Future Carrier (Including Costs) [Archive]

View Full Version : Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Apr 2006, 10:36

Edit (July 2022): With a new Cold War/era of Violent Peace, the West must once again look to protect its sea lines of communication. Much has been written about carriers and their value to NATO, but this ARRSE thread is especially to the point as it discusses little else:

1977 US Congress Report: The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic for Air Defence and ASW - due to Maths/Physics/Geography) (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/1977-us-congress-report-the-us-sea-control-mission-carriers-needed-in-the-atlantic-for-air-defence-and-asw-due-to-maths-physics-geography.301236/)

Two major conclusions can be reached:

A. Sea Control (ASW, air defence/AAW, and anti surface warfare) is a major mission for the carrier and the carrier group. It was during the Second World War and the Cold War, and it is again now in a renewed era of peer adversaries and contested seas.

B. Sea Control is difficult to achieve without carrier aviation if operating any distance from friendly air bases.

The carrier puts fighters in close proximity to the assets or area to be defended without needing an excessive number of aircraft, and Geography, Mathematics, and Physics show that attacking aircraft carrying anti ship missiles are best dealt with using fighters to kill the archers, not the arrows. Airborne radar can see far beyond the radar horizon of shipborne ones and can detect low altitude targets at range, and fighters provide the means for interception and visual identification beyond the horizon, and engagement far beyond the range of shipborne missile systems.

Constant ASW helicopter operations are best supported by a large deck with multiple helicopters, as collocating them simplifies coordination, communications, and maintenance and support. Physics also shows that modern long range sonars fitted to ASW warships need to be used in conjunction with dipping sonar to achieve their potential - and vice versa. As with all such detection systems (radar/sonar/optical) there is trade off between range and resolution. The long range sonar provides long range detection, and the dipping sonar provides pinpoint accuracy.

Edit (November 2012): Following the 2010 SDSR, when the politicians caused a lot of problems by retiring the Harrier something like a decade earlier than planned and leaving a gap without having British jets on British decks, it is worth looking at the various topics (including problems and potential solutions) discussed on this PPRuNe thread: Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131)

----

This thread is intended to be a focal point for discussing issues relating to the Royal Navy's future aircraft carriers (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2226) and the aircraft that they will carry (JCA/JSF/F35, Merlin, MASC and others). It is also intended to be a successor to the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) thread and other Shar ones as well as various CVF threads including this one (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=165214).

I first became aware that planning was starting for the new carriers from the media back in 1995. Eleven years later the first steel has not been cut, is this a record? The same year I became aware of what is to the JSF/F35 project — including the STOVL version for the USMC and RN (the RAF came onboard later). Before the 1997 general election the Conservative Government committed themselves to building two new carriers, when the current Government was elected they said they would hold a wide ranging review of defence. This review, the SDR, committed the Government to building two new carriers, for entry into service in 2012 and 2015.

Since the SDR (which contained cuts for the RN in return for a promise of new carriers) many of the SDR commitments have been dropped. The 2004 cuts involved the RN losing roughly 20% of its front line strength, thousands of personnel and having virtually every major project cut, cancelled or delayed. At the time of writing CVF has not passed the main gate milestone.

On of the major frustration of this sort of debate is the fact that carriers are frequently labelled as a legacy of the Cold War, often by those who either are ignorant or those that have an agenda. This idea is untrue. In 1966 the Cold War was in full swing, yet Dennis Healy decided to scrap the carriers. In 1981 the Cold War was still going and tensions were rising, yet John Nott still saw the RN contribution to NATO as a legitimate area for cuts. The Cold War role of the RN was primarily focussed on ASW in the North Atlantic - including the CVS/Sea King/Sea Harrier. However, the end of the Cold War has seen British forces involved in a number of conflicts around the World, and this has included carrier deployments.

Perhaps the best open source of information on CVF etc is Richard Beedall's Navy Matters (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html), and in particular the following sections.

Carrier Strike (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm)

JCA (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm)

MASC (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm)

Where are we now? What do we need to do to make this a reality?

The Royal Navy’s Super-Carriers (http://navynews.co.uk/articles/2005/0512/0005121501.asp)

tucumseh

10th Apr 2006, 10:45

Well, the link to "Sea King Asac. Mk7" shows an AEW Mk2, which I suppose is related to the lengthy timescales you mention WEBF! At least they now admit the existence of something called a "Sea King AEW/Asac", which they inexplicably denied the last time I spoke to the IPT.

Not_a_boffin

10th Apr 2006, 11:18

What is needed to make it happen? Simple - crack on and order the bloody things!! I've been involved on the fringes with this thing off and on since 1994 and have seen the thing progress from ST(S) via smart procurement to the current iteration of the design. There are an awful lot of things one could improve in the design (putting cats & arrester gear in for a kick off) as it stands, but frankly as long as its a big deck, with plenty of F44 and mag capacity, it can be incrementally improved once in service.

The problem appears to be that no-one is in charge! Some people in town are nominally i/c the requirement, whereas there's another gentleman in ABW who is i/c the technical and build issues. A senior gentleman is alo nominally i/c of delivery, but appears to have no staff, budget or power to make things happen.

The biggest risk to the project is inertia. It ain't going to get any cheaper (and frankly isn't that expensive compared with a number of other projects - Typhoon, FRES, DII, FSTA), so the old smaller is cheaper arguments should be shelved once and for all. Thankfully, the industry team and the IPT seem to have come to the sensible conclusion that small is pointless. The CVS do a great job of banging off a ten-ship mission twice a day, but struggle to do much more than that due to their lack of deck area and servicing points.

CDP just needs to take a deep breath and get Reid to approve the Manufacture contract. I know the current uncertainty about JCA doesn't help, but at the end of the day "if you build it, they will come". Ideally, "they" would be a combination of F35C, E2D and (what would be really nice) some low-time S3B from the boneyard for COD, tanking, ASuW / ASW and anything else you could think of. If we decide that we can't live without the access to F35 software etc, then at least there is a fallback (Rafale), rather than GR9 for the STOVL variant. I know the support arguments will rage on and on, but ultimately that is do-able, its jsut another embuggerance to deal with.

Rant off, over.

Lazer-Hound

10th Apr 2006, 11:40

Personally I reckon all this tech-transfer argument over JSF is a blind to cover the fact that the MoD budget simply cannot afford all the current programmes. Something has to give, we apparently can't get out of Typhoon T3, JSF/CVF are the likely candidates. We can bin them and blame the Yanks.

Occasional Aviator

10th Apr 2006, 12:16

Not meaning to troll, but what capability will CVF/JSF Really give us? As I understand it, we are only ordering 2. Now, the Yanks can afford to have a carrier battle group on station permanently covering pretty much every likely trouble spot, but with only one to position we will either have to be prescient or we will be projecting our air power at fast walking pace. Having worked in a large US HQ in Iraq, I have some understanding of what NCW really is, and I don't see how that reduces the 'sensor to shooter' link. The old arguments about host nation support were, I hope, put to bed after Afghanistan, when permission for Ocean to dock at Karachi was refused and the RMs on board had to sail to a friendly island to be inserted by AT. I know the ships involved did some very good work, and I'm not decrying that, but could we have done Afghanistan without them? YES.
What I'm wondering is whether anyone has really done an investment appraisal of spending money on big ships unlikely to see action (let's face it, we're not likely to go up against a credible maritime air threat nowadays, are we?) against investing in AT lift, AAR and stand-off weaponry - all aof which allows us to project air power RAPIDLY. Yes, I am familiar with the study that we could mount a more sustained bombing campaign against somewhere like Poland from a ship in the Baltic that we could from Germany, but a) the scenario was chosen to show the desired result and b) having seen how modern wars are fought, I don't rate weight of effort and permanence of air power as that great a concern except in the initial phases when you need to get there FAST - days not weeks.
Just a thought...:ok:

JTIDS

10th Apr 2006, 12:29

Slightly off topic, but anyone know why they've chosen the names "Queen Elizabeth" and "HMS Prince of Wales" rather than using two of the more recent carriers' names?

Lazer-Hound

10th Apr 2006, 12:47

Those names were chosen with ominious prescience, as they were also the names of the planned CVA01s, and CVF will likely meet the same fate.

c-bert

10th Apr 2006, 12:56

It's to try and stop the government cancelling them. Scrapping a programme named after the current monarch doesn't look good.

Having said that they scrapped CV01 so maybe I'm talking bolleux.....:confused:

4Foxtrot

10th Apr 2006, 13:00

'HMS Tony Blair' doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Safety_Helmut

10th Apr 2006, 14:22

but HMS Cherie Bliar ?

dirty_bugger

10th Apr 2006, 16:24

Thats a silly name for a warship, for a start is she full of seamen?

BossEyed

10th Apr 2006, 16:25

"HMS Jam" and "HMS Tomorrow"? :E

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Apr 2006, 22:17

So how can we persuade the Government to speed up the decision making process?

FormerFlake

11th Apr 2006, 06:28

No one likes seeing cut backs. However, if we have to be careful what we spend then more C17s and the FSTA are a must.

We will never have the money or resources to operate carriers effectively. With only 2 how are we going to make sure they are in the right place at the right time? No matter where the next battle is we need our AT/AR Fleets to have suitable numbers to do the job. Unless we put mini-tankers on the Carrier we will need AR cover regardless!

Jackonicko

11th Apr 2006, 08:30

More C-17s, FSTA (and in proper numbers), more recce, more SEAD, addressing the shortfall in helicopter lift and a new generation of LCDWs are, or should be, a higher priority than the carriers.

NoseGunner

11th Apr 2006, 10:34

Yep - more airlift and more tankers (that are reliable). These assets are big force multipliers that can get airpower where it needs to be and quickly (20 knots aint really gonna hack it). Our current fleets are an embarrassment (the aircraft - not crews/engineers!!)

Recce - not really a priority and not difficult, should be a side mission that anyone can pick up if "other assets" arent available.

SEAD - rather have more DEAD
:)

WE Branch Fanatic

11th Apr 2006, 23:55

rafloo

12th Apr 2006, 00:14

When (if) the CVF enters service. Will we still have a Queen Elizabeth and a Prince of Wales? Or should they be renamed HMS King William and HMS Queen Kate ?

tablet_eraser

12th Apr 2006, 08:50

Fanatic,

Your point is.... pointless! Typhoon and the frigates will work out to be cheaper over their lifetimes, because you have only considered the capital (outlay) cost without considering associated fixed and variable costs such as fuel, resuppply, provision of battle groups, manning, maintenence, upgrades and refits, etc.

However, I'm sure you're arguing the case for CVF, so I'll let you off ;)

They're to be named QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND and THE PRINCE OF WALES because no flagship has yet been named after HM and this bucks tradition somewhat, especially given her (to date) 54-year reign. THE PRINCE OF WALES is a concession to the fact that if we don't name a capital ship after Prince Charles now, he might never get the chance!

FormerFlake

12th Apr 2006, 08:58

But 20 knots = 480 nautical miles per day. 25 knots = 600 nautical miles per day. And that's carrying all your engineering, logistics and other support facilities with you.

This isn't the way the Government do there sums but....

Estimated cost of CVF = £15 000 million
Predicated lifespan of CVF = 50 years
Therefore cost for two ships per year = £300 million.
Cost for ship per year = £150 million.

Which is cheaper than a frigate, and less than three Typhoons.

Something to think about.

There is a way off setting these costs. As most warfare is BVR there is no need to paint the CVFs a dull grey. Instead they can carry advertisments for various companies. When in port a 100 ft advert for Pepsi, Vodaphone etc will work wonders for the companies in question. The revenue can pay for fuel, body armour, boots and other basics so often in short supply.

rafloo

12th Apr 2006, 14:44

THE PRINCE OF WALES is a concession to the fact that if we don't name a capital ship after Prince Charles now, he might never get the chance!

Its not being named after Prince Charles.....Otherwise it would be called HMS Prince Charles. Its being named after the Prince of Wales, so it could be the Black Prince...or that barking mad one...

Besides, when the CVF project gets binned at next years Defence review, the problem will be solved.

Dogfish

12th Apr 2006, 14:45

Let’s get real here for a moment. These proposed carriers are going to cost an awful lot of money and for that reason they will be binned as soon as the idiots in Downing Street can find an excuse. Let’s face it; we are not a world power any more. The empire is gone and we are merely a subsidiary of USA global enterprises Inc. Any war we get dragged into by our cousins across the pond will not require British carriers as the Yanks have more than they know what to do with. Far better to spend the cash, as somebody has already mentioned, on kit we need. Boots, rifles that work and decent warm kit being just a few examples. Big shiny British carriers.........dream on:=

rafloo

12th Apr 2006, 15:24

The Empire...Gone ???? Good God Carruthers. whatever next ?

However, I totally concur with dogfish. We don't need aircraft carriers, we have plenty of them in the shape of CVN's. and coupled with the CVN 21 programme, there will be plenty of them for many more years.

We are a tiny nation with a small Armed Force - Manchester United get more people to watch them every weekend than there are people in the Navy, the RAF and even the Army's meagre 110G is looking sad. (In fact.....even Chelsea get more people to watch their weekly diving competition than there are people in the RAF)

We have to admit it and stop trying to be some sort of world policeman and marching across foreign lands wealding our swords.

We should be concentrating more on defence of the homeland and in particular littoral manoeuvres.... scrap the CVF and buy 40 brand spanking new LCS's.

MEON VALLEY FLYER

12th Apr 2006, 16:22

Can anyone tell me what the Tory plan on this is and defence in general should they truimpf in a few years.:hmm:

althenick

12th Apr 2006, 16:24

Instead of looking at the PROJECTS we should cut why dont we look at THE PEOPLE...
1/ RAF - 1 officer to 2.5 men
2/ RN - 1 officer to 4.5 men
3/ Army - 1 officer to 8 men
... Its about time we had a management weed out in the RN and RAF I think.
i'm sure one or two of you out there could think of others.

South Bound

12th Apr 2006, 16:29

Methinks althenick is fishing - sorry, gotta bite.

The RAF ratio is so high because (in the main) it is our officers that fly. In the current climate of manpower cuts, any fat is being trimmed and that means all the support etc is being civilianised wherever possible. What will not change is the number of crews, because that is directly linked to capability. Hence, the supporting trades/branches where most of the airmen reside will reduce and the aircrew numbers will remain static. This ratio is likely to get worse in your eyes, but is the way we are headed.

The Army are different because their capability is all about eyes/boots/SA80s on the ground and hence the ratio needs to remain high.

I do agree that there is scope for a little bit of a senior management cull tho.... :E

scottishbeefer

13th Apr 2006, 17:54

Cancel CVF???!!! Gents, the world has moved on considerably. We are now structuring our Armed Forces around an expeditionary, littorally capable, mission-tailored force. The whole shebang has to be self-sustaining (so no plan to rely on the US to provide top-cover - yes we all know we wouldn't be fighting a major theatre war without 'em but that's a different story) in the round. Hard to produce that OC without your own go anywhere strike - ie a carrier, etc. You can't always rely/plan for Host Nation support for those fancy Typhoons, so I guess those mates may have a sore back after an 8 hour flight to the scene and then back (or maybe they won't get used - wouldn't that be a bugger? Another thread possibly!)

In case people have got a bit dumber lately; we only need 2 carriers because there's always a lead-in time to a conflict/crisis. This allows the players to position if not in advance then fairly soon after startex. No-one's claiming the Brit's are a world superpower, but we (along with the French) are a big influence in that bad ol'world. Therefore even our iddy biddy CV fleet can be in the right place at around the right time. Once there, you shouldn't underestimate the influence/effect these ships will have. Against most opfor the CVF and associated tailored battle group will have few real competitors (standfast China/N.Korea/Russia?) - although I'm not talking about "liberating" an entire country here.

