Future Carrier (Including Costs)
He's just rehashing the sh1te that he wrote previously, (posted by ORAC). Seems that Mr Fox has been got at by someone. I wonder if his Corporate experiences have given him a grudge against the mob....?
You've got to love the way they add up programme costs though!
You've got to love the way they add up programme costs though!
Thread Starter
Twenty Five years ago today HMS Sheffield was lost after being hit by an air launched Exocet. Lack of organic AEW was a major factor in her loss, which led to the crash development of the Sea King AEW2, so that low flying targets could be detected at ranges greater than those possible with shipborne radars.
Today we have the extremely capable systems fitted to the Sea King ASaCs, but lack carrier borne fighters.
This brings us back to MASC. Whilst it is natural that CVF is seen a being primarily a platform for F35, the ability to act as a platform for MASC will be just as important in some way, particularly with the age of network centricity (and a fleet smaller than it should be). Altenatively, carrying Merlin maritime helicopters may be what saves the day (making up for cuts in the fleet again), or transport and attack helicopters.
Today we have the extremely capable systems fitted to the Sea King ASaCs, but lack carrier borne fighters.
This brings us back to MASC. Whilst it is natural that CVF is seen a being primarily a platform for F35, the ability to act as a platform for MASC will be just as important in some way, particularly with the age of network centricity (and a fleet smaller than it should be). Altenatively, carrying Merlin maritime helicopters may be what saves the day (making up for cuts in the fleet again), or transport and attack helicopters.
Thread Starter
There has been discussion here of the difference that having the Sea King AEW2 in service during Operation Corporate would have made.
My opinion is that it would have resulted in better use of the Sea Harriers, prevented the loss of Sheffield and probably the Atlantic Conveyer. The land campaign would have been different with all those troop carrying helicopters that would not have been lost, and the Sir Galahad tragedy would not have happened.
On other threads, mention has been made of studies into marinising the Chinook with folding rotors etc. Given that it is faster and has a higher altitude than Merlin, is pressurised (unlike V22) and has a large cabin with lots of room for equipment and crew, would a MASC platform based on a marinised Chinook not be worth looking at?
Back to the issue of the timing of main gate, will Blair announce it before he goes, or will Brown announce it as a present to thousands of Scottish shipyard workers?
My opinion is that it would have resulted in better use of the Sea Harriers, prevented the loss of Sheffield and probably the Atlantic Conveyer. The land campaign would have been different with all those troop carrying helicopters that would not have been lost, and the Sir Galahad tragedy would not have happened.
On other threads, mention has been made of studies into marinising the Chinook with folding rotors etc. Given that it is faster and has a higher altitude than Merlin, is pressurised (unlike V22) and has a large cabin with lots of room for equipment and crew, would a MASC platform based on a marinised Chinook not be worth looking at?
Back to the issue of the timing of main gate, will Blair announce it before he goes, or will Brown announce it as a present to thousands of Scottish shipyard workers?
Latset Jane's article suggests that Fat boy Gordo either wants to announce it himself, or worse, as a consequence of CSR, initiate his own SDR, thereby knocking everything right even further or binning it altogether so we can send billions to various 3rd world dictators (sorry- needy children....)
"On other threads, mention has been made of studies into marinising the Chinook with folding rotors etc. Given that it is faster and has a higher altitude than Merlin, is pressurised (unlike V22) and has a large cabin with lots of room for equipment and crew, would a MASC platform based on a marinised Chinook not be worth looking at?"
WEBF. Nice try, but it would be far too sensible to follow this logic. The Chinook isn't pressurised, by the way, but it can climb an awful long way into the sky (FL150+) you just need to provide O2. The other problem is the "not built in Yeovil" bit. If you were to properly marinise a CH47 (something that Boeing are very reluctant to do, mindful of the possible impact on V22) then you could re-equip some of the Jungly's with it as well. However, the CH47 isn't a one size fits all,you'd still need a Puma size ac. I think that the Jungly's will get stiched up with Merlin, and thus MASC will be Merlin based too.
WEBF. Nice try, but it would be far too sensible to follow this logic. The Chinook isn't pressurised, by the way, but it can climb an awful long way into the sky (FL150+) you just need to provide O2. The other problem is the "not built in Yeovil" bit. If you were to properly marinise a CH47 (something that Boeing are very reluctant to do, mindful of the possible impact on V22) then you could re-equip some of the Jungly's with it as well. However, the CH47 isn't a one size fits all,you'd still need a Puma size ac. I think that the Jungly's will get stiched up with Merlin, and thus MASC will be Merlin based too.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If you want to do penetration missions, even with the F-35, you need AEW/Elint/Data-comms relay to go with you - a rotary MASC cannot do that and would seem totally illogical for the stated roles of the CVF/F-35 wing.
