No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

[Not_a_boffin]

SSSETOWTF & Capt P

I have built ships gents. Let me tell you that Illustrious herself took 21M manhours all in. A T23 Frigate could be had for under 2M manhours.

If I apply a slightly more sensible rate of £50/hour, that £1Bn plus unaccounted for becomes 20M manhours.

The hardware price available open source includes a lot of engineering support, publications etc in the "£500M".

Other than the hardware, there are minor material costs (<<500 te of steel, which is currently @£2000/te - £1m the lot). Cabling? OK - tens mil if we're unlucky. Anything else apart from the power mgmt integration (the entire system was less than £100M) is manpower. Whichever way you slice it, well over 12 million manhours (that's 6000 people for a full year) doesn't smell right. Particularly when so many of the team "overheads" project mgmt, finance etc exist already.

My personal estimate would be something like a DO team of 50 for a year (that's 100000 manhours), 250000 extra steel hours, 400000 extra sparkies hours and a few odds and sods. Tell you what, call it a million manhours - at £100/hr (!) that's £100M. Plus your £500M hardware and say £100M for the power mgmt integration (a million manhours of software coders), plus the odds and sods. Add that up and you get £700M and a bit. If this is supposed to be conversion cost only, then you can hopefully see why I'm sceptical of the £1.8bn figure.

DLODs are all well and good, but this is supposed to be early years conversion costs, not TLC. If it is to include DLOD, then presumably less F35C compared to B might have an impact?

[orca]

Many thanks to everyone who has (implicitly and politely) pointed out the flippancy in my point about GPS jamming. I have no way of proving my credentials to you but they do include a 'reasonable amount' of EW and GPS experience, promise.

Let's keep it short. I personally think that whatever means you choose to make landing this thing easier might well be 'jammable' and will never be certified as 100% reliable. So one will have to train for the worst case and as that amount of training will be what the SMEs deem 'just good enough to be safe in all reasonably anticipated conditions' you will probably find that the training burden is pretty much the same.

[WhiteOvies]

Glojo,
current RAF test pilot, Jim Schofield, is a Harrier mate by background including CVS ops but having done ETPS has over 80 different types in his logbook if I recall the press release. BAES have 2 test pilots flying F35 inc Pete 'Wizzer' Wilson who started life in the RAF but then turned Dark Blue and flew SHAR. He has flown both B and C also.

I've heard that the first serving RN pilot starts this year and if the name is correct he has significant experience on both SHAR and Super Hornet.

It makes no difference though as the Treasury are calling the shots and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an F-35, F-18 or GR9 anyway

[SSSETOWTF]

LO, NaB,

Ok, I didn't even make the cut for Staff College so I'm more than happy to be told why I'm barking up totally the wrong tree on this.

So take the cost of hardware changes to the ship as ballpark 700 million.

Now, pay for the UK to be different, and put a buddy refuel store on F-35C. Pray that the existing pipework in the wing is adequate for the existing F-18 system and you don't have a major re-design and re-qualification of the wing or have to start from scratch with the pod. The easiest possible solution would cost you a hundred million or more (as a rough guess, going by Eurofighter prices).

How many pilots will your frontline strength be? 60-odd? So 15-20/year going through the OCU? Pack them off to the US for a few hours famil in a T-45, then FCLP them, then send them to the ship. I dunno, maybe 6 weeks in the US, so maybe 150k/person worth of training? Call it 2 million a year total. Over the 40 year life of the ship, that's not far off another 100 million.

Buy 2 fully orange-wired early-LRIP -C models to replace the 2 -Bs we've bought. Couple hundred million right there.

Do some frantic contract re-negotiation to get PWIV and Asraam into the -C test Program (paying to be different). I doubt that comes for free. Couple of million in there I expect.

Fuel costs through life - pilots will always empty the tank, so straight away your fuel bill for F-35C is 150% bigger than the -B. Lots of millions in there.

Pour some concrete at the MOB to make an FCLP deck area. Few more million.

Build, staff and run an LSO school and training pipeline for the dozen or so guys to man the platform (or send another 4-6 guys/year across to the US for that piece to?). Another few million.

Recruit, accommodate, train, pay and pension the extra 10-20? (probably conservative) deck handlers, catapult operators & maintainers. Average salary 40k? Another million or more.