As ever, it's not usually the military capability that is found wanting, it'll be the politicos dithering that gets everything FUBAR'd. That's the element of the military that needs some money spending on it. It took NATO an excrutiating 30 days (ie standard time) to get into Pakistan post earthquake - not much help if you've been hanging on by your fingernails waiting for assistance. Likewise if the Rwandans are chopping each other to bits then it's not normally spontaneous. Someone knew about it but did jack le cack.

What we actually need is political cojones, much more than stealth fighters who will never actually fight a remotely similar enemy. (Think I may have gone a bit off-thread here!)

NURSE

13th Apr 2006, 22:39

I think alot of the points mentioned are Valid. Tech Transfare could be used cancel the F35 with the knock on that the Carriers are cancelled for the royal navy but with the one then being built sold to France. The Euro Navy will then have France supplying the carrier force UK/Neth supplying the Amphib force and the rest supplying the escorts.

However with the UK shift to expiditionary/littoral warfare The carriers actually become more important to provide CAP and CAS to landing forces.

FormerFlake

14th Apr 2006, 06:09

You can't always rely/plan for Host Nation support for those fancy Typhoons, so I guess those mates may have a sore back after an 8 hour flight to the scene and then back (or maybe they won't get used - wouldn't that be a bugger? Another thread possibly!)

And where is the Carriers AR support going to fly from? E3Ds? ASTOR? R1s etc? Where are aircraft with weapons 'hang ups' going to land?

A carrier is a detterent on it's own, but thats about it.

scottishbeefer

14th Apr 2006, 09:26

FF - What a gross and poorly informed understatement. As you are probably aware, the same restrictions on hang-ups apply to the jets today and we've managed deepwater/no HN support ops perfectly well.

As to AR, MASC or some other coordinated battle space awareness asset will be well on the table by the time the CVF achieves FOC. The CVF is way more than a deterrent, it will be a genuine influence on events ashore.

However, no sensible commentator would say that the CVF is the be all & end all - it's merely a (significant) part of the whole shebang.

Nursey - although CAS/CAP are key elements of the any organic capability, it's the Strike bit (not always a jet with bombs) that will enable the battlegroup (not just the CVF) to influence events. The ability to drive an effect home from X miles away is something we simply do not currently have. We need to see the package as a whole...

...relatively safe Sea Base with activity to support whatever effect the Commanders want to achieve, including utilisation of the CVF's Strike a/c to zap whatever. It's too narrow minded to see this as a Royal Navy operation, the whole caper is totally joint (and probably combined - ie multinational).

To go back to the Typhoon dig - someone please tell me how that jet will play a significant part in an expeditionary operation many miles from a HN? Good to know it will be interdicting the skies over the UK for homeland security though. Mind you if they cancel JSF they could always take up BAe's offer to marinise the Typhoon right?!!! (Yes I know this has been done to death on several other threads!)

FormerFlake

14th Apr 2006, 09:34

As you are probably aware, the same restrictions on hang-ups apply to the jets today and we've managed deepwater/no HN support ops perfectly well.

When was the last time a RN carrier operated indepedently against a credible force?

scottishbeefer

14th Apr 2006, 11:37

Apart from say, 1982? Which was, if I'm not mistaken, the last time since WW2 that any carrier had been under a genuine threat from ashore. (I guess some would argue Gulf 1)

What exactly is the nub of your argument? That we shouldn't improve our capability because you don't think the old CVS was capable enough? Presumably you subscribe to the moving Australia to justify the V-bomber force line of argument as well?!

JTIDS

14th Apr 2006, 14:14

Funny as the moving Australia act was, I'm not sure that the navy is above such tactics themselves. :)

I seem to remember an inside documentry of the SDR on BBC2 in around 1998 where the naval chappies were justifying the building of new aircraft carriers to some senior ministers. Two of their arguments were

a) you can close down a land based airfield just by driving a land rover into the middle of the runway.

and

b) any given attack on an aircraft carrier only has a ten percent chance of sinking the carrier.

The counter arguments of a) move the land rover, and b) attack ten times, never seemed to come up!

SASless

14th Apr 2006, 14:54

The better question....when did the RN last have a credible carrier?

In case people have got a bit dumber lately; we only need 2 carriers because there's always a lead-in time to a conflict/crisis.

Such as the FI squabble....and if one of the carriers is in drydock undergoing overhaul....and the other is on the wrong side of the world with some sort of committment?

The US is down to 12 from 15 large carriers....and they become in short supply often enough as it is.

scottishbeefer

14th Apr 2006, 15:27

SAS - concur, but the US is keeping the peace on a global scale, whereas the Brit/French level of ambition is much lower. We know our place (sort of!).

JTIDS - absolutely!

But seriously, since the politicos want the global influence (independent of the US) the only way to achieve it is to drive the airfield (and all the other stuff) to the crisis. That is the salient justification for the CVF. If someone comes up with a better way to achieve the desired effects over an adversary then you can bet we'll go that way instead.

We need to bear in mind that the Brits cannot even conceive of doing anything major without US top cover - and we all know they don't need the hardware, just the political support. What we're talking about here is a Sierra Leone-plus style op within our OC.

Navaleye

16th Apr 2006, 19:24

the USN only has 11 Carriers and 12 airgroups right now (despite <I believe> a law saying they must have 12). The Queen Elizabeth, Prince of Wales, CDG, and PA2 will be most useful in boosting coalition carrier capabilities.

A quick question for all: Name the other coalition partners who had assets on site in Op Corporate in 1982?

brickhistory

16th Apr 2006, 19:31

the USN only has 11 Carriers and 12 airgroups right now (despite <I believe> a law saying they must have 12).

Nope, still 12, JFK hasn't been laid up yet.

The Navy wants to retire her, Congress hasn't made up its mind; lots of jobs/votes associated with such a move.

Navaleye

16th Apr 2006, 20:33

brick,

I hear she alongside with arrestor gear problems. Fit for take off but not landings. Sounds like an obituary to me.

Lazer-Hound

16th Apr 2006, 20:55

IIRC, those who were against decommissioning JFK early have now been placated with promises of more funds for CVNX and moving a CSG or ESG from Norfolk to Mayport.

On that point, the new US LHA(R)s will carry 20 or so F35B as well as Ospreys, somewhat diulting the argument that CVF/PA1/2 will be a major addition to any 'coalition'.

If we're only going to do Sierra Leone - type ops on our own, isn't CVF a bit overkill? Surely 'Ocean-plus' would be a more cost-effective solution?

brickhistory

16th Apr 2006, 21:04

Navaleye/Lazar,

Didn't know the former and have heard the latter, but until she's decommissioned, she's still on the books. Moot point, she IS going, just a matter of how soon......

Didn't mean to insert thread creep; we now return to your regularly scheduled "Future carrier" thread......(hope you get them!)

FormerFlake

17th Apr 2006, 11:05

If we're only going to do Sierra Leone - type ops on our own, isn't CVF a bit overkill? Surely 'Ocean-plus' would be a more cost-effective solution?

We also have to assume the next conflict area will be by the sea!!!

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Apr 2006, 11:12

Not an unreasonble assumption to make. I think around 90% of the world's population live with 500 miles of the sea.

ORAC

17th Apr 2006, 11:26

Pity the GR7 low level combat radius is only 250nm then. (350nm at medium level, but then it would need a fighter escort.) :E

Navaleye

17th Apr 2006, 12:45

Yep, the Harrier's pi$$y range is a legacy of its North German Plain days and precisely why we need a longer legged beast to replace it. Its better than nothing though.

FormerFlake

17th Apr 2006, 13:10

Not an unreasonble assumption to make. I think around 90% of the world's population live with 500 miles of the sea.

Some countries seem to get upset if you fly warplanes through them though. Unless the country is actually on the coast things can get tricky.

FormerFlake

17th Apr 2006, 20:13

Sounds like an ideal reason for having carrier based aviation then. You can get your pointy death bringers where you want them without relying on others' permissions!:E

jungly

But the countries then HAVE to have a coastline. Not much good if we ever decide to sort out Zimbabwe.

Carriers are limited and when ''money is to tight to mention' become less viable.

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Apr 2006, 20:41

FF most countries DO have coastlines.

Tourist

17th Apr 2006, 20:44

FormerFlake.
There are a lot more countries with coastlines than with neighbours who will give overfly/basing rights to Brits, so they are a lot more viable than land based a/c

scottishbeefer

17th Apr 2006, 21:01

FF - I'm interested in how you would prefer the restructuring of HM's Armed Forces to go?

If not a carrier based strike capability then what? We could abandon the idea and form a Dutch style Navy I suppose, and accept the limitations that would bring. On the bright side we would be able to channel the money saved into the NHS or something worthwhile.

Presumably you're not suggesting we use the money for tons of helo's we couldn't protect, or a bunch more land-based FJ's we might not be able to deploy?

What's your less "limited" solution?

On the same but different subject, why are we talking about the GR7's legs here? It's the JSF's legs we should be interested in.

FormerFlake

17th Apr 2006, 21:21

FormerFlake.
There are a lot more countries with coastlines than with neighbours who will give overfly/basing rights to Brits, so they are a lot more viable than land based a/c

And how many of countries on the coast are we likely to go to war with? Even if it is Iran we will probably fly out of Iraq. Sudan perhaps, but will JSF have the range? If it needs AR support then we might as well use the same base for the fighter/bombers.

The UK armed forces need far more AT and AR assets for a start. Plus we need a AR cabability for the C17s and a better AR facility for the C130s.

I am not aware of any issues with deploying Typhoon??

During Telic 50% of the ordance for the entire war was dropped by the B1B. Does that give you a clue to the assets we need?

Zoom

17th Apr 2006, 22:20

On the subject of being off subject - dumping the JFK? I can't believe it. It seems like only yesterday that I was breakfasting on it off Malta, although it was actually 1969 when it was all new and shiny. It is still the most impressive piece of machinery I have ever been on.

Tourist

18th Apr 2006, 06:47

Flake, read Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs.
I will be the first to admit I see some errors in his book in the areas of my specialist knowledge, but it still has some worthwhile points.

Jackonicko

18th Apr 2006, 10:29

The author of 'Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs', Lewis Page, was described in early reviews as someone who had served in all three services.

I now read that he "began his military career as a reservist pilot in the Cambridge University Air Squadron. He grew disenchanted with the RAF and attempted to join the army, but was rejected for having a "frivolous attitude......."

I wonder.

Navaleye

18th Apr 2006, 11:18

FormerFlake,

Suggest you do a Google search on the Beira Patrol.

Tourist

18th Apr 2006, 11:25

His background is unimportant. His arguments are well put.

FormerFlake

18th Apr 2006, 12:48

FormerFlake,

Suggest you do a Google search on the Beira Patrol.

Although i am always one for trying to use history to guide the future etc. I don't quite see the what you are getting at? The world is a very, very different place now. The threat is different, our resources are diffrerrent and the political will is different. The threats when these carrier finally grace our seas will be very different to those during the 50/60/70s as the Empire(s) broke up. Dam that Luke Skywalker.

A different arguemnt that shows up in the Beira Patrol is the lack of effective AEW for the Navy. Now if the new breed of Carriers were getting Hawkeye then the case becomes stronger. They could go back to the idea of strapping a radar to a HS125?

I have not at any stage stated carriers are a waste of time. I'm only trying to suggest that there may be more sensible ways to spend money.

It is also fair to say that Uncle Sam owes us a big favour which could include carrier support in the future.

Navaleye

18th Apr 2006, 13:17

My point was that even a landlocked country needs a port somewhere. The problem with the Beira patrol was that it was in the wrong place. We has the Gannet then for AEW and it was Ok for the job.

Pureteenlard

18th Apr 2006, 13:47

The more I think about it the more I begin to wonder if configuring HM armed forces in a similar manner to the USMC might not be a bad idea. Perhaps three Wasp - type ships with embarked JSF, heliborne AEW and ASW plus a hefty Royal Marine force might be a good thing. It would mean a major reconfiguration of the whole of the armed forces however unless the army (and more importantly the soldiers themselves) could be persuaded to accept sea basing for some of it's strength.

scottishbeefer

18th Apr 2006, 18:35

P'Lard - Sea Basing is one of the fundamentals upon which we will operate. It's written in to all the UK doctrine and you can expect to see way more emphasis on it in future - not just for keeping troops but the logs package etc. No need to rely on HN support = mucho flexibility.

FF - Rely on the US to bail us out when we need a CV?! My friend, I've been resisting it but I'll have to bite...

...are you so naive and poorly informed because you are:

a- so new to the military that you haven't had a chance to work out what's going on yet, or...
b- not actually in the military (I note you say you're in Lisbon, unless it's JC Lisbon?), if so why are you on a military thread for serving or ex-mil, or...
c- Ex-mil but never took the time to actually read those glossy journals, just the Daily Mail, or...
d- are a journo fishing for some info, or...
e- are a 14 year old having a larf (hopefully it's this one)

Any of the above?

Goodness me. Let's try to keep the debate informed. If you don't know what you're talking about then please do a bit of reading about contemporary issues, or don't bother.

FormerFlake

18th Apr 2006, 20:19

Pureteenlard

18th Apr 2006, 20:26

Except of course that USMC FW support predominantly comes from FA18s based on CVNs and their AEW and ASW is all USN provided, again from CVN and DD/FF fleet. But apart from that, get's my vote, but what'll we do with 232 Eurofighters?
But JSF will be able to function as an F/A18 or AV8B as needed and I wasn't suggesting doing away with the RN's destroyers and frigates . . .
As for the Eurofighters . . . I really don't know - that's the beauty of being an arm-chair commentator with no power, no experience and a lack of anything that qualifies me for making any of my comments about military matters besides a keen interest in military history, a JANES subscription and an inquiring mind . . .

Rich_2k6

18th Apr 2006, 22:58

In regards to the comments posted about Britain no longer being a "world power", that is totally untrue. Ofcourse we are no longer a superpower and of course the empire is gone, but that doesn't mean we're not a world power, far from it infact. Let me throw you some statistics;
The Royal Navy is the second largest in the world in terms of gross tonnage.
The UK has the 3rd highest military expenditure in the world.
The second largest spender on military science, engineering and technology in the world.
The UK's power projection capabilities are second only to the US military.
Britain is a major nuclear power.
And i'm sure you'll agree British armed forces are arguably the finest in the world.

(i'm totally of subject but what the hell)

NURSE

18th Apr 2006, 23:45

Of course with any CV we need to suficient escorts to be able to protect it and RFA's to sustain it on long deployments. And with the current appetite for cuts and 'Savings' we won't have the capability to support them if we ever have to deploy them to the other side of the world.
Looking at the way the armed forces is going it won't be to long before the requirement will be for all kit to be able to fit in the back of a C-17.

scottishbeefer

19th Apr 2006, 12:49

FF - there, there. I notice you chose not to actually answer. Quite right, rise above it.

What were the criteria for posting in the Military Aircrew forum again?

But enough petty squabbling...

Rich is right, and we can still sustain a force pretty much anywhere on the high seas with no reliance on HNS. For any largish operation we (and the U.S.) still require STUFT (Ships Taken Up From Trade) in the form of RO-RO/FLO-FLO etc. It's really the only way to move significant amounts of stuff. We will never rely on a C-17 to deploy - it actually can't move nearly enough people/logs and is totally at the whim of a HN and of course massively more vulnerable.