If only fleet defence is required, why not save money and go for a ship based blimp solution? It provides a 24 hour coverage solution without taking up the deck space. I would suggest the radar signature of a JLENS, with it's slow speed to hide in the MTI notch, is comparable or less than that of an on-task helo.
Or even go the whole hog and have a naval dirigible which can operate detached from the carrier but still do long-line refuelling and resupply.
But, as you say, not built in Yeovil....
If only fleet defence is required, why not save money and go for a ship based blimp solution? It provides a 24 hour coverage solution without taking up the deck space. I would suggest the radar signature of a JLENS, with it's slow speed to hide in the MTI notch, is comparable or less than that of an on-task helo.
Or even go the whole hog and have a naval dirigible which can operate detached from the carrier but still do long-line refuelling and resupply.
But, as you say, not built in Yeovil....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MASC
Previous statements have been made along the lines that CH47 is faster and can fly higher than Merlin. How much faster, and how much higher?
Why is height and speed an advantage in the MASC role?
Also that the CH47 can carry more equipment and more crew than the Merlin. Surely it only needs to be able to carry the current equipment and number of crew.
The idea of a blimp or derrigible sounds interesting although must surely be more vulnerable when deployed.
By the way, CH47 may well pass the "Handmade in the West Country" test in future.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/mili...lity/9001.html
Why is height and speed an advantage in the MASC role?
Also that the CH47 can carry more equipment and more crew than the Merlin. Surely it only needs to be able to carry the current equipment and number of crew.
The idea of a blimp or derrigible sounds interesting although must surely be more vulnerable when deployed.
By the way, CH47 may well pass the "Handmade in the West Country" test in future.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/mili...lity/9001.html
In the past, what aircraft were required to do, and hence what underpinned procurement and the design process, was summed up in “primary”, “secondary”, “tertiary” etc role statements. Nowadays the broad equivalent is “Single Statement of User Need” accompanied by a few Key User Requirements. Throughout development, and especially during trade-off, one is constantly mindful of these endorsed requirements, because they set the programme (including financial and technical) boundaries. For this reason, and while acknowledging that some of the more expansive uses mooted here are probably valid, care should be taken to differentiate between endorsed requirements and aspirations.
Direct comparison between legacy aircraft and a notional future replacement (e.g. AEW/ASaC and MASC) is impossible without knowing what the SSoUN of MASC is. (I don’t know). What produced ASaC was a primary role of “xx hours continuous air coverage for a CAG”. Under that definition the ASaC fleet is not entirely fit for purpose, as there aren’t enough. This is true of most fleets.
It is also common knowledge that a basic premise underpinning FOAEW (now MASC) was transfer of the ASaC mission system, which assumes a similar role, certainly in terms of operating altitude, radar capability, time on task, and more. Again, I’m not sure what difference there is between the FOAEW and MASC requirements. But one thing is for sure – if that role / SSoUN has changed then MASC will be significantly more expensive than envisaged, even allowing for the aforesaid, and completely barking assumption, that the mission system could simply be transferred to a new platform, be it RW or FW. My guess is that some of these points have been missed in CVF/MASC IPTs, and resultant funding issues are causing headaches.
Direct comparison between legacy aircraft and a notional future replacement (e.g. AEW/ASaC and MASC) is impossible without knowing what the SSoUN of MASC is. (I don’t know). What produced ASaC was a primary role of “xx hours continuous air coverage for a CAG”. Under that definition the ASaC fleet is not entirely fit for purpose, as there aren’t enough. This is true of most fleets.
It is also common knowledge that a basic premise underpinning FOAEW (now MASC) was transfer of the ASaC mission system, which assumes a similar role, certainly in terms of operating altitude, radar capability, time on task, and more. Again, I’m not sure what difference there is between the FOAEW and MASC requirements. But one thing is for sure – if that role / SSoUN has changed then MASC will be significantly more expensive than envisaged, even allowing for the aforesaid, and completely barking assumption, that the mission system could simply be transferred to a new platform, be it RW or FW. My guess is that some of these points have been missed in CVF/MASC IPTs, and resultant funding issues are causing headaches.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If building a maritime chinook was so simple would the USMC be using CH53's?