That's off the top of my head and I'm definitely not a procurement and DLOD guru. Factor in the fact that everything in defence procurement costs more and takes longer than your first estimate, and I can easily see why the 'cost of switching to cats & traps' is headlining well above 1 billion. And I don't think it's down to a con job by the old enemy of BAE, or some incredibly clever Machiavellian plot by the RAF to make the RN look bad. Could be wrong though.

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

[Not_a_boffin]

SSSETOWTF

I do appreciate all those factors and have been involved in putting those type of costs together. However, the through-life ones (fuel, pilot training etc) do not belong in the "conversion cost" element, which is being sold as the reason for any possible switch back to the B.

The one bit that may be applicable is any texaco addition to C, although, again, you'd think that belonged in the aircraft cost. (Personally think we'd need to do it for B as well, with larger CAGs/SRVL, but that's another argument).

I'm in the C camp, on the premise that B is still a riskier option (no fallback and potentially the last STOVL jet ever) and that the cat n'trap fitted ship offers the possibility (way downstream) of incremental acquisition of better capabilities (AEW/ASW etc), instead of being hamstrung and tied to helos by the operating mode of the ship. The ship is large enough to do things properly so the old CVS size constraints are no longer a factor - it would be a shame if we boxed ourselves back into a corner on manipulated info.

I think that's the crux of it - if it really is £1.8Bn and the costs can be openly explained, then fine - if we can't afford that, then go to B (happily). But at the minute, I'm afraid it all looks a bit dodgy.

[glojo]

current RAF test pilot, Jim Schofield, is a Harrier mate by background including CVS ops but having done ETPS has over 80 different types in his logbook if I recall the press release. BAES have 2 test pilots flying F35 inc Pete 'Wizzer' Wilson who started life in the RAF but then turned Dark Blue and flew SHAR. He has flown both B and C also.

I've heard that the first serving RN pilot starts this year and if the name is correct he has significant experience on both SHAR and Super Hornet.

Good morning White Overalls and thank you very much for replying and I have NO doubt the British pilots that are flying our F-35B are indeed highly qualified pilots with a wealth of experience and hopefully I never suggested anything other that that.

My question though is... If the only means of FJ transport they have experienced aboard a carrier is STOVL, then how can they make any type of judgement? I am NOT being critical of these pilots, their qualifications do all the necessary talking, but is a highly qualified pilot that has flown SHAR, GR9 and had a tour aboard a US carrier flying the F-18 a better option to advise on the suitability of what type of the F-35 is better suited to our needs? They might not have the same qualifications as the current pilot, but the qualifications they do have MIGHT make them better suited to compare these tangerines and oranges.

My research has shown the first RN pilot to be appointed to join the F-35 program will not be flying until next year but whether it is later this year or next... it is academic as they should possibly have already had the opportunity? (question)


Bottom line as you rightly suggest:

It makes no difference though as the Treasury are calling the shots and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an F-35, F-18 or GR9 anyway

I am told this is one of the latest picture of F-35B




It looks like our illustrious Members of Parliament are now becoming experts in all things military

Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme

In order to graduate from the scheme Members are required to spend twenty-two days in any one year on active service with units in one of the branches of the Armed Forces .. Twenty two days should be enough..... makes me wonder why it takes years to train our officers

[LowObservable]

SSSETOWTF -

50 per cent more fuel shurely. - Ed.

Also, while I defer to those with more knowledge, might the need for a tanker not arise with the number of aircraft operating, not just with cats and traps?

As for pouring concrete: the last I heard, the USN specs for a land-based VL pad involved 30 x 30 m pads of heat-resistant concrete, the frequent "no different from an AV-8" assertions notwithstanding:

https://transportation.wes.army.mil/...18%20Paper.pdf

Also, something just occurred to me about your ID here: The B is only "single engine" in that it replaces the combustor and turbine with a shaft, clutch and gears...

SSOAAHETOWTF?

And while I may not cycle all this kit at twice-per-sortie over the lifetime of the jet, I am certainly doing so when I am at sea.

[Bastardeux]

Glojo,

I can see why it's easy to be highly cynical about MPs only doing 22 days a year, but personally I see it as a good thing. 22 days is more than long enough to realise that a military held together by duct-tape is the price we've paid for EMA and all other such socialist bullsh*t.

When her night flight gets cancelled a couple of times in a row because the a/c is u/s, she may begin to question why that's an everyday occurrence.

But then again, maybe unicorns will jump to the rescue and naked glamour models will smother the entire crew nearly to death. Either way, exposing MPs to the real state of the miliary, for however short or long, can only be a good thing in my mind.