FormerFlake

19th Apr 2006, 18:05

What were the criteria for posting in the Military Aircrew forum again?

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

Do you need to get your PA to read it for you?

There are a large number of both serving and ex serving military people in Lisbon. I know I qualify for the above, do you?

engineer(retard)

19th Apr 2006, 18:11

"The Royal Navy is the second largest in the world in terms of gross tonnage."

Must be all the pork pies they eat. Still waiting to see a post from Jungly AEO without Eurofighter in it :)

regards

retard

engineer(retard)

19th Apr 2006, 19:02

JAEO

Try getting an Italian, Spaniard and a German to help, you can do take 4 times longer at 16 times the cost. But your posts will be absolutely top notch.

regards

retard

scottishbeefer

19th Apr 2006, 19:03

FormerFlake

19th Apr 2006, 19:26

FF - come on now, your line of attack in this thread has been rather misinformed, based around the foundation that "carriers are rubbish- let's bolster the RAF." To say this is a facile, inaccurate representation of the present, let alone the title of the thread, ie "Future Carrier" is an understatement, and indicates you simply have not been reading your Janes or other accurate open source. We're a joint operation these days, whether the individual service oldies like it or not. That means a coherent joined up plan in the round to get capability. Like it or no, some stuff - like Typhoon has a limited application in the true expeditionary sense. And the idea that we'll be able to stick everything in the back of a C-17 is nonsense.

Ask the guys at Joint Command Lisbon to get you a NATO strike brief, on the (unclas)-sified level, not above. They'll be happy to oblige. If on the other hand you're not based there, then you're presumably ex-mil, enjoying the sun and golf, and are currently out of touch with the grand strategic plan. No worries there but you can't expect to be taken seriously when you post stuff like you have in this thread.

I'm not trying to pontificate here (although I probably am).

You make a lot of assumptions don't you.

What you fail to realise is there is a larger, and larger difference between what the military wants to do and what the politicians say they will do. It is all well and good argueing how great carriers are and what they can do. It is a politician who decideds where to send them, not the military. You are happy to ignore that fact along with the political implications of us parking a carrier of some country or anothers coastline. The world has changed. Just who do you think we will be fighting against in the future?

At what point have I stated carriers are rubbish? What about the comments other have made that do not agree with your views?

Are you also forgetting the support carriers need?

Accurate open source? I think the Yeti has my copy.

Grand Strategic Plan? I think the Lock Ness Monster has my copy.

Please explain your coments on Typhoon? Is it not allowed out of the UK or something? Did you read this in Janes?

All this forgets the most important man in the military, the grunt on the ground. Without them Air or Sea Power is nothing, just look at Kosovo.

Open your eyes to the real world, sounds like you have been in the service to long. I assume you qualify for this forum some how?

PS I hate golf

SirPercyWare-Armitag

19th Apr 2006, 19:59

Its a shame when people feel the need to get personal. HM Forces has enough enemies without us turning on each other...
As for carriers, there are several reasons why we will probably get them into service and the primary reason is that they will be built in Scotland and in Gordon Brown's constituency.
There are equally sound military reasons on both sides of the argument - just needs people to accept that. It has already been formally announced that GB military planning assumes we will never go to war without the US during large-medium scale ops.....leaving us going it alone for small scale dust-ups. Immediately after that announcement, questions were asked by intrepid counters of beans why we needed carriers then...oh....alright....perhaps a couple of teensy-weeny ones. There is no debate about that; if you manage to find a senior RN officer alone, slightly tipsy and feeling sorry for himself, then they will (off the record) grudgingly admit that they have stripped the fleet in a frantic attempt to afford 2 carriers with no guarantee they will ever be delivered. I have even found one who confessed that he saw no real value for them for future ops (yes, I have the name.....address...and accept all major credit cards)
Personally, I have my doubts as to the value of carriers (eggs...basket...one..centre of gravity....bang glug glug) unless they can launch (and recover) tankers, AEW, EW etc etc. I also stand by the theory that we will never go to war without USS Uncle SAM.....I might be wrong, hey, its not important.
However, the smartest trick the RN ever pulled was naming them....

sense1

19th Apr 2006, 21:37

As has been said before, Uk Armed Forces plc has enough enemies as it is. There are enough people outside the services against us getting these carriers (the bean counters!) without the service men arguing about it as well!
Wouldn't you all like to see a big ass carrier sailing down the channel with the navy ensign/union jack etc flying from her masts?!:ok: It would give us an increase in our expeditionary capability - which we all know is the name of the game nowadays - and if the government are thinking about giving us them, then lets all get on the band wagon and dam well support it!
I would love to see 2 CV with CTOL F35 and Hawkeye 2000 - but I doubt very much that the bean counters will give us the (comparitively) extra little cash to realise that pipe dream. But a CV with STOVL F35, realistically speaking a Merlin solution for MASC, and regular embarkation of apaches/chinooks/junglies etc - brilliant!
The navy deserve them, and RN will never be the same if the govt let em down and cancel CVF - too many sacrifices made already!:( Although I agree with those of us who would like to see more C17 and/or a bigger fleet of tankers, acquiring these aren't an alternative to CVF thats on the table! On the contrary, if CVF is cancelled, we won't have the savings made to pump back into the defence budget. The cash will disappear (probably to education or the Olympics!) and we will all be worse off.:oh:
As for the earlier comment: 'who do you think we will be fighting against in the future'...... are you being serious?! If we knew that then life would be alot easier! However, the world being completely unpredictable as it is, and until you can tell me which station's stores are issueing crystal balls, getting two extremely flexible, mobile, powerful and capable power projecting assets is probably the best way to equip ourselves in order to deal with whoever we will be fighting against in the future!
Cheers

NURSE

20th Apr 2006, 09:01

What the UK armed forces needs is time and resources to Balance so we can do the Expiditionary warfare. Remember the BEF was an expiditionary force sent into battle ill equipped to deal with a modern enemey. Reason because in the years following WW1 succesive govts drew a peace dividen and would not modernise the forces. Not strictly the same today but the lack of resources and increased deployments is creating a similar result as forces are reconfigured to fight the last war we took part in.
All three services need to be balanced out IMHO
Naval:
1: 2x CVF
2: 1X LPH (another HMS Ocean)
3: 10x TYPE 45 in addition to those ordered
4: 18+ New designed Frigates to replace Type 22/23
5: 3 more Wave class Tankers
6: 6-8 smaller tankers to replace the rover class

FAA
3 Sqns of carrier capable aircraft eg F35
Airborne AEW and ELINT platform
heavy support helicopter
replacement of seaking HC4 with merlin hc or nh90
Apache sqn for royal marines
replacement of lynx in laison/recce role by battle field lynx

Army

needs to be 3 Divisions
1 Heavy of 3 full armoured Divisions
1 Medium 3 Mech Divisions
1 Light made up of 16 Air assualt, and 2 light role Bdes 9who can operate from Amphib fleet or be airlanded in all kit shold be c130/c17 compatable
CVRT replaced with a propre light armoured recce vehice
Saxon Replaced by a proper Mech inf AFV wheeled
Sufficient non brigaded units to provide support and manpower with out having to strip operational units.
AAC
replacement of Lynx in Laison/recce role ? Battlefield lynx
a GS transport type helecoptor like NH90 to replace lynx in transport role

RAF
increase in Typhoon Fighter so we have Airdefence assets 6 sqns
Typhoon Multi role 6-9 sqns
F35 6 sqns
Tornado GR4 replacement
C17 force to be raised to 10
A400m force of 30
C130J force of 30
Tanker/transport fleet of at least 24 aircraft
Transport Hele
SF dedicated aircraft chinook or merlin fleet of 6-8
Seaking HAR3/3A replaced with Merlin equipped for CSAR
Puma Replaced with Merlin to supplement Lift capability of AAC NH90
additional merlin sqn formed
increased number of chinooks
additional MPA aircraft
UAV ISTAR assets
and increases in ISTAR Assets ground sea and airborne across all 3 services

Just a pipe dream

FormerFlake

20th Apr 2006, 11:16

Rich_2k6

20th Apr 2006, 12:40

In 30-40 years, China, India and Brazil are all predicted to be superpowers with economies surpassing that of the United States, that is a fact. What happens if one of these countries decides to throw there weight around? Lets say, if China decides to invade Taiwan, and we say "no or else". We may just find ourselves in WW3!
Also, the EU (whether we like it or not) is expected to become much more "federalised" and will probably have a single foreign policy and armed forces, its already planning to become a counterweight the US, we all know that Britain contributes more than anyone to the EU force and in the future we will have a big role in it, so we're gonna need a fully-effective force. What i'm trying to say guys, is that the world is changing fast, the day of the one superpower is soon to be over and were gonna find that our enemies may just be a little bit bigger than small autocratic regimes.
Hasn't history taught us anything? 60 years ago we were fighting WW2, 20 years ago the world was on the brink of total nuclear destruction...

Lazer-Hound

20th Apr 2006, 13:20

In 30-40 years, China, India and Brazil are all predicted to be superpowers with economies surpassing that of the United States, that is a fact.

No, that is a load of complete bollix. China isn't predicted to overtake the US until at least 2050 and India and Brazil just aren't.

What happens if one of these countries decides to throw there weight around? Lets say, if China decides to invade Taiwan, and we say "no or else". We may just find ourselves in WW3!

Not our problem, old bean. Why the hell would we want to get into a scrap with China???

Also, the EU (whether we like it or not) is expected to become much more "federalised" and will probably have a single foreign policy and armed forces, its already planning to become a counterweight the US,

Erm, no it isn't. Remember the referendums last year? Now the French have realised they can't run Europe their way, they're urning against it. Also demographics and economics militate against the emergence of the EU as a serious counterweight to the US.

we all know that Britain contributes more than anyone to the EU force and in the future we will have a big role in it,

The French certainly don't know that!

so we're gonna need a fully-effective force.

For what?

What i'm trying to say guys, is that the world is changing fast, the day of the one superpower is soon to be over

Unlikely.

and were gonna find that our enemies may just be a little bit bigger than small autocratic regimes.
Hasn't history taught us anything? 60 years ago we were fighting WW2, 20 years ago the world was on the brink of total nuclear destruction...

Everything you've said is just plain wrong. CVF is really (like Trident) about jingoistic willy-waving more than any actual military need.

Rich_2k6

20th Apr 2006, 13:36

Read this: http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s2.html

Countries such as China, India and Brazil are predcited to rival the US if not succeed it by 2050. The EU is also an emerging superpower, infact, if considered a single unit it is a superpower, the EU has a population of 456 million, compared with America's 292 million. The EU GDP is $12.3 trillion ($11.6 trillion for the United States), and it has 1.9 million military personnel (compared with America's 1.4 million). All it needs is to further intergrate and its there. In regards to other future superpowers, I dont think people realise their potential, and in 50 years the US will NOT be the only superpower.

sense1

20th Apr 2006, 14:20

You forget that when the government allocates money they are thinking about who we will be fighting in the future. Ordering only 2 carriers mean not fighting any one who is going to fight back.
Oh really.:hmm: We ordered 3 CVS in the 1970s in order to counter the ENORMOUS Soviet Submarine threat - 3!! Just 3. That is what the government gave us to fight the largest military threat (on the high seas) that we have faced since the Second World War. So, numbers of platforms doesn't really mean anything other than we are getting as many as we can afford/man/protect etc.
Acquiring 2 certainly doesn't give an indication that the government will only use them against those countries who aren't going to fight back (and by that I think you mean those without similar capabilities to be able to effectively fight back ie no fighters etc??).
So, IMHO, when HM Govt allocates money they are thinking about how they can best utilise the limited funds available - and that is on 2 CVF. I am sure those that command them, man them and fly from them (as well as EVERYBODY else) would ensure they are used as neccessary!;)

scottishbeefer

20th Apr 2006, 17:58

Politicians absolutely call the shots - no question. (My goodness, we agree on something.)

France, Spain, Italy, India, Brasil, oh and us - all countries who will never engage an enemy with any military capability. Or B...

...they/we all have only 1 or 2 CV's because they're frikkin' expensive and that's all we/they can afford. As an individual nation we could not possibly stand against an Iran, China or N.Korea. However - we see our part in the affairs of the world as having more than just a diplomatic say, we want some teeth as well. Additionally, and possibly more importantly, having our own capability allows us the autonomous action we may wish to pursue, whether it's because we're on the spot first and can't wait, or because we are pursuing a line of action without any other support - the FI spring to mind.

If you want to end up with the niche OC of the Netherlands (and what the Cloggies do, they do right well) then fine - but do not complain when you find yourself queueing up to the EU/UN to get them to do something about your problems. Good luck to us all if that's the path we go down.

WE Branch Fanatic

21st Apr 2006, 11:47

NoseGunner

21st Apr 2006, 12:20

WEBF

Times have changed, and modern maintenance and condition monitoring should mean these vessels spend relatively little time in upkeep.

You would think so wouldnt you?

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahha.

Roadster280

21st Apr 2006, 13:45

Noddy question -

What will happen to Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal? Sold/scrapped?

IIRC, Invincible was commissioned in 1978. That makes her 28 years old. The other two 4 or 5 years newer. Since the new carriers have a projected life of 50 years, this implies that the old ones are only halfway through their lives.

Is there any plan to retain the three existing ones in order to get maximum value from our investment (and increase fleet flexibility)?

Navaleye

21st Apr 2006, 14:31

Originally there were plans to have 5 Invincibles. Each one the centre of an ASW taskgroup. Then that got chopped back to three with two operational and now three with one operational. A 25 yr design life is the norm in the RN, not 35 or 50.

FormerFlake

21st Apr 2006, 15:38

I am sure those that command them, man them and fly from them (as well as EVERYBODY else) would ensure they are used as neccessary!;)

Who is going to man them? What sort of manpower numbers are we talking? Will enough people want to join the forces by the time they are in service? Does the Navy still have the apeal it used to? Are the current carriers 100% manned?

Navaleye

21st Apr 2006, 15:49

Actually crew numbers on a CVF aren't that different from a CVS due to enhanced automation. It will have a bigger bar as well.

SASless

21st Apr 2006, 16:01

Along with this massive CV fleet you are talking about....where are the escort and supply vessels going to come from? You cannot rely upon the Canadians....a two ship navy is not going to be of much use to the UK as escorts.

EU becoming a super power? Now that is a joke...you cannot agree on the size of a pint of beer for crying out loud.

What the UK should do is accept third world status...declare itself a Neutral Power...and ask the French and Dutch to protect you.

mlc

21st Apr 2006, 16:59

Invincible has already been withdrawn from service. A still serving friend of mine said she was in quite a poor state when she went.

Navaleye

21st Apr 2006, 17:37

She's been decommisioned and placed at readiness 5. I've not heard about her being in a poor state. She did have a £30m refit just two years previously. Invincible was the hardest worked in their early years, Ark the least (living up to her forebear's nickname of Park Royal).

ramp_up

21st Apr 2006, 18:03

Despite being old, I would rather "cruise" on a CVS any day, rather than spend 5 mins on the "O" boat. Its rather concerning being light blue and having more time afloat than some of the Fleet Air Arm

Dogfish

21st Apr 2006, 18:30

Sorry boys this discussion is now ilrelevent. So much dosh has been spent sorting out Mrs B liars hair that all future military spending is cancelled.:yuk:

WE Branch Fanatic

23rd Apr 2006, 09:26

In an earlier post, FF said:

And where is the Carriers AAR support going to fly from? E3Ds? ASTOR? R1s etc?