And given the Mod's brilliance in getting specialised chinooks I think they won't touch this one with a barge pole!!
And given the Mod's brilliance in getting specialised chinooks I think they won't touch this one with a barge pole!!
Last edited by NURSE; 12th May 2007 at 22:03.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jungly AEO have to agree the MASC part of the system needs to be as good as the rest. I would also agree that limiting CVF to STOVL is a very unwise move espically if STOVL part of JSF is a vulnerable as some other sources are making out.
The whole point of shifting the name from FOAEW to MASC was intended to encompass the need to do that expanded role, complete with speed and range requirement. I know the desk officer who wrote that requirement (went on to much bigger things). Unfortunately, there was no horsepower (or BUDGET) availble to drive the logic through - hence the lack of coherence.
Thread Starter
In reply to Evalu8tor, I think it would make sense for the Junglies to get a Merlin replacement for the SK4, particularly in terms of commonality with RN and RAF Merlin fleets.
junglyAEO I seem to remember reading an article in Flight International proposing (in 1995 I think) replacing the Sea King AEW2 with a UAV, slaved to the carrier and feeding back information. But with the more advanced systems fitted to the Sea King ASaCs (and MASC in future) would surely require large amounts of bandwidth to send the information back to the carrier, with no human operators onboard. Would you not still have the same launch and recovery problems? Just asking......
The idea of putting it on a pallet is interesting, but how would you deploy the antenna (or antenna array)?
I think fusing data from MASC, from surface warships, the F35 (via data link), and other available UK or coalition assets (AWACS or Hawkeye) will be important.
junglyAEO I seem to remember reading an article in Flight International proposing (in 1995 I think) replacing the Sea King AEW2 with a UAV, slaved to the carrier and feeding back information. But with the more advanced systems fitted to the Sea King ASaCs (and MASC in future) would surely require large amounts of bandwidth to send the information back to the carrier, with no human operators onboard. Would you not still have the same launch and recovery problems? Just asking......
The idea of putting it on a pallet is interesting, but how would you deploy the antenna (or antenna array)?
I think fusing data from MASC, from surface warships, the F35 (via data link), and other available UK or coalition assets (AWACS or Hawkeye) will be important.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JunglyAEO
I always thought it was the RN who wanted STOVL to keep the size of the ship down and thus the cost - making the whole issue 'look' more affordable. Haven't heard anyone sensible in light blue extolling the virtues of STOVL for at least 7 years.
And I completely agree about a C4ISTAR capability which to be useful has to be able to get (at least its sensor) to the point of action. On current plans this points more to a long range, long endurance shore based asset rather than a short range, short endurance, ship based one
I always thought it was the RN who wanted STOVL to keep the size of the ship down and thus the cost - making the whole issue 'look' more affordable. Haven't heard anyone sensible in light blue extolling the virtues of STOVL for at least 7 years.
And I completely agree about a C4ISTAR capability which to be useful has to be able to get (at least its sensor) to the point of action. On current plans this points more to a long range, long endurance shore based asset rather than a short range, short endurance, ship based one
Not so. The ship size was known to be comparable prior to the down-select. For the size of TAG, whether its Dave C or Dave wrong doesn't really change the price significantly, although going for an EM catapult solution adds risk (so don't do that then.....use steam).
In fact due to the increased performace capability of Dave C, you can actually get away with a significantly smaller TAG.
Oh and you get a much simpler MASC choice as well........
Oh and interoperability with USN and MN.......
Oh and a fallback if Dave C goes tits.......
None of which is of much import to our light blue friends, but has a great deal of importance in the maritime domain.
In fact due to the increased performace capability of Dave C, you can actually get away with a significantly smaller TAG.
Oh and you get a much simpler MASC choice as well........
Oh and interoperability with USN and MN.......
Oh and a fallback if Dave C goes tits.......
None of which is of much import to our light blue friends, but has a great deal of importance in the maritime domain.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab Perspective
Not_a_boffin,
Slightly confused here. You see,
1. I am a Crab, and I have lots of crab mates.
2. I, and all my mates, think it was a Bad Thing to lose our carriers years ago and a Good Thing that we're getting carriers again.
3. We think that F-35C would be a better option than F-35B, and we're frankly astounded that a comparatively small investment decision like putting cats & traps on a (relatively) cheap ship should govern the (significantly more expensive) choice of aircraft. Our impression is that this was a decison by the relevant Capability Manager (note I don't say RN)
4. Most of all, we're confused by why loads of dark blue types go round peddling the line that the RAF doesn't want carriers (which we do) and how anyone thinks that the RAF as an entity could possibly affect a procurement decison by the JOINT staff concerned, which is mainly comprised of RN officers.
