F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
He's reflecting the entirely reasonable Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) concept, which isn't actually rocket science, but just states explicitly what large carriers are capable of.
What people tend to forget (possibly because of the old commando carrier conversion heritage) is that CEPP doesn't preclude use as a "strike" carrier either.
Important point being, you can use a big deck carrier in both roles, but not an LPH/LHA type.
What people tend to forget (possibly because of the old commando carrier conversion heritage) is that CEPP doesn't preclude use as a "strike" carrier either.
Important point being, you can use a big deck carrier in both roles, but not an LPH/LHA type.
NAB
Nail on head. DGA(N) HQ (the Navy's aircraft people, but who had a Ships and Bases section) stopped doing this in 1988 as a result of the Hallifax savings. This created the Aircraft Support Executive (sans ship section) whose role became one of "monitoring" instead of "managing". Thereafter, MoD(PE) became responsible by default for accurately stating and costing all requirements; and taking the hit when they got the former, and therefore the latter, wrong.
To take the Mk7 as an example again, and very similar to the carrier, well in to the production phase the RN still expected it to be a mere minor transmitter power upgrade, as per the original endorsement. (The Tx design was finished in 1990, but then shelved as other programmes took priority). Their planning assumed whole fleet conversion over a single week-end at Culdrose. It actually took 3 years, during which time a dual fleet was operated. The problem (from a procurer's viewpoint) was, and remains, Requirements capture and articulation. You can't accurately cost and contract a programme if the Customer flatly refuses to support you. When that HQ shut down in early 1988, it took many years - perhaps 10 - for the RN to replace the Requirements Manager posts, and even then few were trained. Certainly none of the aircraft/equipment ones. And none did the old LTC job. And still don't.
Unfortunately, no-one had updated the Long Term Costings against these larger ships
To take the Mk7 as an example again, and very similar to the carrier, well in to the production phase the RN still expected it to be a mere minor transmitter power upgrade, as per the original endorsement. (The Tx design was finished in 1990, but then shelved as other programmes took priority). Their planning assumed whole fleet conversion over a single week-end at Culdrose. It actually took 3 years, during which time a dual fleet was operated. The problem (from a procurer's viewpoint) was, and remains, Requirements capture and articulation. You can't accurately cost and contract a programme if the Customer flatly refuses to support you. When that HQ shut down in early 1988, it took many years - perhaps 10 - for the RN to replace the Requirements Manager posts, and even then few were trained. Certainly none of the aircraft/equipment ones. And none did the old LTC job. And still don't.
And none did the old LTC job. And still don't.
The biggest single Achilles heel of the whole process.
That almost suggests that where we've ended up is a very bad place. I think I'd balance that with the observations that :
And it still has not done a skijump !
Painted into a corner or what ??
Agreed, but perhaps more importantly, no-one in MoD is capable of constructing a "should-cost" estimate in sufficient meaningful detail to force certain companies to justify their programme costs, let alone allow MoD to manage their risks.
That HPTO post was the boss of the Requirement Managers - 4 of whom managed all RN avionics. (Today it is no longer a centralised function, so there are scores with a finger in the pie, but none who have an overview or detailed knowledge). I use that as an example as I held such a post in the mid-80s. Then you got promoted to the most junior grade in MoD(PE). THAT's the problem nowadays! Very senior people in DE&S don't know any of this, so although they may appreciate there is a problem, none understand the solution is to implement mandated regulations. (Which were never actually cancelled. They just did away with the posts and they naturally fell in to disuse). Still got my copy!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc,
I can confirm everything you said in your last post - and improbably, it's even worse now.
On a recent project I was involved with, there was NO detailed independent 'should cost' estimate. The PM started with a figure that was dreamed up between the two star and the (sole) supplier. No full cost model was prepared (despite being offered by contractors) because that was said to be 'the contractor's job'. The contractor then refused to provide a full cost breakdown, and was backed up by the PM and the TL because , we were told, 'we can trust them'.
CAAS were also cut back, and are still being rebuilt by KPMG. Their ability to cary out any decent cost investigation was hindered by a lack of requirements and any decent technical description of the modification being proposed.