Carrierborne aircraft will need less tanker support due to being nearer to the area of operations. I'm sure I've read somewhere that FSTA will cost more than CVF, which is incredible! But since you've mentioned it, why not convert some F35s to act as "buddy buddy" tankers? In the old days weren't some Buccs used in an AAR role?

MASC will provide many of the capabilities of the E3D and ASTOR. As for R1 (I assume you mean the Nimrod R1) you may have a point, but there are platforms other than aircraft that can perform an ELINT role.

CVF is absolutely critical to the Navy's Strategic Plan(s). (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3683)

So is MASC, which does not appear to get the attention it deserves. In the last few years the fleet has been cut a lot, and one of the assurances given by Ministers was that "due to increased interconnectivity.........blah blah blah". But without excellent sensors this will count for nothing. The more capable MASC is the more capable the Fleet and Joint Forces operating with it will be.

Pureteenlard

23rd Apr 2006, 23:14

I thought that early Buccaneers (pre-spey) couldn't get off the deck with weapons and fuel so the navy used Scimitars with buddy packs to refuel the Buccs once they were airborne
Anyway, back to the cvs debate. . .

West Coast

24th Apr 2006, 04:08

"All it needs is to further intergrate and its there"

How 'bout starting with a common currency? The EU will fracture or stay in its current transitional form rather than present itself as a counter weight to the US. Not that there are that many US lovers, as there are far too many differing strategic goals to allow a homogenous foreign policy to succeed.

WE Branch Fanatic

25th Apr 2006, 14:38

Strictly Jungly

25th Apr 2006, 16:28

I understand that the reason that it was decided to order three CVS back in the '70s was because it was assumed one would be in refit etc.......leaving two at varying states of readiness. Times have changed, and modern maintenance and condition monitoring should mean these vessels spend relatively little time in upkeep.
Therefore two will suffice.

Times have changed???????????

Have you ever been in a CVS in EDAMP lately?

Gone are the days when a crate for the dockies could get you some "extra" jobs done! Indeed I would say your assumptions demand we need more than 2!!!!! DML = Dockyard Matey Limited!!

Whilst I am at it...............as a WE fanatic........please tell me what the WE Branch actually do. In LUSTY we were over ran by them.....the most embarassing sight I ever saw was the then WEO saluting as the Sea Dart launcher was hoisted off the ship........pitiful to say the least!

If you ant to be a fanatic.....how about FAA fanatic..............??

Navaleye

25th Apr 2006, 22:41

Don't be too hard on him Jungly, a working Sea Dart system and an obliging target beats a video game any day.

NURSE

26th Apr 2006, 10:38

We need to start cutting steel and doing the hundreds/thousands of other things that need to be done - much of this will use the same technology as the Type 45 Destroyer.
Surely getting the construction of the hull modules should start NOW, why do the Government insist that every decision about the outfitting (CTOL vs STOVL for instance) before work can start?

Yes we do but then we are comitted to the programme and Brown can't cut it to save money at a later date. I will be very surprised if CV ever see water. The RN will probably end up as a flotilla of Type 45's, 3 ssk(n), some minehunters, 3 survey vessels, 4 patrol boats and the amphib fleet. As sea power will be seen as irrelevant in a modern world and not fitting with Brown Labour world view. I think the only thing likley to save them is them being built in the New Prime Ministers backyard.

Auchtung Shitflyer

26th Apr 2006, 18:42

Not sure if anyone's thrown this into the debate yet but...

JSF:

1) Technology transfer issues (US angst over EU military sales to China?)
2) Budget overruns (approx. 15% and climbing)
3) Programme delays (CVF ~ 2012, JSF ~ 2015)
4) US budget constraints (build F22, JSF CTOL (USAF) and JSF CV (USN), but cancel JSF STOVL(USMC))

Typhoon:

1) Don't want to buy 232 but probably have to (contractual penalties)
2) Tranche 3 = 90 aircraft (design not frozen)
3) Maritime variant of Typhoon currently being scoped by Industry (strengthened mainspar, landing gear and hook etc.).

If we have to buy 'em, we might as well use 'em . . .

. . .don't you think?

:ok:

maccer82

27th Apr 2006, 15:55

Achtung, my dear boy. Your plan unfortunatley has two major flaws.
The first, is that it appears to be cost effective, and the second, and by far most important is that it makes some sort of sence. The powers that be will never consider it due to those two points.

Fly Navy.

Auchtung Shitflyer

27th Apr 2006, 19:41

maccer82,

(Christ! I've misspelt Achtung haven't I? Ze humiliation . . .)

You are probably right. I am not Navy but I am a fan of CVF. Losing JSF might be a bit of a capability disaster, but it's going to cost ~10Bn and why do we need Stealth anyway? Surely we're not crazy enough to take on a technically advanced enemy without our US friends, who can use their stealthy jets to get us an invite to the party. OK, so we'll have to sit on the touchline with the half-time oranges and the fat, wheezy boys with a note from Matron . . . but only for a few weeks. Completing/converting the Typhoon purchase might cost (say) 5Bn leaving a tidy lump sum that could be used to complete CVF (and a few other programmes) to spec. You'd also save all the cash that would need to be spent in order to run two fleets . . . training, spares, weapons etc.

Of course, all this assumes that Typhoon can be converted for Maritime ops . . .

AS

(call me ouch-tongue)

maccer82

27th Apr 2006, 20:25

The whole idea of the stealth on the aircraft is for a 'first day of war scenario' after that pylons will probably be fitted to give it a better payload anyway, and in the process buggering up the stealth characteristics. Why don't we leave this first day of war sneaky beaky business to the yanks and we can jump in with aircraft with decent payloads (Typhoon) at a later date? Anything can be navalised if you throw enough money at it :ok:

Unmissable

27th Apr 2006, 22:45

West Coast

27th Apr 2006, 22:56

"Surely we're not crazy enough to take on a technically advanced enemy without our US friends"

I guess the crux of the argument comes down to what assumptions you're comfortable making in planning and hoping operationally they come true should action occur.

WE Branch Fanatic

27th Apr 2006, 22:56

Unmissable are you a civil servant?

You seem to assume that a combat jet will have the same range and endurance as a tanker. Don't think so.........

Melchett01

27th Apr 2006, 22:59

Tracey Island

28th Apr 2006, 07:53

Please will someone tell me when a Carrier will justify itself in war? I have still to find a realistic scenario.
If the aircraft are more than 100 miles off the coast then they will need AAR (based reasonably locally), in which case you could base the ac at the same place as the AAR ac, so no need for a carrier. If the carrier needs to be less than 100 miles off-shore, then it is probably too dangerous to put a 3 Billion pound asset in that position...so why buy it in the first place???

UNMISSABLE - is this a wind up? OK, I'll bite. Carriers and action? Hmm, let's see...

Taranto Nov '41 - 21 a/c disable half the ITN battleship strength; the physical and psychological effects not so quatifyable.
Crete May '41 - lack of carrier cover led to loss of the island and limited the evacuation (5000 troops and 1000 RMs left behind).
Madagascar May '42 - divisional sized assault on Vichy held island with HMS Illustrious and Indomitable providing force protection and maritime strike (sounds remarkably relevant to today's needs?).
French North Africa Nov '42 - UK/US invasion with 70000 troops staging from 5 fleet and 9 escort carriers.
Sicily Jul '43 - UK/US invasion with 180000 troops, very limited air cover from Malta and N.Africa so Indomitable and Formidable with 97 a/c provided force protection.
Salerno Sep '43 - an amphibious assault at the extreme of air cover from Sicily. Five light carriers carried out FP and CAS of the landings 9-12 Sep with 265 sorties flown on D-Day itself.
Korea 1950-53 - USN, RN and RAN carriers fly about 333000 UN sorties during the campaign. Support of ground forces was particularly vital as land based air lacked host nation support. The 4 carriers involved flew 4000 CAS sorties in 6 weeks with General MacArthur publicly declaring their decisive effect.
Suez Oct-Nov '56 - Primary air support for this Op came from 5 RN/FN carriers which flew 1300 sorties in addition to Thesus and Ocean in the LPH role. After the destruction of the Egyptian AF, majority of sorties were CAS with a "cab rank" delivering firepower as close as 100 metres from forward troops.
The Falklands '82 - from 21-25 May, Hermes and Invincible with 30 Harriers flew 300 sorties while land based Argentine AF managed only 180 sorties from 100 a/c. 3 RAF GR3s from Hermes flew in support of Goose Green 28 May, decisively swinging the battlespace.
Sierra Leone 2000 - Op PALLISER classic example of the connect between amphibious and carrier elements in distant expeditionary ops. Air presence missions of RN and RAF Harriers from Illustrious from 17 May onwards proving significant in maintaining escalation dominance of the situation.

Enough to be going on with methinks and I hope you notice the presence of Joint and Tailored Air Groups from '82 onwards?

Regards to all.

SASless

28th Apr 2006, 08:21

Anything can be navalised if you throw enough money at it

Not really at all and maintain the same performance.

SirPercyWare-Armitag

28th Apr 2006, 08:28

"Sierra Leone 2000 - Op PALLISER classic example of the connect between amphibious and carrier elements in distant expeditionary ops. Air presence missions of RN and RAF Harriers from Illustrious from 17 May onwards proving significant in maintaining escalation dominance of the situation."

Obviously, I quite agree that the carriers make a critical contribution in 1982 but the role of a carrier during PALLISER could have been (and nearly was) replaced by another RAF asset flying from a neighbouring country. I dont believe that PALLISER is a good example of a decisive contribution of aircraft carriers

Biggus

28th Apr 2006, 08:30

TI

I don't want to get into a pissing contest, believe it or not I do think carriers have their place in the modern order of battle. However, in the interests of historical accuracy......

With regard to your historical defence of carriers:-

Crete May 41 - the island was not lost due to a lack of carrier cover, it was lost as a result of ground troops being unable to stop the Germans capturing Maleme airfield for use as a reinforcement hub.

Op Palliser - my logbook shows that I left the UK with the first wave of troops (ordinary, non amphibious, ground troops!) on 7th May, and flew my first sortie into Sierra Leone on 8th May. It's nice to know that Illustrious was providing cover from 17th May onwards, two days before I went home!

Tracey Island

28th Apr 2006, 08:32

I understand that in order to navalise a Typhoon, aside from beefier undercarriage, tailhook, non-rusty metal bits, reduced performance, etc. etc. it will also require a glass floor pan by the aircrew's feet as the angle of attack to recover to the Flat Top is so high it'll be the only way the pilot could see the deck. :sad:

ImageGear

28th Apr 2006, 09:00

A Glass Window in the floor pan :eek:

It is now 2006, 2012 before any of this sees the light of day.

Surely, High Definition video pictures projected to a holographic HUD must be the way to go. (That is if you still need a pink body there by 2012)

Imagegear (Ex Techy Fairy)

Widger

28th Apr 2006, 09:02

TI,the issue of visibility is not a new one, in fact aircrew in the past developed a curving approach to ensure visibility over the nose. (Lower approach speeds I grant you). You may also find that technology being developed at this time enables aircraft to land automatically anyway, thereby negating the need for visibility below the nose. Maybe Typhoon needs a drooping nose!

Jackonicko

28th Apr 2006, 09:33

Tracey Island,

If we accept your history lesson without question, it's apparent that we needed carriers only twice in the last 50 years, and only once since 1982.

Unfortunately Op Palliser repressents a poor example, as Biggus and Sir Percy imply. A carrier was used, of course, but it wasn't needed, and if it proves anything, it proves that helicopter carriers are useful.

Carriers are a useful 'nice to have' capability, but not an essential one. Like the ability to airdrop large formations. This is a capability you'd choose to have if you had unlimited resources, but in today's financial climate it's one you'd reluctantly leave to allies, concentrating your money on the capabilities that are needed every time you go on ops, and which make you a more useful coalition partner (tankers, SEAD, recce).

There's a lot of bollocks being talked about marinising Typhoon. The issue of the view over the nose could be solved in a number of ways, but it is an issue if you want to absolutely minimise structural alterations (eg avoid a split rudder, or a raised seat and slightly bulged canopy, or a redesigned undercarriage and/or thrust vectoring). None of this is rocket science.

The study conccluded that "Navalising appears 'practical and relatively inexpensive" and that there would be a +340 kg weight penalty for a STOBAR version (Ski-jump) and of +460 kg for a Catapult launched version.

South Bound

28th Apr 2006, 09:54

Agreed, and what is needed is a review of essential CAPABILITIES, not essential toys, of all the Services...

Bismark

28th Apr 2006, 13:14

Jacko et al,

The most recent action where carriers were absolutely essential was post 9/11 action in Afghanistan. Apart from B2s from the US (on round trips) there was no other way of delivering ordnance on Afghan soil than from aircraft carriers. All air combat power was delivered from the CVNs. No nation would offer combat support to the UK or US. ILLUSTRIOUS also launched ops into Afghan at this time.

The other action where flat tops were used because the shore facility failed was the assault on the Al Faw which ended up being launched from OCEAN and ARK ROYAL.

The final point is that the UK no longer has sufficient strategic airlift to deploy real combat air power into a theatre of operations and be effective on day one - and then day 2,3, 4 etc. CVF is the only real route for the UK and the Government and policy makers know it.

South Bound

28th Apr 2006, 13:22

And clearly, without that demonstrating of carrier-borne airpower, we could not have got Afg into the welcoming benign environment it is now. Just what did it achieve? Lovely chest thumping I am sure...

SASless

28th Apr 2006, 13:59

None of this is rocket science.

The study conccluded that "Navalising appears 'practical and relatively inexpensive" and that there would be a +340 kg weight penalty for a STOBAR version (Ski-jump) and of +460 kg for a Catapult launched version.

Jacko...these studies being brought to you by the same folks that bought the grounded Chinooks, the Typhoon with a concrete gun, and the Apaches that sit in a warehouse?

Jackonicko

28th Apr 2006, 14:23

Nice line SASless, but utter bollocks.

So: No, the studies I've seen have been from BAE and the Typhoon joint structures team.

Who had bug.ger all to do with Boeing's Chinook disaster, the AAC's inability to plan properly for Apache, or the cost-driven proposal to omit Typhoon's gun on RAF aircraft.

Bismarck.

The UK didn't need carriers to mount a post 9/11 attack on Afghanistan, because we weren't heavily involved in that dodgy piece of adventurism. And hey, we had an ally ready and able to provide the carrier air power required.

And when the Americans went in, they weren't calling on the UK for carrier support, the UK capabilities they really wanted (and that made us a useful partner) were SF, tankers, R1s and PR9s. They gave us real influence, while Illustrious was an irrelevance - useful only in that it provided a visible proof that we were participating.

Generally speaking, if HNS isn't available, it tends to be because the proposed op is politically unsustainable or unwise.

In any event, B-2s were not the only available option for delivering ordnance, as you'd know if you looked at Diego Garcia, or remembered TLAM, CALCM, Storm Shadow, etc.

And it's my understanding that HNS was offered by a number of nearby nations, including (but not limited to) the 'northern 'stans', while the CV based air power required overflight permissions to do their job.

Bismark

28th Apr 2006, 18:25

Jacko,

You miss the point. the only reason the military do anything is because the politicians want us too. The US may not have needed us to achieve the military aim but the sure as heck found us useful from the political angle and the manifestation of it was the forces you mention and as ILLUSTRIOUS was in the region the politicians directed its participation. As I said earlier this is exactly why the politicians want CVF/JSFand are unlikely to allow its cancellation.

