SDSR may have killed Harrier in UK hands, but the aircraft continues to by flown by other nations. The US Marine Corps are prepared to continue operating the AV8B until 2025 or beyond. If only we could lease a few, as I suggested here....
Previously USMC Harriers (or those belonging to the Navies of Italy or Spain) have been embarked about Illustrious or Ark Royal to maintain the skills of carrier personnel. I understand RN deck crews have demonstrated they still have the skills - but will this still be the case in x years time if they have no practice?
If I wanted to prepare to run a marathon, I would not start by cutting one of my legs off. But then again we are talking about politicians...
Finally, there is the capability gap issue. Everyone seems to agree that the world has changed a lot since SDSR, but our defence and security policy has not caught up. Not that having thrown away the tools for the job discourages our politicians from speaking loudly and writing cheques that others cannot cash - such as this talk of increasing the UK military presence in the Gulf.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 9th Nov 2012 at 16:02.
Thread Starter
Naturally. when we discuss CVF we think of future F35 operations, which once again are going to be of a STOVL nature, since we have gone back to the B variant.
However, CVF will also carry Merlin for ASW and ISTAR, both for protection of the carrier and as a contribution to the task groups capabilities. Remember the Invincible class CVS was originally intended as a "through deck cruiser" to operate a large squadron of ASW Sea Kings.
Regrettably the SDSR axed several of the larger RFAs that could embark four or so Merlins. Therefore this will be an important capability that CVF provides, particularly with a smaller number of frigates post SDSR and potentially no Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
In the first post of this thread, I asked what needed to be done to get things moving. One of the replies was to sort MASC out.
MASC was also going to be important. The name change from FOAEW (Future Organic AEW) reflected the changing role from simply AEW and fighter control to wider maritime and air surveillance and control tasks.
In the interim, when the Sea King AEW2 was upgraded to Mk7 standard, the new term ASACS indicated a wider role. It has been used as an ISTAR asset both at sea to support maritime security operations (and has flow from larger RFAs as well as the CVS), and against land targets, as well as the more traditional carrier based role.
MASC has now become Crowsnest (a great nautical name) - which this article discusses:
A lot of things have changed, however, and not for the best. MASC has become Crowsnest, and it is now pretty much certain that the new AEW solution will be Merlin HM2-based, with the helicopter being fitted with the Cerberus system, migrating from the Sea Kings, or with the new Lockheed Martin Vigilance podded radar system. A marked backwards step from the earlier Navy hopes of procuring around 10 dedicate AEW platforms: under the new scenario, the already hard-worked fleet of Merlin helicopters, while going down from 42 (4 in storage) to 30, would be loaded with yet another role, in addition to ASW and Maritime Security in the Gulf.
Even worse, there is a very real risk of having to face an AEW gap of several years, with the Sea King Mk7 bowing out in 2016, with the replacement only available possibly as far away as 2021 or 2022.
I think most of us share these concerns.
The article then discusses the two Merlin based proposals for Crowsnest. If nothing else, it how appears that there is a dedicated staff and some funding.
However, CVF will also carry Merlin for ASW and ISTAR, both for protection of the carrier and as a contribution to the task groups capabilities. Remember the Invincible class CVS was originally intended as a "through deck cruiser" to operate a large squadron of ASW Sea Kings.
Regrettably the SDSR axed several of the larger RFAs that could embark four or so Merlins. Therefore this will be an important capability that CVF provides, particularly with a smaller number of frigates post SDSR and potentially no Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
In the first post of this thread, I asked what needed to be done to get things moving. One of the replies was to sort MASC out.
MASC was also going to be important. The name change from FOAEW (Future Organic AEW) reflected the changing role from simply AEW and fighter control to wider maritime and air surveillance and control tasks.
In the interim, when the Sea King AEW2 was upgraded to Mk7 standard, the new term ASACS indicated a wider role. It has been used as an ISTAR asset both at sea to support maritime security operations (and has flow from larger RFAs as well as the CVS), and against land targets, as well as the more traditional carrier based role.
MASC has now become Crowsnest (a great nautical name) - which this article discusses:
A lot of things have changed, however, and not for the best. MASC has become Crowsnest, and it is now pretty much certain that the new AEW solution will be Merlin HM2-based, with the helicopter being fitted with the Cerberus system, migrating from the Sea Kings, or with the new Lockheed Martin Vigilance podded radar system. A marked backwards step from the earlier Navy hopes of procuring around 10 dedicate AEW platforms: under the new scenario, the already hard-worked fleet of Merlin helicopters, while going down from 42 (4 in storage) to 30, would be loaded with yet another role, in addition to ASW and Maritime Security in the Gulf.
Even worse, there is a very real risk of having to face an AEW gap of several years, with the Sea King Mk7 bowing out in 2016, with the replacement only available possibly as far away as 2021 or 2022.
I think most of us share these concerns.
The article then discusses the two Merlin based proposals for Crowsnest. If nothing else, it how appears that there is a dedicated staff and some funding.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Dec 2012 at 12:37.
I guess that if AAR is not needed for ship based AC then the USN just wasted money by having it and all those FA18 s etc that we refuelled over the years were just doing it for fun. I also guess that the emergency reinforcement of GR3s from ASI to Hermes in 1982 was another pointless exercise!
Another example of the need for the capability is the option to refuel (from the emergency tanker) when the deck is not available.
Another example of the need for the capability is the option to refuel (from the emergency tanker) when the deck is not available.