And it gets better - the 'modern' way is apparently to get the contractor to write their own Systems Requirements Document (SRD). Of course, any document coming out of this process is absolutely, completely, fully, risk free 'up front' - which results in a document that doesn't even line up with the original URD. Our RM (a really decent and hard working guy) was in a constant state of despair. You are absolutely right - lack of proper requirements capture and articulation is the biggest challenge DE&S faces.
Best regards to all those trying to do the right thing
Engines
I can confirm everything you said in your last post - and improbably, it's even worse now.
On a recent project I was involved with, there was NO detailed independent 'should cost' estimate. The PM started with a figure that was dreamed up between the two star and the (sole) supplier. No full cost model was prepared (despite being offered by contractors) because that was said to be 'the contractor's job'. The contractor then refused to provide a full cost breakdown, and was backed up by the PM and the TL because , we were told, 'we can trust them'.
CAAS were also cut back, and are still being rebuilt by KPMG. Their ability to cary out any decent cost investigation was hindered by a lack of requirements and any decent technical description of the modification being proposed.
And it gets better - the 'modern' way is apparently to get the contractor to write their own Systems Requirements Document (SRD). Of course, any document coming out of this process is absolutely, completely, fully, risk free 'up front' - which results in a document that doesn't even line up with the original URD. Our RM (a really decent and hard working guy) was in a constant state of despair. You are absolutely right - lack of proper requirements capture and articulation is the biggest challenge DE&S faces.
Best regards to all those trying to do the right thing
Engines
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Doesn't come as any surprise, it was discussed here a long time ago. I guess the question is, who will they sell it to? I think I know the likely answer.
Russia has a long list of VHF and L Band systems too. The ECM vs ECCM war continues.
Russia has a long list of VHF and L Band systems too. The ECM vs ECCM war continues.
When it comes to the F-35 it is probably the first time the ECCM has arrived on the market before the ECM.
The countermeasure cycle is usually drawn with the arrows going clockwise….
The countermeasure cycle is usually drawn with the arrows going clockwise….
I built an ECCCCM system in my back yard.
That Sir is tremendous, keep up the good work, because you never know with the Bad Guys, they'll as likely come up with a counter to it?!
FB
Hang on,
Yeah but No but,
If you've invented a ECCCCM, and the original intent was to counter an enemy radar system, then you've just countered our counter to their counter to our original counter. Blast it all man!
FB
PS I think?
Yeah but No but,
If you've invented a ECCCCM, and the original intent was to counter an enemy radar system, then you've just countered our counter to their counter to our original counter. Blast it all man!
FB
PS I think?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 150 pages ago i think I mentioned that the F-35 program delays have probably caused the Russians to spend zillions wayyyyyy before they needed to............
Now its the Chinese......
Now its the Chinese......
Don't forget that F35's stealthy characteristics are designed to counter I-band fighter RADARs. So the Chinese can build all the bi-static and low frequency RADARs that they like, the F35 will still get the first volley of air to air shots away before their fighters have even seen them! After the first shots are fired the cat is kind of out of the bag for stealth anyway.
LJ
LJ
Unfortunately, Leon, that doesn't help against SAMs using VHF 3D radar targeting. And those radars sit well below the frequency coverage of HARM and AlARM (S or L band). Also, fighters can be controlled by VHF radar units and, as we know, use IRST and longer range IR guided versions of AA10 or 12. Better go on a cloudy day. No not so good after all.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah courts but the airframe has both class leading acceleration and manoeuvrability so will be able to avoid being engaged kinematicly as well as using stealf once it has evaded the initial engagement...
CM
Yes, but stealth is but one club in a very large golf bag of capabilities for F35 to operate in a hostile air environment. I agree to all of your points, but each of them have counters and as always "when there's a will, there's a way" to work through them.
LJ
Yes, but stealth is but one club in a very large golf bag of capabilities for F35 to operate in a hostile air environment. I agree to all of your points, but each of them have counters and as always "when there's a will, there's a way" to work through them.
LJ
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bout 150 pages ago i think I mentioned that the F-35 program delays have probably caused the Russians to spend zillions wayyyyyy before they needed to............
Now its the Chinese......
Now its the Chinese......
. Could it be the F35 is just an expensive front, just so there's a shadow aircraft being developed with different characteristics without the scrutiny.Kill two birds with one stone, make them waste money and get a fighter that they don't have counter measures for. Sorry I will go back to watching X files
.