All Diego Garcia can deliver is more bombers (and only the big ones).

soddim

28th Apr 2006, 19:43

Not entirely correct, Bismark. Sometimes, given that the politicians have got us into a conflict, the military conduct operations with a mind for their own service advancement, particularly where influence is needed to push a particular service requirement such as a new weapon or a future carrier. For example, if a RN carrier had not appeared anywhere near the gulf in the past few years, the conclusion might have been reached that carriers were an irrelevance.

Evalu8ter

28th Apr 2006, 21:21

"The other action where flat tops were used because the shore facility failed was the assault on the Al Faw which ended up being launched from OCEAN and ARK ROYAL"
Sorry Bismarck, that will be the "amphibeous assault" launched from Camp Viking in Northern Kuwait then? The carriers could almost have acted as slow C17s/AN-124s in getting their helos to the NAG. All they provided was a degree of "Sea Basing" (though not as the Americans would understand it). The first three waves of the Op were conducted from a Host Nation as the Mine/SeerSucker threat was adjudged too high for the ships to get in close enough to compensate for the SK4s then chronic lack of disposable payload. It would have been quite possible to have launched the whole Op from Kuwait had the political (read Senior Service) will been there. However, in some respects, it might have been nice to have had a CVS full of GR7s there as opposed to having to rely on the US for CAS.....I'm in no way anti carrier (much better wine list than the LPH!) but, in accordance with other posters on this thread, we need a comprehensive review of those capabilities we need to have, not just those we want because we've always had them...or always wanted them again. Honestly, we'll be buying LPDs without hangar decks next.....

NURSE

28th Apr 2006, 22:34

"Sierra Leone 2000 - Op PALLISER classic example of the connect between amphibious and carrier elements in distant expeditionary ops. Air presence missions of RN and RAF Harriers from Illustrious from 17 May onwards proving significant in maintaining escalation dominance of the situation."
Obviously, I quite agree that the carriers make a critical contribution in 1982 but the role of a carrier during PALLISER could have been (and nearly was) replaced by another RAF asset flying from a neighbouring country. I dont believe that PALLISER is a good example of a decisive contribution of aircraft carriers

Forgetting one MAJOR issue to Base RAF aircraft on foreign soil needs Diplomatic clearences sometimes thease aren't exactly forth comming. Whereas an aircraft carrier can sit in International waters.

NURSE

28th Apr 2006, 22:38

Nice line SASless, but utter bollocks.
So: No, the studies I've seen have been from BAE and the Typhoon joint structures team.
Who had bug.ger all to do with Boeing's Chinook disaster, the AAC's inability to plan properly for Apache, or the cost-driven proposal to omit Typhoon's gun on RAF aircraft.
Bismarck.
The UK didn't need carriers to mount a post 9/11 attack on Afghanistan, because we weren't heavily involved in that dodgy piece of adventurism. And hey, we had an ally ready and able to provide the carrier air power required.
And when the Americans went in, they weren't calling on the UK for carrier support, the UK capabilities they really wanted (and that made us a useful partner) were SF, tankers, R1s and PR9s. They gave us real influence, while Illustrious was an irrelevance - useful only in that it provided a visible proof that we were participating.
Generally speaking, if HNS isn't available, it tends to be because the proposed op is politically unsustainable or unwise.
In any event, B-2s were not the only available option for delivering ordnance, as you'd know if you looked at Diego Garcia, or remembered TLAM, CALCM, Storm Shadow, etc.
And it's my understanding that HNS was offered by a number of nearby nations, including (but not limited to) the 'northern 'stans', while the CV based air power required overflight permissions to do their job.

And if we had to repeat a Falklands type scenario and dip clearences weren't forth comming then without carriers we would be well stuffed. I know the arguments Uncle Sam will always provide (when it suits him)

Jackonicko

28th Apr 2006, 22:59

Nursey,

If by some mischance we withdrew the F3s and then had to recover the Falklands, without coalition support, we would be f*cked without carriers.

If we needed to drop paras at Brigade strength, we'd be hard pressed.

If we needed to make a full-on cavalry charge, we'd be b*ggered.

But with shrinking budgets, and with increasing costs of defence equipment, we can't hope to be able to do everything that we used to do.

And if we have to cut corners, it's better by far to ditch the higher cost capabilities that we are least able to need and to concentrate on those areas that make us most useful to our allies, and that we do best.

As for Dip Cs, they were there for Dakar during Palliser, long before the carrier got there.

Bismarck,

UK commitment was certainly useful to the Yanks, but what they asked for first were R1s and PR9s and then tankers, and I'll bet they'd have welcomed one more R1 or a couple more VC10s than they welcomed Illustrious, that just got in the way, without generating a meaningful sortie rate or effect.

NURSE

29th Apr 2006, 00:29

No we can't hope to everything we once did. But there is a level of capability we should be able to provide. We have restructured our forces to fight expititionary warfare like we did in the 1930's and look what happened when they went to war without proper aircover!!
As to Dip clearences they can have caveats like no offensive air. Again you are relying on somone elses good will and at some point in the future we may be having to send a force into an area which there is limited of no goodwill for us. BTW I said a Falklands type operation IE proper unilateral expiditionary warfare and force projection from the sea. Which is more viable than dropping an airborne Brigade in which even 16 AA admit is a non starter which is why they focus on dropping a Batalion group and TALO or Air Assualt the rest in.

Gen.Thomas Power

29th Apr 2006, 12:19

Surely the 'lack of HNS' argument being used to underpin the purchase of CVF is flawed? Unless the carriers are equipped with awacs, aar etc, those aircraft will have to be based somewhere. The argument that some countries will not allow fighters to be based on their soil, but will allow basing of all associated enablers, does have historical precedent but is that a basis for spending £20 Billion+ (est cost of CVF and JSF) on building carriers that can only launch fighters. CVF has to be fully autonomous or the 'lack of HNS' argument is bollox.

Speaking of which, why buy JSF? If the US won't sell on favourable terms and if we're always going to go to war as part of a US-led coalition (an assumption that seems to underpin current UK defence policy) then why can't they do the stealthy thing for us? As far as National or European capabilities are concerned, are the peace-loving pygmies of the Upper Volta replacing their sharpened mangos with double-digit SAMs? If so, shouldn't we be buying more Stormshadow and TLAM (which will also allow us to meaningfully contribute to the early stages of a Coaltion campaign)?

Scrap JSF, navalise Typhoon, properly equip and outfit CVF, and let's do the whole Watusi village. . .

Thomas Power, General
Commander, Strategic Air Command

Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the ba*tards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win.

WE Branch Fanatic

30th Apr 2006, 15:52

GTP

Unless the carriers are equipped with awacs, aar etc, those aircraft will have to be based somewhere.

1. AWACS/AAR aircraft have greater range/endurance than fighters.
2. Some nations will be ok with support aircraft based on their soil, but tooled up jets? No...........
3. MASC will provide a lot of the capability of AWACS (how much depends on what platform is chosen) and I can't see why limited carrierborne AAR (either a buddy buddy system, dedicated F35s or V22 (if chosen for MASC) isn't considered to augment FSTA (which is more expensive than CVF).

I assume that when you say "fighters" you mean fast jets. But remember CVF will also carry MASC (a key enabler for all forces in the naval/maritime/littoral domain) and various helicopters for a variety of possible missions.

Archimedes

30th Apr 2006, 16:32

WEBF, are you sure about the CVF vs FSTA costs? ISTR that this was raised (possibly on Pprune) a while ago, and it was suggested that the difference came from comparing the whole-life costs of the FSTA programme against the unit cost (i.e. the on-the road [water] cost] of the CVF, so it was a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

Bismark

30th Apr 2006, 19:55

Jacko,

I do not disagree with much of what you say above. I did not suggest that ILLUSTRIOUS was there as a battle winning asset or that it was what the US needed (most definitely they needed the PR9, AAR, R1 etc) but are we to build an RAF around recce and AAR? For sure the Typhoon is a white elephant and we need the capability of JSF instead. What is important is that if we are to get CVF then the MOD trick is to deliver on budget and on time - as opposed to Typhoon, MRA4, Astute etc the money wasted to date on which would pay for CVF many times over.

If JSF were scrapped then we would be in the appalling situation of relying on Typhoon for combat power - we would never take part, because the US would not want the a/c anywhere near an OP theatre.

Jackonicko

30th Apr 2006, 21:36

Ah yes. JSF.

No internal PWIII.
No external ASRAAM.
No Brimstone.
No ALARM.
No external tanks.
No Storm Shadow for years.

No ITAR waiver, so no STFs, SEMs, and little chance of UORs. Doubt as to the viability of autonomous repair/support.

Downgraded LO characteristics and capabilities.

A programme that the US GAO believe to be a huge risk, which is being flown before key technologies are mature or in place.

Unit price for the USAF already more than $100 m.

Not a hope of getting the aircraft into frontline squadron service before 2017. (Think GR7A/9/9A can last that long without new back ends?)

Yet Typhoon is the aircraft you choose to kick......

:ok:

ORAC

1st May 2006, 06:24

IIRC the inner pylons are wet and cleared to 5000lb. :rolleyes:

Jackonicko

1st May 2006, 08:43

Now is it my fault you don't keep yourself up to speed, Orac.

28 April

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $52,400,000 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) to exercise an option to certify the small diameter bomb for the U. S. Air Force Joint Strike Fighter conventional take off and landing (CTOL) aircraft and eliminate the effort for wind corrected munitions dispenser and external fuel tanks. *Work will be performed in Ft. Worth, Texas (89 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (6 percent); Orlando, Fla. (3 percent); and Wharton, United Kingdom (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2013. *Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. *The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Gen.Thomas Power

1st May 2006, 13:07

WEBF - copy all ref MASC (I do mean FJ). . . however, JSF STOVL has about the same range and payload as a Golf GTi. When you start looking at anything more than BAI against a littoral opponent in the air-to-ground role, or how long it can stay on CAP in the air-to-air role (which will determine how many of the embarked ac will be needed to protect their own ship) you'd have to conclude that without (bootloads of) AAR the CVF will be a self-licking lollipop. I would agree with you if we were buying C-Variant JSF. . . but we aren't . . . a light blue, industry-inspired stitch-up apparently. . . or our interminable fascination with things that go jump in the night.

Bismark - you're right about the interoperability piece. However, for the majority of any campaign, that will be driven by whether or not we're on the net, rather than whether or not we're stealthy. Yes, there will be target sets that are so heavily defended that we'll want to use stealth, TLAM or Stormshadow - but how many and for how long? If we were being brutally honest, the US wouldn't really need our help in the early phases of any campaign. Where they do need our help is in the UN and on the ground over the long haul. . . ask 'em whether we've been more valuable as allies during Telic 1 or Telic 8. . . . I don't know the answer, but if it caused a pause, then maybe it's not worth burning our conventional FJ capability to pay for a stealthy jumping bean. . .there's not a huge amount of stealth being used at the moment. No doubt they're all getting repainted and bombed-up ready for the Big One (in Iran or North Korea, or somewhere else where Perfidious Albion has no national interest or desire to get involved, thanks very much). As regards conventional air interoperability - well, that'll be determined by whether or not the US are prepared to tech-share JTRS (son of JTIDS). If they're going to be as tight with JTRS as they are with JSF, then maybe we ought to ask ourselves why we're always so keen to be a member of their gang. . .and whether or not it's time to go and start our own.

Jackonicko is right - don't knock Typhoon. It may be ugly but it's our baby, and it could be a truly great weapons system for want of a few Billion quid. That may sound crass, but we'll have spent 20Bn through life by the time we're done and a "a few Billion" is about 15% of what we're going to pay for JSF. Finally, if Typhoon is our baby, then JSF is somebody else's foetus, and we're going to end up sitting around for years waiting for its arrival. That's going to introduce further delays to CVF which is already being hollowed out by the vultures - if the Naval sheds had any sense they'd embrace Typhoon, which, to some degree, is a politically protected programme, and could meet CVF's in-service date. I don't buy any of the earlier lines on this thread about how difficult it would be to navalise Typhoon. I suspect the real difficulty might be how much it would cost to redesign CVF as a cats 'n traps carrier (although I am told a cat wouldn't be required) . . .

Tom "Bark like a dog for me" Power

:ok:

ORAC

2nd May 2006, 07:41

That's crazy. How the h*ll can Australia, or for that matter the RN, buy an aircraft you can't hang jugs on? Even if you have tankers, they're not always available or can't enter the combat zone; and I wouldn't like to be half way across the Indian Ocean or pond without jugs when the tanker broke. :ooh:

Jackonicko

2nd May 2006, 10:15

Don't shoot the messenger, ORAC.

And is it any crazier than buying an aircraft that can neither:

a) carry our chosen day one weapons in its day one configuration?
nor

b) carry our chosen A-A weapons externally (or, in the case of Meteor, at all)?

and that we cannot:

modify, upgrade, support nor sustain without US Government and Lockmart say-so?

NB:
The US GAO say:

"The combination of cost overruns and quantity reductions has already diluted DOD's buying power and made the original JSF business case unexecutable."

"Given continuing program uncertainties, DOD could use more time to gain knowledge before it commits to a new business case and moves forward. Any new business case must be accompanied by an acquisition strategy that adopts an evolutionary approach to product development-one that enables knowledge-based decisions to maximize the return on remaining dollars-as dictated by best practices."

"The cost estimate to fully develop the JSF has increased by more than 80 percent. Development costs were originally estimated at roughly $25 billion. By the 2001 system development decision, these costs increased almost $10 billion, and by 2004, costs increased an additional $10 billion, pushing total development cost estimates to nearly $45 billion. Current estimates for the program acquisition unit cost are about $100 million, a 23 percent increase since 2001."

- That's £58m - already perilously close to the programme unit cost of Typhoon - and much more than the price of additional Typhoons would be.

"Design and software teams have found greater complexity and less efficiency as they develop the 17 million lines of software needed for the system. Program analysis indicated that some aircraft capabilities will have to be deferred to stay within cost and schedule constraints."

Confident that these won't be capabilities that the UK deems essential?

JSF's planned approach will not capture adequate knowledge about technologies, design, and manufacturing processes for investment decisions at key investment junctures......the JSF program will lack critical production knowledge when it plans to enter low-rate initial production in 2007.
Only one of JSF's eight critical technologies is expected to be demonstrated in an operational environment by the 2007 production decision.

o Only about 40 percent of the 17 million lines of code needed for the system's software will have been released, and complex software needed to integrate the advanced mission systems is not scheduled for release until about 2010-3 years after JSF is scheduled to enter production. Further, most structural fatigue testing and radar cross section testing of full-up test articles are not planned to be completed until 2010.

o The program will not demonstrate that critical manufacturing processes are in statistical control, and flight testing of a fully configured and integrated JSF (with critical mission systems and prognostics technologies) is not scheduled until 2011.

Still think the JSF is a better bet than Typhoon N? Perhaps it is, but the issue is less clearcut than JSF adherents pretend. I can't help but wonder whether this isn't another C-130J, waiting to bite us in the ar.se.

Still think the JSF will be ready in time to meet UK timescales? And if it isn't we are royally screwed, because there's no way on earth the GR7/9 will last beyond the planned 2017 OSD.

ORAC

2nd May 2006, 10:40

It is rapidly acquiring the look of the F-111/TFX programme.

ORAC

2nd May 2006, 14:24

Looking again at that contract it drops the requirement to cetify the F-35A with external tanks. Anyone know if this eliminates the same for the B/C and any time implications?

Jackonicko

2nd May 2006, 14:59

Will the USMC want to pay for tank certification, instead of simply piggy-backing off the USAF?