But we digress...F35 and all that good stuff

[glojo]

I can see why it's easy to be highly cynical about MPs only doing 22 days a year, but personally I see it as a good thing. 22 days is more than long enough to realise that a military held together by duct-tape is the price we've paid for EMA and all other such socialist bullsh*t.

Fair point .. IF ONLY they treat these volunteers as a member of the ship's company as opposed to a VIP

[Bastardeux]

Agreed, I was going to mention that it's only worth while, if whoever's hosting said MP, doesn't have a marathon 22-day-long "Look how good we still are, we have a million waves up a day and 500 jets in the circuit at any one time", which is usually the case and gives said MP no impression of how things actually are.

[163627]

Carrier decision into long grass?

Governments can only make so many U-turns without being fatally damaged; bet this will put the F-35 u-turn announcement even further back!

May to ease airport passsport controls - Telegraph

[SSSETOWTF]

NaB,

I think we're in violent agreement really. I'm looking forward to Ursula Brennan's next trip to the Public Accounts Committee to justify whatever decision is made.

I always assumed that all procurement decisions have to be made based on the full spectrum of DLOD costs. Whether the national press understand that when they come out with their soundbites may be the root cause of some of the trouble here.

My understanding is/was that people had run the DLOD numbers over the -B vs -C debate time and time again over more than a decade. Every single time, no matter who did the numbers, the answer was always that the total through life costs favored the -B. Allegedly when the numbers were scrubbed again pre-SDSR the answer was again the same and the military advice was to stay with the -B. The switch to the -C was apparently made at a political level then, blind-sided everyone and its rationale was never explained in any detail (certainly not to chimps at my level). For me, it was a masterstroke of political spin that you could suggest that mothballing one carrier and then spending at least 500 million on equipping your other carrier with cats (and ignoring the tanker & training costs etc) could be sold as more capability and cheaper. How could switching to the -C, which would always cost us more up-front and all the previous decade's analysis suggested would cost more through-life, ever be cheaper?

Technical risk is definitely worth considering and there's no question that the -B has plenty. But you have to give credit that it has done a stack of VLs now and been to the ship, so you'd hope there aren't too many undiscovered gremlins now and the Pax folks are slowly resolving the known ones.

I think it's interesting that people generally seem to believe that the -B is the most threatened of the variants, which I don't agree with. If the US need to axe a variant to save cash, if they chop the -B they effectively kill USMC fixed wing aviation. Both their Harrier and Hornet fleets are very old and tired, and the fleet of amphibs and their MEUs will eventually have to go without - pretty unacceptable to every USMC general walking the corridors of the Pentagon. But if they chop the -C, the USN would probably almost clap with glee, toddle off to Mr Boeing and buy a few more of their beloved Rhinos & Growlers, and place an order for a few X-45s to do the really nasty missions. To my mind then, the -C is just as much, if not more, at risk of being the victim of a cost-saving exercise.

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

[Finnpog]

SSSETOWTF has a massive point. The 'power' of the Corps should not be underestimated on the american psyche, and therefore upon politician's minds. You also have the benefit that the B can work off both the Amphibs and also the CVNs.

The holy grail can only be for it to have a rough field capability akin to the Harrier. We have seen the YouTube footage of the Bs on Wasp, but how expeditionary could it be?

John Farley stated a few days ago, (I paraphrase here), that if all performance criteria were equal, why wouldn't you choose "Stop & Land' rather than 'Land & then Stop'? The more I have read on this site and elsewhere, the more I have altered my viewpont that perhaps the B is the better all round buy.

I guess this will mean a heli or Osprey derived AEW / ASAC in time to replace the SKs.

[Tester07]

that if all performance criteria were equal

they are not at all equal, surely?

[ColdCollation]

SSSETOWTF:

"But if they chop the -C, the USN would probably almost clap with glee, toddle off to Mr Boeing and buy a few more of their beloved Rhinos & Growlers, and place an order for a few X-45s to do the really nasty missions."

... I can't help feeling that that should be our template, too.

[Bastardeux]

I guess this will mean a heli or Osprey derived AEW / ASAC in time to replace the SKs.

And how much will this cost us vs. an off the shelf purchase of E2s? I'm willing to bet a lot of money that it would more than eat up any projected savings from buying the B...

I'm also incredulous to the idea that the B is going to be any cheaper to fly over the longer term (I'm thinking bring-back capability and underestimated use of spares). Given LM's track record on both the F22 and the F35, I'm not expecting any of the 3 variants to be particularly reliable but the B, with all its current shortcomings, and technicalities just seems like it's going to be too advanced for our own good.