Could we just please all agree that carriers are one of the capabilities needed by UK defence and the RAF is not opposing that?
Slightly confused here. You see,
1. I am a Crab, and I have lots of crab mates.
2. I, and all my mates, think it was a Bad Thing to lose our carriers years ago and a Good Thing that we're getting carriers again.
3. We think that F-35C would be a better option than F-35B, and we're frankly astounded that a comparatively small investment decision like putting cats & traps on a (relatively) cheap ship should govern the (significantly more expensive) choice of aircraft. Our impression is that this was a decison by the relevant Capability Manager (note I don't say RN)
4. Most of all, we're confused by why loads of dark blue types go round peddling the line that the RAF doesn't want carriers (which we do) and how anyone thinks that the RAF as an entity could possibly affect a procurement decison by the JOINT staff concerned, which is mainly comprised of RN officers.
Could we just please all agree that carriers are one of the capabilities needed by UK defence and the RAF is not opposing that?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing
I'd also like to put a slightly different gloss on the MASC debate. If I had to choose between Merlin and Chinook, I'd go for Merlin. Why? It is actually faster than Chinook, goes about as high (16700ft design limit IIRC) and will stay up for longer on internal fuel - yes you can put a bob tank in the CH47, but you can put one in Merlin as well and anyway it takes up cabin space. The cabin in the Mk 3 is 2/3 the size of CH47, so big enough to take a palletised mission system, and the nightmares in producing a marinised aircraft which folds have all been overcome. Also the clever anti-vibration thingie would reduce fatigue on both the crew and the delicate avionics - the effect of this on endurance and system life shouldn't be underestimated. Don't forget it was designed as a naval aircraft - the Mk3 may be less capable than the CH47 in the battlefield role but I wouldn't consider it useless, I hear it is doing at least as well in Iraq, and all the Mk 1 operators I've spoken to love it.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: anywhere except home
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wrt the choice between Daves, I had lunch with a grown up RAF 2* not so long ago, who explained that one of the principal drivers for Dave B is that there is a significant deck training and currency issue with CTOL. A USN CAG requires more time to workup and retain deck currency (than the prospective CVF CAG) because trap landings are more difficult. As a result, the USN pilots spend more time working around the deck and have less time on the range. He quoted that USAF bombing accuracy is far superior to the USN, giving this as the reason.
So Dave B will give more operational availability and better bombing.
His argument not mine! So don't give me both barrels!
But an interesting perspective nonetheless.
So Dave B will give more operational availability and better bombing.
His argument not mine! So don't give me both barrels!
But an interesting perspective nonetheless.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
more time on the range
How does the training against dry targets off-range compare with hot or live training on a range?
What about dropping dumb ordnance?
With smart ordnance it is surely the amount of time dedicated to aiming and guiding which is of course a high cost factor.
O-A
Well said sir. Your points are all well made - I only wish those in higher authority (CM and IPTL) would echo them. I suspect you are correct with regard to the origin of the Dave wrong decision and Swampy also identifies one of the arguments (DLT) used to support that decision. ISTR someone trying to do some comparative studies in terms of operability index in the SWAPPS some years ago as part of that (didn't make much difference 5% or so IIRC).
Interestingly, the MN seem to handle DLT quite happily (alright, their ship works out of Toulon), but given the relative size of the two air arms they seem to manage the overhead quite well. As far as the USN is concerned, other than basic training using the Goshawk, I'm not sure that the CAG work-up is terribly different to ours. The carrier qualification requirement after each in-port period, (AIUI) can be undertaken in a day or two tops.
Well said sir. Your points are all well made - I only wish those in higher authority (CM and IPTL) would echo them. I suspect you are correct with regard to the origin of the Dave wrong decision and Swampy also identifies one of the arguments (DLT) used to support that decision. ISTR someone trying to do some comparative studies in terms of operability index in the SWAPPS some years ago as part of that (didn't make much difference 5% or so IIRC).
Interestingly, the MN seem to handle DLT quite happily (alright, their ship works out of Toulon), but given the relative size of the two air arms they seem to manage the overhead quite well. As far as the USN is concerned, other than basic training using the Goshawk, I'm not sure that the CAG work-up is terribly different to ours. The carrier qualification requirement after each in-port period, (AIUI) can be undertaken in a day or two tops.