Would a USN tank clearance on the C-model, with its very different wing, read-across?

Who knows.

But tanks or no tanks, it's becoming less and less like the right choice.

How about the other issues, Orac?

AGAIN:

No internal PWIII.
No external ASRAAM.
No Brimstone.
No ALARM.
No external tanks.
No Storm Shadow for years.

No ITAR waiver, so no STFs, SEMs, and little chance of UORs. Doubt as to the viability of autonomous repair/support.

Downgraded LO characteristics and capabilities.

A programme that the US GAO believe to be a huge risk, which is being flown before key technologies are mature or in place.

Unit price for the USAF already more than $100 m.

Not a hope of getting the aircraft into frontline squadron service before 2017. (Think GR7A/9/9A can last that long without new back ends?)

ORAC

2nd May 2006, 15:45

Jacko, look at my previous posts, I have always had misgivings about the F-35B, but none were a show stopper. As far as I am concerned, this is.

I also have strong suspicions it is only being dropped for the overt/overseas build and the US versions will be able to slap tanks on as when they see fit......

Jackonicko

2nd May 2006, 16:02

We disagree then.

Radius is respectable on internal fuel, and you can plan around a known limitation.

The jet can still fly useful short range missions.

The ITAR issue raises unpredictabilities which are impossible to plan against.

The UK weapon incompatibilities limit the aircraft's usefulness.

If it doesn't arrive bang on time we're as screwed as we were when the US $hit-canned Skybolt.

sharmine

2nd May 2006, 19:59

You never know where a carrier might be needed next. In 1971 Guatemala rattled its sabres at the then British Honduras (Belize). The nearest asset was the old Ark and she was this side of the pond but she set off at max chat and when 2000 miles out she launched a flight of Buccaneers, a mix of tankers and bombers, which over flew the country and put the Guatemalans back in their box purely with a simple fly by. Just shows what the thought that there is a carrier just over the horizon can do:ok:.

Their territorrial claim remains as does that of Argentina over the Malvinas and when might the next Grenada kick off? and we had to rely on Uncle Sam for that last one (maybe we were still getting over the Falklands).

So yes, the Buc could buddy refuel it carried a huge extra fuel tank in the bomb bay and even the bomb bay door was converted to a tank. Could this be done to the JSF? why not put a couple of big tanks in the Weapons Bays. It would require wet pylons to enable an additional tank and an AAR Pod to be carried but wouldn't it be worth the effort to provide CVF with such a useful force multiplier.

:) sharmine

Archimedes

2nd May 2006, 20:18

<snip> when might the next Grenada kick off? and we had to rely on Uncle Sam for that last one (maybe we were still getting over the Falklands).

Actually, Uncle Sam decided to invade Grenada without any reference to us.

Which, legend has it, led to the then Commander-in-Chief receiving a telephonic handbagging from the then-incumbent of No.10. The story has it that the majority of his contribution to the discussion ran along the lines of 'Yes, Margaret... no, Margaret... but, Margaret... but.. but... yes, Margaret, yes... I'm very sorry, Margaret... yes [etc, etc, etc]' until she ran out of steam. Which took quite a while. Probably apocryphal, but she was very, very cross indeed. HMQ was none-too-pleased with the invasion of a Commonwealth country either.

Occasional Aviator

2nd May 2006, 20:40

You never know where a carrier might be needed next.
I agree. Surely a good argument to project air power by air - it's faster and more flexible and you don't have to spend days days having your teeth shaken out by a carrier travelling at max chat to get to where it's needed because it happened to be on the other side of the world, and then arrive too late.
Most of the ISTAR product and ordnance dropped in both the Afghanistan and the Iraq invasions came from platforms that took off and landed in mainland USA. It can be done.

RonO

2nd May 2006, 21:15

Just a non-flying yank but isn't it rather odd knocking our next wonder flying machine vs Typhoon on the grounds of cost & internal weapons?

Doesn't the worst case MoD forecast say 150 wonder machines for half the program cost of 232 Typhoons? We may be paying $100m for ours when all the R&D bills come due but be honest that's not the Brit price tag, is it?

Couple other points: there's a lot of shuffling of money around the JSF program right now. External tanks being taken out of this one particular contract doesn't mean they've been dropped. Suggest you chat with L-M/PO before taking that story into print. I think you'll find they just switched money from one pocket into the other.

The smaller STOVL bay was the original brit requirement if I'm not mistaken. Your chappie over here working on his tan said you've not got any 2,000 pounders to drop so it wasn't a biggie. He also said Brimstone & SS remain on the list for post SDD integration. SS is a bit iffy tho' given it's bring back issues. Alarm is obsolete.

BTW, ITAR waiver ain't the issue. What's being asked for is. If you lot really signed for $100m per, then I'd say that issue just went away :O

So where's the thanks for keeping the rolls 2nd team engine alive? wonder which one wins the UK "contest"?

Violet Club

2nd May 2006, 21:43

I'm not clear where this figure of $100 million per junk jet has come from. The problem with the Jolly Serious Fraud is that the international customers have no idea how much the thing is going to cost. Any figures used by the UK MoD are guesstimates of the highest order.

The deal with the production sustainment MoU is that the international 'partners' [snort] have to sign in blood and commit to buying a fixed number of aircraft without being told how much they will cost or when they will be ready.

That's the deal on the table. The only deal.

If they decide later that they don't like the price or they don't need so many aircraft then they will be penalised until their ears bleed.

And we already know that the UK will not take 150 jets...even though BAE's entire financial case for the programme is predicated on that exact number...

But apart from that - yeah, sure. Carry on.

VC

Violet Club

2nd May 2006, 21:45

Oh, and that bit about the UK asking for the weapons bays to be made smaller is wrong too.

Read your programme history.

VC

rduarte

2nd May 2006, 23:43

The RN (FAA) needs to buy RAFALEs M and not the pseudo F-35 or a Typhon navalised ( what a joke :D :D :D )

:ok:

Jackonicko

2nd May 2006, 23:59

RonO,

The US GAO say that the cost will be $100 m per jet, or $110 m, more recently. That's for the cheap, bargain basement A-model.

No US politician is ever going to accept a situation where the answer to the question as to "How much are we charging the Brits" is smaller than that headline price figure for the US DoD.

And for every other platform we operate the 2,000-lb PWIII and 1,000- and 2,000-lb PWIV are and will be core weapons. As is Storm Shadow, and as is Meteor. And ASRAAM is important enough that internal only carriage doesn't fly, either.

We were promised ITAR by Clinton, but this Admin has back-tracked on that. ITAR isn't the issue, per se, it's operational sovereignty - the ability to modify and ugrade our own aircraft as we require, to support, sustain and repair them, and to integrate our own weapons rather than waiting for US industry to fail to get around to it.

If we don't get that, this over-priced, over-weight, high-risk, one trick (LO) pony simply isn't worth the candle.

We can do the Day One job (if we ever need to in coalition ops) with TLAM and stand off (Storm Shadder, for example) and Typhoon with four or six Meteor and two or four ASRAAM will be more capable against the likely threat in the A-A role than JSF with a pair of AIM-120s and two AIM-9X.

Violet Club

3rd May 2006, 06:44

No US politician is ever going to accept a situation where the answer to the question as to "How much are we charging the Brits" is smaller than that headline price figure for the US DoD.

The situation is more clear cut than even that. Under US law, no US contractor can sell defence equipment to a foreign customer for less than the price paid by the US government.

And foreign sales/support is where the JSF is going to claw its costs back...

VC

scottishbeefer

3rd May 2006, 07:28

Folks - there's some missing knowledge/thought about the bigger future issues here. We are now/will be in the "Effects" generation process. The CVF is only one (big) piece of that puzzle. The idea that the UK will be able to influence another nation 7000 nm away with the threat of a Typhoon with no HNS is a bit of a larf. We couldn't sustain that sort of operation. The EuroF may have a greater payload but then the JSF has supercruise stealth - horses for courses.

The actual airframe isn't that important (they've all got something up their sleeve - and most will be yards better than any opposition in the air), it's the fact it's an enabler for influence that matters. You exert that influence with credible capability, ie sea base your strike force amongst many other options. Anyone who thinks land-based jets can do the job alone is somewhat wide of the mark, and getting bogged down in weeds.

The big picture doesn't plan solely on staging out of a Kuwait or Saudi. That's called putting your eggs in one basket. Our baskets may be small but we want more than one of 'em.

NURSE

3rd May 2006, 09:03

Agreed we couldn't sustain a Falklands type task force but this has been well known for years as the navy has been cut piecemeal in the promise of Jam tomorrow.
I note from other sites the Aussies and canadians are now increasing defence spending and increasing the size of their armed forces

WE Branch Fanatic

3rd May 2006, 11:23

1. Is the comparison between jets based aboard a carrier and ones ashore a fair one? Consider a possible operation in Africa in nation x (well the 2004 Defence White Paper used a Sub Saharan example). The theatre is n thousand miles from the UK. There are no UK forces established in the area. The nearest established airfield that could take Typhoons or Tornados is 400 miles away in nation y. Nation y opposes outside interference. Nation x has about 200 miles of coastline, and at least 70% of its territory is with 500 or so miles of the coast. This is just an example and not meant to be real scenario.

Assuming that the CVF (with F35 et all) is at 48 hours readiness and is in UK waters, which of these is fastest?

a. Send the carrier and her air group to the area at 25 knots (=600nm per day), carry out planning and preparation on the way, start flying sorties once within range, other capabilities (helicopters, logistics) can be brought be other ships.

b. Negotiate with the Government of y - and hope you get diplomatic clearance Lets assume that after a few days they give in. Now the aircraft need to be prepared, flown to nation y, along with stores, support equipment, weapons etc etc. They need to get in theatre, establish a base with comms back to the UK, before sorties can start at a constant rate. Incidentally how do the supplies get there?

c. Identify an abandoned airfield, secure it, establish it as a forward base with force protection, etc. This assumes we have STOL/rough field capable aircraft.

d. Go to the friendly Government of nation z, use their own air bases, but the distance to theatre is now more like 900 miles. We may need some tanker support.

And the answer is..........

In practice we'd opt for a mix of a,b,d and possibly c. But it does illustrate my point. The "(aircraft x) is faster than a carrier, therefore it can deploy faster than a carrier" argument is very simplistic and ignores factors like diplomatic clearances, logistics, support facilities, force protection, etc.

2. As NURSE says, the cutting of the Services makes the deterrent power of carriers even more important (prevention being better than cure). Nothing says "Stop being naughty boyos" as much as a carrier, preferably in combination with amphibious forces. Worryingly, the MOD seem to regard "Carrier Strike" and Amphibious stuff as totally separate They are not. I've discussed amphibious issues on the Sea Jet thread- I won't link to it again.

3. See this (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2396).

The MOD considered all other options very carefully before selecting the JSF as the preferred aircraft for its new aircraft carriers. The other options included a marinised version of the Eurofighter (232 Eurofighters are ordered for the RAF) the American F18E, the French Rafale and an updated Harrier. But the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant JSF emerged as the best option.

4. CVF is crucial in a number of ways. One of these is preserving the capabilities of constructing major warships in the UK. Despite claims of the largest ship construction since the Second World War, orders are rather thin on the ground. To my knowledge the only vessels currently being built in UK yards are:

Six Type 45 Destroyers. The last two have not been ordered yet.
Three Astute class SSNs.
Four LSD(A).
One OPV(H).

If we want to retain naval construction capabilities we need to get CVF ordered NOW. If we don't do it soon, we may not be able to. We might have problems building warships of any type.

Let me ask a question - mostly for Navaleye. Does the CTOL/STOVL debate, or the choice of MASC platform effect the hull, propulsion, etc. If not then what reasonable excuse (other than cost cutting or incompetence) does for not getting CVF ordered and steel cut?

Navaleye

3rd May 2006, 11:29

It makes no difference at all. The equipment required for CTOL operations resides in the top 3 decks of the ship. I understand MoD wants the design to be completely mature before cutting steel, so that the mega blocks are as outfitted as possible before they are joined up. The speed at which the T45s have been built shows the benefit of this approach.

Jackonicko

3rd May 2006, 11:44

"The MOD considered all other options very carefully before selecting the JSF as the preferred aircraft for its new aircraft carriers."

The MoD selected JSF to meet the UK's FCBA requirement on 17 January 2001.

This 'careful' selection was made when Typhoon was still a very immature design, before its capabilities and characteristics were fully apparent.

Before we even knew what the JSF was, in fact, since the USA hadn't chosen between the X-32 and the X-35.

(It was not until 26 October 2001 that Lockheed Martin won the Prime Contract to develop the Joint Strike Fighter, as the F-35.)

Back in 2001, when the selection was made, JSF still promised to be an F-16 priced aeroplane, we were still certain of getting a proper ITAR waiver, and there was no reason to suspect that UK weapons would not be integrated on the aircraft with enthusiasm and alacrity. The GAO hadn't judged it as a high risk programme that badly needed to be further delayed.....

It's time to 'carefully' reconsider.

As to your African example, put a name to your country X and we'll see how many realistic (politically sustainable) scenarios would not be able to gain HNS nearby.

Have you seen how many landlocked and near land-locked nations there are in Africa?

LowObservable

3rd May 2006, 11:57

The 2000 pound PW series was never (I believe) even an option for internal carriage. It's too long. The proposed Laser JDAM is an option as is a hypothetical precision JDAM with a seeker.
Internal 1000 pound JDAM has always been the baseline for the STOVL version (on the Boeing design, some of the bay capacity was eaten by the STOVL nozzles). There was some hope in 2003-04 that a 2K option would be available but it went away in the weight growth panic of 2004-05.
As for external fuel, it's not clear whether that has been taken off the USAF account or shifted to post-SDD.
As for the price issue, that depends on whether you talk about flyaway, total procurement cost (which I think is the source of the $110 m and may include spares/support for the LRIP aircraft) or program acquisition unit cost (which is total development + procurement + support divided by the total numbers of aircraft).
The real problem is that there is no fixed price until full rate production, by which time the UK will have bought most of its aircraft.

RonO

3rd May 2006, 20:02

Jacko, you need to learn your way round a GAO/SAR report.

$104m PAUC you quote is the total US program cost divided by expected US orders. It's an accountants fabrication that doesn't differentiate between JSF variants and amortises US R&D across the entire US production run.

Just for fun I did the same math for UK Typhoon and got $158m. Ouch.

The US is not passing it's R&D bills onto the Brits or anyone else. Just like the EF partners don't pass on theirs. So let your eyes drift lower down the GAO page to find the expected flyaway's of the "A" at $45m and the "B" at $59m. THAT's what you need to figure the latest UK stickers. And yeah, they'll go up between now and then.

Check out this thread from one of your neighbors. Scroll down for English. Hilarious in parts.

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/01/464964.html

Don't disagree with the pig in the poke nature of the deal being offered - sign here and we'll tell you the price later. Such is life in the real world. If you don't like it, bail out of the program and come in later when the prices have been fixed. Of course that means a higher price, no UK royalties, no UK industrial benefits, no UK weapons integration and last place on the production line. And absolutely no chance of getting your sovreign thingie. Your call.

Gen.Thomas Power

3rd May 2006, 20:05

Navaleye - will CVF have through deck lifts? I was told that if you go for cats and traps, and if you want to conduct concurrent launch and recovery operations, you need to have a canted off launch deck as per the usual US design with lifts that go up the side of the ship instead of through the deck...all fundamentally impacting the design of the hull. Can you run launch and recovery ops on the same strip of steel, or will a redesign of the top three decks allow the ship to be configured for Nimitz-style ops?