[ICBM]

Finnpog, exactly! My view is that the -B gives the most for the least now and offers the flexibility and basing availability that the -C wont offer unless we spend more. Could the -B do strip work? Yes. Will it, and will it need to? Perhaps not, but it still 'can'. I'm not harking back to RAFG and the autobahn deployments here. I'm saying that the capabilities of the STOVL give military commanders greater, not fewer, options in the future for the money we have. The -B might carry 65% of the fuel load of the -C but the range and loiter are not 65%. That gets lost in many of the comparisons made. The larger internal weapons bay is nice but not essential if your weapons are accurate, have range in themselves, and can be carried in higher quantities (6 or 8). So if you want a jet with 0.5g more and 170nm more range but it'll cost you an alleged £1.8bn more for the privilege, crack on. Something will have to give (like less bought) as well. Or carry on as if the hiccup change to -C never happened because -B still meets the original requirement.

[Bastardeux]

ICBM,

Is a larger internal weapons bay not essential for stowing meteor? Or larger stores for that matter? If we buy the F35 at an eye watering cost, only to have no option but to hang stores of the wings in a high threat environment, does that not completely negate getting it in the first place??

Also, 1.8 billion over the lifetime of it's service is surely within the standard deviation of budget estimates over a 30 year period? If it is over the service life, then 1.8 billion is as near as makes no difference to being the same price.

I'm with CC, I'm increasingly inclined to think that the Strike Eagle and Super Hornets will still be the weapons of choice in 10 years time.

[glojo]

Hi ICBM,
Are some folks looking at this from a pure aircraft question?

We have all debated what the advantages\disadvantages of the aircraft are, but as has been discussed several times an aircraft carrier is more than an airfield, the carrier is a mobile fist or embassy, that can offer tact or diplomacy. The aircraft it carries must be capable of not just acting in a strike role, they also must be capable of defending its battle group.

If we look at what a STOVL ship offers compared to a conventional carrier then are we getting good value?

If next week, or next month the word from on high comes down and decrees that we go for the F-35B then the ships will be built without EMALS.. They will then only be capable of operating the F-35B or rotor...

If we stay as we are and the complete F-35 program gets cancelled then the conventional carrier will still have fast jet capability... be that the F-18 or the Rafale. If we opt for the -B and the program gets cancelled then goodbye fast jet capability... Game over and definitely no coming back.

I have said it so many times regarding what a conventional carrier brings to the table but if we go for the -B then do we go for a variant of Merlin for AEW if so how does that compare to the E-2? How many Merlin would be required to give similar cover to that which the E2 offers. How far from the battle group would the Merlin operate and at what height?

Choosing the aircraft has to be done alongside of choosing the type of base it operates from. Should we learn from previous conflicts and if so what lessons can be learnt from the Falklands where Harriers sometimes only had a 10 minute ability to remain over target before having to return back to their carriers, no tanking ability, back home to refuel. AEW, AEW and AEW.... The importance of that asset cannot be emphasised enough and the days of surface skimming missiles coming in from a maximum of 50 miles are over. Is the helicopter AEW capability good enough to detect long range incoming surface missiles and would we then need several aircraft to give adequate cover? Would choosing the -B prevent the Royal Navy from having the AEW cover it would need for any future conflict?

[ICBM]

Meteor needs a big bay unless MBDA can make a smaller version. As for having to carry everything externally then it depends The difference between weapon bays is not as significant as people make out and it is not the difference between carrying externally or internally in a high threat environment. That is a red herring. It depends on your mission and the weapons you have that DO fit. The analysis is there for the missions, in depth. The original requirement for a FCBA capable of operating from a CVF and doing the desired missions is there and was (and still is) fulfilled by -B. The RN solution for AEW has been MASC for years now. The enemy of requirements is creep and the thought that there is always something better (which there usually is) but succumbing to temptation delays and costs more. The -C, in a perfect world, would be joined onboard our 2 (why not 6?!) UK EMALS-equipped CVF by E-2D with on-call tankers etc. Now if you swallow the red pill the reality is much different and we can't afford the comprehensive solution so we get what we originally bid for; 2 ramped decks and the -B. The aircraft being cancelled? There would be re-think for sure and I'd wager the carriers would be sold, we'd abandon the notion of carrier strike (no CS now in its 3rd year, purists argue longer) and the UK would buy the -A!