Jackonicko - I thought PWIV is a 500lb weapon? You seem to think there will be 1000lb and 2000lb variants.

WEBF - the decision to procure STOVL JSF was a bit of a rum (sodomy and the lash) do. There were a lot of conspiracy theories running around Whitehall at the time. Strangely enough none of them involved JSF STOVL being 'the best option' as you quote. The best option was actually CV JSF - all the boffins said so. However it made CVF too expensive (cats and traps and a lot more embarked manpower, through life etc.), there was not enough work-share in it for UK industry and (so the rumours go) it was too capable! If we had procured CV JSF, that would have seriously cut into the capability headroom that was at that stage planned to be filled by FOAS (c. 2020), the Future Offensive Air System, subsequently renamed FCAC and Heaven knows what since. FOAS was to be a system of systems, including UCAVs, legacy platforms and (critically) a follow-on purchase of JSF, wherein lay the future of the manned fast-jet Air Force. Buying CV JSF against a background of planned reductions in our overall FJ requirement, would have quickly resulted in a scenario where Typhoon and CV JSF were all that was required ie. no follow-on purchase of JSF for the RAF, just 144 Typhoon, a few Harriers that were going to pass their jump-by date c. 2015 and the splendid old warhorse, Tornado GR4, heroically justifying its continued existence on the basis of a theoretical ability to carry 4 Stormshadows, and launch them at a range where its chronic lack of surviveablity wouldn't have to be exposed to a modern enemy. . .

"So, 1SL, me old mucker, you stop fighting the jumping bean, and we'll stop fighting CVF", said CAS. "When the RAF purchases JSF, we'll get the C-Variant, and then we can fly our jets off your ships!"
"By jingo, you're right", said 1SL, "and with so many JSF flying about, we could probably persuade a future govt to buy a third carrier!"
"Well, quite." said CAS.

:}

ORAC

3rd May 2006, 21:05

The US is not passing it's R&D bills onto the Brits or anyone else That's a joke, right? The point of overseas sales is to lower costs by splitting the R&D costs across a broader base. I can just them trying to sell that to Congress, "the Brits can buy it $xx cheaper than the USMC because we've absorbed the R&D costs for them..."

I mean, give me a break....

RonO

3rd May 2006, 21:58

Brits are kicking in 2 bill for SDD plus a tad extra for brit weapons integration. You wanna pay that AND part of the US SDD share? Cool.

However you might think about getting the norsemen to cut your deals for you :O

Truth is the Uk will indeed pay the same price as the Marines - $59m plus project inflation.

Jackonicko

3rd May 2006, 23:51

Ron O,

On price.

Typhoon is c £81m per jet including R&D ($148m), £42m ($77m) without. Not $158m. That price reduces with each Tranche. We've been selling Tranche 2 jets to Johnny Foreigner for €62m ($78m) each. You may assume that there's an element of profit and R&D contribution in there.....

Typhoon's costs of ownership and running costs are extremely low, and are contractually guaranteed.

The expected flyaway costs of the F-35A and F-35B you quote should be on bargain hunt. They're that antique. They're in 1776 dollars.....

Moreover, they represent the 'settled unit flyaway cost' and initial Lots will be priced higher. By the time you factor in a 'now year' dollar conversion and inflation, you'll find that it comes to something astonishingly close to $100-110 m per jet, in fact. This figure was confirmed by Lockmart sources at Singapore, and has been widely briefed.

The UK's $2 Bn investment in SDD buys us nothing in terms of aircraft, but it does "buy" us our industrial participation. It equates to $13m-$23m per jet on top of whatever purchase price is set. Unless and until LM can find a cheaper, 'best value' supplier of rear fuselages (which incorporate some UK IP) than Samlesbury, however, then BAE will build the back third of every JSF regardless of how many jets we decide to buy. Even, in fact, if we delay or scrub our purchase altogether.

This is indeed a pig in a poke, but we have more options than to bail out now and rejoin when the prices have been fixed. We can cancel the JSF purchase altogether and buy something else altogether. And if we don't get the operational sovereignty, that's what we'll do, and we'll lead a rush of other JSF partners hovering on the brink of jettisoning this ill-conceived jet.

And while (even using your figures), every JSF will cost us more than $82m ($59m + $23m SDD costs + inflation, + UK specific integrations), every extra Typhoon over and above 232 would cost us less than $77m. And that would be a T4 jet capable of carrying all the weapons we need, which we could support, sustain, modify and upgrade autonomously and independently, with lower support and operating costs than JSF.

We'd be building more Typhoons, providing more UK jobs, and much of the price would flow straight back to the UK exchequer, and we'd still be an industrial partner in JSF, and though it may lose Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Australia, it will still be a programme worth participating in in industrial terms.

Thomas,

I believe that your explanation to WEBF is wrong. All of the documents I've ever seen relating to Staff Target (Sea/Air) 6464 made it pretty plain that STOVL was the preferred solution, and that remained the preference up to September 2002, when the UK announced its selection of the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of LM's JSF as the FJCA - having selected JSF as FCBA on 17 January 2001, when it was still unclear whether it would be Boeing or LM.

I'm guilty of using the term PWIV when I mean EPW. EPW will of course be in 1,000-lb and 2,000-lb flavours, while PW IV is strictly speaking the TM applied to the Lot 4 UK weapon with a Mk 82E body, but using the same guidance and control kits as EPW II and EPW III.

RonO

4th May 2006, 01:46

JSF flyaway costs are from Dec 2005 in 2002 $'s. Not sure why the derision on age - doesn't seem that long ago. How old is your EF financial data and what year does it assume?

Don't understand your math on JSF prices either. Each one that the UK purchases should cost $59m. Plus inflation of course. And project escalation. But $100m?? heck no. I'd suggest you check back with LM - that dude in Singapore was feeding you a line. Didn't have a french accent did he?

The UK's $2 bill earns the right to bid for SDD contracts. Production contracts will be awarded based on committed country orders hence the bums rush to get signatures this year. No UK orders means some empty UK lines & unhappy Bae faces. Don't kid yourself that UK is the only place that can do the work.

Gotta love your confidence in those Typhoon Tranche 3 & 4 numbers. Must be the best managed procurement project ever - no escalation, every financial target hit dead center. Impressive.

While I'm here, you keep claiming the UK will get a lower spec aircraft than the US esp LO. Burbage told your parliament committee that's not the case. You reckon he lied? Norway's being told the same thing as I expect you noticed. They being lied to as well?

SASless

4th May 2006, 02:26

RonO,

No doubt the UK system buys things better than the USA....no cockups over there at all. Not that I am suggesting ours is anything but a disaster itself.

HappyJack260

4th May 2006, 03:53

reenigne
I was trying to get my number of posts up to 232!
jungly
Obviously never been a Navigator of one of HM Ships, then?

ORAC

4th May 2006, 04:28

Burbage told your parliament committee that's not the case. Actually, he didn't, that is part of the problem. When they tried to pin him down, he dodged the question....

ORAC

4th May 2006, 09:16

The Hill:

A Senate panel’s decision to cut significant funds from the Pentagon’s most expensive program to date, the Joint Strike Fighter, could create a maelstrom in the Pentagon and potentially during conference deliberations with the House over the 2007 defense authorization act.

The Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), slashed $1.2 billion from the Pentagon’s request for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a multiservice, multinational program....... McCain’s panel recommended cutting $870 million from the procurement funds for five of the Air Force’s JSF aircraft in fiscal 2007. The panel also recommended cutting $245 million, which makes up the entire so-called advance procurement funding for eight of the Marine Corps’s short-takeoff and vertical-landing version of the aircraft, slated for 2008, as well $85 million of the Air Force’s advance procurement request of $145 million for eight aircraft in 2008.......

Advance procurement ensures that some necessary components, parts and material are made available before the Pentagon makes the request to buy a certain number of aircraft in a specific budget year.

If the Airland decision passes muster with the entire Armed Service’s Committee, chaired by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), and on the Senate floor, it will complicate matters when the defense authorization bill goes to conference with the House Armed Services Committee. The full Senate panel is expected to consider the bill today.

The House panel, which has marked up its version of the 2007 defense authorization bill, has been more generous with the Joint Strike Fighter. The House panel cut $241 million from the advance procurement of 16 aircraft in 2008 because of concerns over the fact that the research and development for the fighter jet was too concurrent with the actual buying plan for the aircraft.....

While the House funded the advance procurement of five aircraft in 2008, the Senate funded no aircraft.

Navaleye

4th May 2006, 09:43

Navaleye - will CVF have through deck lifts?

CVF will have two deck edge lifts on the starboard side near the two islands where they are clear of flight deck ops. An angled flight deck can be supported by sponsons without major hull changes as was the case in the last Ark Royal which was orginally built as an axial deck carrier.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfimages/cvfs-desi-2005.JPG

Courtesy of RichardB's excellent site on the subject

LowObservable

4th May 2006, 12:44

Re LO and export JSFs:
The UK will get US-standard aircraft because they're designed to the same Joint Op Req Document (JORD). This defines signatures as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP).
All other export aircraft are designed to individual ORDs negotiated bilaterally and forming an appendix to the big PSFD MoU. Clearly, these may contain KPPs that are not the same as those in the US-UK JORD. Indeed, there's not a lot of point having them if they don't. Notably, these bilateral ORDs are described as being compatible with "national disclosure policy." Which means that it's more than the Norwegians wanting a brake parachute.
So while the good Col. Richard Harris (does he occasionally break into "MacArthur Park" in classified meetings? We do not know. But I think we should be told.) tells the Norwegians that there will be no differences in signatures, that issue is still technically subject to negotiations.

Not_a_boffin

4th May 2006, 13:57

Not only does CVF have deck-edge lifts, the Delta (current) design has provision for an integral angled deck at start of life (not retrofitted like our old carriers). The ship also has space and weight reserved for Mk 13-3 catapults and Mk 7 Mod 4 arrester gear - the current USN standards. However, there is some debate as to whether to contract a certain UK company to revisit their 1960s design for cats and arresters.

More importantly, the deck has been designed with both STOVL and CV-type operations in mind (ie launch and recovery parking positions for the two different modes of operation).

WE Branch Fanatic

4th May 2006, 15:01

GTP I first became aware of JSF (think it was called JAST at first) back in 1995 from Flight International in a local libary. Even back then the STOVL version was linked to the RN as well as the USMC.

I think manpower considerations do need to be taken into account in selecting equipment.

In the June 2005 edition of Air Forces Monthly had an article on UK Future Maritime Airpower by James S Bosbotinos. He claims that Lockheed Martin are/were studying a possible two seat version of the F35B for electronic attack.

RonO

4th May 2006, 16:20

ORAC, I googled this line from the committee report - seems they bought Burbage's story on LO. Attention span couldn't handle reading the whole thing so I guess they may have qualified it later.

"We have been assured that the STOVL variant of the JSF aircraft being procured by the UK and US are identical and are being designed to the same set of requirements, though, once delivered, the aircraft will be fitted with different weapons. "

Don't disagree that Burbage can get a bit weaselly wordy at times. He was recently asked what the plan was if the UK left the program, his reply was he doesn't think about that. Right. Like he's running a $300b program and no fallback if UK waves bye bye.

Archimedes

4th May 2006, 16:38

For those interested, the relevant bit of the evidence in the Select Cttee report can be found at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/554/554.pdf

with Mr Burbage's evidence at Q109 and following .

ORAC

4th May 2006, 17:30

The weaselly bit is in the last question to him, Q118, where they finally try to pin it down. Look at his answer. He basically retreats to saying they both meet the common basic requirement - which isn't the question he was asked, and isn't the same as saying they are identical - one can meet meet it, the other can exceed it by x amount.

Q118:Mr Hancock: They have a different capability because they are going to do different things. The United States Marine Corps will not fly the plane in the same operational states as the Royal Navy fill fly it. So there are different capabilities. We are asking whether the plane itself, the product, is identical when it leaves the factory before it is customised to suit the use?

Mr Burbage: I would argue they are not being built to different capabilities. There was a common requirement constructed by the UK and US together. That common requirement is what we measure the airplane against and deliver the airplane against. There are some difference in UK weapons and US weapons.

He would argue? About what, on what grounds? Look also as Cdre Henley's reply to Q113.

Q113: Chairman: Okay. With many apologies I will repeat one question just for final confirmation. The US and UK STOVL versions will be identical in all respects, particularly in their Stealth characteristics. Is that correct?

Commodore Henley: Could I say I think we can only answer that by saying they share the same requirements.

That's what I mean by dodging the question.........

orca

4th May 2006, 20:53

I may be alone....but it is simply beyond me why the UK is pursuing ASTOVL. If you carry a lift-fan you give away miles and bombs, simple, end of story. I have heard arguments that ASTOVL is cheaper - i personally don't make planes but if i did i think i'd charge more for every bit that moved - makes me think ASTOVL will be more expensive to buy and maintain. Then the ASTOVL camp blahs on about the boat costing less, whilst at the same time patting themselves on the back that the boat could take a CV aircraft, so where's the saving there?!!

If the UK buy ASTOVL JSF/JCA they will have condemned yet another generation of UK aviators to the fate that the rest have suffered. Aircraft that don't go as far or carry as much as everyone else's.

rduarte

4th May 2006, 21:38

I write it down again : buy the Rafale M (54 M € p.u.):ok:

sense1

4th May 2006, 21:53

Back in the days when the Harrier was coming into service and throughout the Cold War - the Harrier was useful to the RAF because it could be very effectively dispersed. In the event of hostilities with the Soviet Bloc, the Harrier force could be operated from very simple concrete strips and forest clearings in Germany and at home - due to the fact that it can do VTOL & STOVL. That was fine - our jets would survive for longer than they would have at one of the main bases (hopefully!), therefore being able to do thier job of dropping BL755 (cluster bombs) and the like on Ivan and his pals. Handy in giving the navy some air defence from the baby carriers too. That, my dear chaps, is why STOVL came about - and what a good British idea it was too!(Not trying to give a history lesson!:8 )

The Harrier is still great at its job - it proved useful in Telic and is busy in Afghanistan by all acounts. How important is STOVL in modern day ops though?? Granted in Afghanistan it is just what is needed, but now that we don't need to conduct dispersed ops in Germany and the navy have the chance of acquiring these 'bigger than everything except Nimitz' CVFs, isn't purchasing CTOL a good idea? As has been very sensibly said just above - more miles and bombs must be better than having a couple of choices of approach back at base?!

Do the RAF need STOVL badly enough today to forego the chance to acquire a jet with increased capability? The CVFs will be big enough for CTOL so the navy don't have to have STOVL. Just why is it that STOVL is the 1st choice for UK MOD?? I'm not saying it shouldn't be and I am eager to hear reasons why we still need it over jets that are simply, well - better?!:ok:

rduarte

4th May 2006, 22:13

Brits do you have anything against the Rafale ? :*

Jackonicko

4th May 2006, 22:45

Why STOVL?

Because it's easier and safer to stop, then land, than to land and then try to stop.

RonO

4th May 2006, 23:41

Orac, I guess I have to fall back on the Norsemen, they've gotten their Pentagon stooge (I keep thinking Harry Potter, wasn't he the bearded one?) to categorically state that their F-35's will be as sneaky as ours. Maybe we can ask him about the RAF ones.

Seems an obliging feller - in return for the usual eenfidel yankee pig go home, he thanks them for their comments. Better man than me, I'd tell the miserable ingrates where to go and what to do with the parrots they rode in on.

Navaleye

5th May 2006, 00:33

Careful Jacko. John Farley lurks here :eek:

ORAC

5th May 2006, 05:46

RonO,

May I also point out that in November 2003 a supplemental contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, valued at US$603 million, covering the development of an "international partner version" for the JSF, including "a version of the JSF... that is as common as possible to the US air system within the National Disclosure Policy". And the wording used by JSF programme officials when questioned about it at the time finds a worrying echo in Burbage´s answer.....

Iinternational Defence Review, May 2004: "a JSF program official said that the export versions "would look the same" - implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that "all JSFs will have stealth features" but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance."

Not_a_boffin

5th May 2006, 08:15

It would be interesting to do a comparison of accidents per embarked flight hour for CV vs STOVL ops today. Not entirely convinced that the difference is as great as JackoNicko implies.

The other thing about CV recoveries is that if something does go wrong, bolters are possible. In STOVL, you're entirely reliant on your thrust column(s). (Yes, I know you can only bolter if you have enough fuel for subsequent recoveries - which is also applicable to land ops).

The really disturbing thing with the current STOVL "bring-back" limitations is the proposal lurking around the bazaars to try Rolling Vertical Landings aboard ship. On finals at ~ 50kts relative, touchdown at 40 and then stand on the brakes. Sounds like just about the worst place imaginable, thrust winding down, limited braking area (with a splash at the end of it) and no way of getting airborne again. Shows how deperate the STOVL mafia are to try and stay in the game.

orca

5th May 2006, 09:40

Who cares which is 'easier'? Neither will be 'easier' if the machine's doing it for you. My guess is that with a lift fan to engage, and a few doors to open, and a jet pipe to swivel through ninety degrees then there's alot more to go wrong with the purportedly 'easier' VL.

What is the point in doing an 'easy' landing when the rest of the package is still out creating havoc because they took more petrol and thunder crackers?

sense1

5th May 2006, 11:55

Why STOVL?
Because it's easier and safer to stop, then land, than to land and then try to stop.
Well thank goodness for that! Is that why we send the best pilots to the Harrier force - to do those landings that are easier than performing a 'normal' one?!

Now I cannot recall exactly where it was, but I have read that exact phrase in a publication somewhere before..... so are you going to credit your quote to the person who actually said it 1st Jacko?!:}

STOVL was what we needed back in the days of massed Soviet tank columns, dispersed ops etc etc. I honestly cannot fathom why STOVL JSF offers us the best option as opposed to CTOL today:confused: The reason for the STOVL variant existing in the 1st place is for the USMC to operate from their amphib carriers. Those platforms just wouldn't be fitted with cats and arrestor gear - that kit would be wasted on a platform that exists to deploy and support Marines. AV-8B and F35B is just what they need. For ourselves, if we have big ass, purpose built strike carriers, why put jets with shorter legs and less bomb carrying capability on them?! Its a little silly! A huge big platform to land on and our jets will be hopping onto a spot at the back!! If we had CTOL we could get E-2 for MASC and operate better with the Yanks.

As everything else in defence procurement is based on money, I would hazzard a guess at that being the reason to procure a STOVL fleet. Then again, isn't F35B more expensive than the C model (Please correct me if I'm wrong)?! It will save money on arrestor and catapult equipment but won't these savings be lost in buying the more expensive jets? Answers on a postcard please!:D

ORAC

5th May 2006, 12:04

Navy Matters - CVF (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf3-1.htm)The decision process weighed the RN's existing STOVL training and experience, and the lower ship construction and running costs of a STOVL carrier, against the significant aircraft weight & performance benefits of CTOL operations, the ability to cross-deck operate with US and French carriers, and a greater possibility of landing-on damaged aircraft.

I believe a further factor was the ease of qualifying STOVL pilots on carrier ops and maintaining their currency as opposed to qualifying and maintaining for CTOL carrier ops. That will allow the whole of the F-35 joint force to be available for carrier operations when required.

Jackonicko

5th May 2006, 14:12

'Sense'

I expect you've seen the phrase "Bug.ger off" before, but I'm not going to attribute that, either.

The 'better to stop then land....' is almost certainly John Farley's but it's been so widely quoted that it's hardly necessary to quote names.

It's a real factor when it comes to landing on a ship or on a very short strip, however. It will become even more of a factor with the VAAC Harrier derived control system on JSF, which will allow VLs to be undertaken even more easily, and even more safely.

And you really should check your facts before posting bol.locks (I'm a journo, I'm allowed to). Your 'hazzard'ing a guess was completely awry. The F-35C is more expensive than the A or the C model (so I hope you're pleased that I'm willing to correct you, cos you are wrong). And then you need arrester gear and catapaults, a much heavier training burden, and a reduced ability to deploy normally land based units.

If we need carriers at all, STOVL makes better sense than either CTOL or STOBAR, though it does mean that we then have to buy JSF. If we did go STOBAR or CTOL, at least we could get a marinised Typhoon, Super Hornet or Rafale, and avoid the cluster that is JSF tech transfer.

Iron City

5th May 2006, 14:56

Interesting thread- full of half truths and some real wisdom too.

with respect to U.S. GAO reports- In 30 years in the business I have never seen them get itr eally right, they are accountants and get that part right but don't understand the rest. Quoting SAR reports. Well. Have you ever written them? I have. ahemmm.

Unless you have a lot of time on your hands going through the announcements of contracts awarded (and modifications) and totaling up the dollars and what will be bought is not going to tell you the cost of anything. the people on the USG side barely know how much has been put on the contract and under what modification or contract line item it goes and they have all the information.

Navalizing the Typhoon- No modern land based front line combat aircraft has ever been successfully "navalized". The last aircraft to have that done was the T-45 from the Hawk, which is a good honest jet trainer aircraft, but is not a first team front line combat aircraft in 2006. This doesn't mean it is impossible but it does mean that it is difficult to retrofit all the considerations for carrier operation. the structural strength, LG and hook are the easy parts. Flying qualities and handling are a lot harder, as is T/W and momentum.
Also, the notion that normally land based STOVL aircraft can be operated successfully from ships is bravo sierra. Don't try it without lots of spare aircraft and pilots.

Raphiele, Typhoon , JSF- The situation you have here is comparing aircraft at different stages in their life cycle and technological maturity. JSF being the least far along is less well developed and has much more uncertainty. Raphialle (or however they spell it in frog) is the most mature so you pretty much see what you get.

To be a world power that is listened to the UK should have a power projection capability including an air component from the sea. Go for it with the CV and you will not regret it.

Rant Over

ORAC

5th May 2006, 16:20

Also, the notion that normally land based STOVL aircraft can be operated successfully from ships is bravo sierra. Don't try it without lots of spare aircraft and pilots

Hmmm, GR3s, Falklands War and Joint Force Harrier ever since. Mods needed for INAS etc and one jet lost in the Med, otherwise successful. Maybe we're just better at it......

RonO

5th May 2006, 20:07

Orac, you're a tad behind the times. Burbage has just made it crystal clear - get April IDR for da scoop. Yep crystal clear. Guessing Jacko has gone quiet on the subject trying to get his head round it. Know my brain urts.

Think repeat think TB says just one version trucks off the line - no international version - but delivered aircraft will meet country specific ORD's. If you're not on the a-list, you don't get an ORD that needs the secret sauce. All spelled out upfront so you know what you're getting (guess you dont get to know what you're not getting) before handing over the loot. Suppose that means not all the girls at the party get the same lipstick & itunes.

One country gets to share ORDs with the home team. no prizes for guessing who. Same line as feed to your committee.

Classic was response to brit requests for all the juicy bits so you good folks can hang whizz bangs of choice, "we don't do things that way, you need to buy them first then ask for the goodies". I paraphrase. Gotta admire his sphericals.

BTW, surely the exception to golden rule on converting land aircraft to carriers is.... Harrier. Does anybody really deny Sea Harrier has done pretty good job for the brits all in all?

Jackonicko

5th May 2006, 20:27

Iron City:

Well said.....

But can we trust anyone whose finger is on the pulse enough to spell

"Raphiele" and "Raphialle"

to tell the difference between "half truths" and "some real wisdom"?

Let alone to have the faintest clue as to the issues surrounding the proposed marinisation of Typhoon.

RonO

5th May 2006, 22:00

yeah what do those dumb yanks know about flying off carriers.

BTW how's that Bae notion re-blowing air to slow approaching tiffs working out for y'all?

Gen.Thomas Power

6th May 2006, 00:52

Navaleye / Not a Boffin - thanks for gen on CVF. Nice ship. :ok:

WEBF / Jackonicko - of course STOVL JSF was the 'preferred' option that was why we bought it. But who preferred it and why. I can tell you for a fact that the equipment capability desk officers in MOD were gutted/felt betrayed/were infuriated by the decision to buy STOVL, which certainly was not the 'best' option, nor even the 'preferred' option in their view. There is no point in arguing over detailed stats and costings produced after the event and derived using assumptions about an equipment's performance, reliability and serviceability 20 years hence, especially when nothing of the like has ever been built before. By tweaking the number of accidents, incidents or failures per ten thousand flying hours, or how many hours pilots need to fly per month in order to stay current at air-defence as opposed to multi-role, or how many deck hands you need to work in so many shifts per day in order to run CV as opposed to STOVL ops etc. etc. etc. you can retrospectively justify any decision to procure any equipment, so think twice before meekly accepting the necessarily convincing arguments loyally trotted out in the wake of the decision to procure STOVL by the poor sods who had argued that we shouldn't. Yes, SMART procurement is all about trading perfomance against time and cost, but don't expect too much candour from the value for money merchants when it comes to explaining why they had to buy the slightly crappy version.

Was STOVL best vfm? Assuming that CV was more expensive than STOVL (don't assume that it was - lies, damn lies and stats etc.) the SMART question is: was the increased performance (range, payload, manouverability, survivability etc.) worth the increased cost and if so, could we/should we have afforded it. If the answer to both questions is yes (Customer 1 thought so) - then why didn't HMG buy it? Workshare/ industrial lobbying? Maybe a smatter of inter-service politicking? Maybe we thought that we'd have more influence in the programme if we bought STOVL rather than CV: the theory being that the USN were always going to get JSF, but that there was some doubt about the USMC, who were very keen for the UK to buy STOVL because they knew that in any budgetry pinch, the USAF/DOD would agressively protect F-22 and that the principle savings would come from the F-35, in which they were the junior partner . . . and the only one buying a limited edition, reduced range/payload weapons system, whose relatively poor performance didn't significantly detract from its suitability for use in the littoral, and which would justify the continued existence of an independent fleet of USMC aircraft carriers. Maybe the US preferred that we buy STOVL - UK expertise, longer production runs of that variant, economies of scale etc. and offered us more tech exchange or a sweeter deal.

Maybe we're getting uneccessarily strung out on trying to understand the decision to procure STOVL from a capability perspective. Maybe capability wasn't a consideratiuon. Some doctrine junkie rather smugly mentioned 'effects' earlier on this thread (its not about platforms it's about effects - yawn). Well, maybe they're right. . . but if you're looking for an effects based argument as to why we bought STOVL rather than C-Variant JSF, then don't waste your time on the military line of operation.

PowerGen

ORAC

6th May 2006, 05:54

FT - 4 May: Funding for alternative strike fighter engine restored

Rolls-Royce appeared to win a major victory on Thursday after two congressional committees restored money in the 2007 defence budget for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter programme.

The Pentagon earlier this year recommended cancelling the alternate $2.4bn engine, which was being developed by the British company and its US partner General Electric, to cut back costs on the $257bn JSF programme, the most expensive weapons programme in history.

Following the example of the House armed services committee, the Senate armed services committee on Thursday voted to add about $400m back to the Pentagon budget for the F136 engine...... Approval by the House and Senate defence committees does not guarantee that the engine programme will be reinstated, but it sends a strong signal to the appropriations committees, which must approve the measure in the final budget, to restore funding.

“That signals … that the money and the programme are not going away,” said Loren Thompson, defence analyst at the Lexington Institute. “This is an extremely convoluted process and you cant count your dollars until all the players have spoken but it is very unlikely that with both authorizing committees voting similar amounts for the same purpose that the appropriators would say no.”

British defence officials had lobbied Congress to reinstate the alternate engine programme, and not leave the JSF with only one engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney. After the Pentagon budget was proposed, John Warner, the Senate armed services committee chairman, suggested that the decision should be revisited because of the UK contribution to Iraq. “I think we have a responsibility, particularly because the international aspects of this programme and particularly Great Britain, who has been our most steadfast partner in the Iraqi coalition forces – it is deserving of the careful attention by the committee,” Mr Warner told Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, at a hearing in February.

John Boehner, the Republican House majority leader, yesterday welcomed the House armed services decision, saying he was “hopefull” that the move would be approved by the defence appropriations’ committees.

sense1

7th May 2006, 00:19

[QUOTE=Jackonicko]
I expect you've seen the phrase "Bug.ger off" before, but I'm not going to attribute that, either.

Heh heh, brilliant! :ok:

The F-35C is more expensive than the A or the C model (so I hope you're pleased that I'm willing to correct you, cos you are wrong).

Mmm - typo?? :ooh: Appears I'm not the only one who needs corrected!

Back to the important stuff though..... The CVF will offer us the best form of power projection available. How else will we be able to put air power into an area to provide CAS/AD/stand off precision strike without having to rely on countries to provide HNS and all the potential political issues surrounding HNS that can hinder our military ops? Procuring a fleet of B1/B2/B52 type long range bombers is unfortunately not an option (and they require permission to transit airspace).

The US navy don't use STOVL aircraft from their carriers which are only slightly bigger than CVF will be. So why are we planning to?! CTOL is superior and those of us in uniform should all support the procurement of the best kit, in this particular context the F35C. Now I know that the wants and needs of the armed forces are probably the last consideration in defence procurement but once in a while we get the best kit (Tomahawk, C17).

West Coast

7th May 2006, 05:25

"which would justify the continued existence of an independent fleet of USMC aircraft carriers"

One of the few things you can bank on, intense USMC paranoia about its fixed wing operations.

ORAC

7th May 2006, 05:41

The RAF didn't originally buy the Harrier because it needed to operate off carriers, and it is not buying the F-35B for that sole reason either. There remain good grounds for a STOVL capability, look at present operations in Afghanistan and,at least till Jumper went, the consideration given by the USAF to changing a large piece of their 34A order to 35B to provide the same sort of austere capability. The only aircraft they have capbale of operating in such conditions being the A-10.

The F-35C will, by the time it enters service, only better than the Eurofighter in one capability, day 1 stealth. If the decision was made for the RN to go down the F-35C route, it would make even more sense for the RAF to continue down the Eurofighter route and cut another complete aircraft type out of their fleet with all the savings that would imply, leaving the RN to have to provide and support the entire training/logistics tail.

I think it best to leave sleeping dogs lie.

WE Branch Fanatic

9th May 2006, 11:14

What about STOBAR?

On another point, has anyone else seen this (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/05/06/newsstory8307589t0.asp)?

DESIGN CONTRACTS announced yesterday for the Royal Navy’s new generation of aircraft carriers have been welcomed by trade unions at Rosyth.

Defence procurement minister Lord Drayson announced contracts to refine and develop the design of the two 65,000-tonne warships, which will be assembled and commissioned at the Fife dockyard.

The Ministry of Defence and its five Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) partners—BAE Systems, KBR, Thales UK, VT Group and Rosyth owner Babcock—have also signed an agreement that will take the £3 billion project through the current demonstration phase.

Later the articles mentions lessons learnt from other recent/current projects like Nimrod MRA4 or Astute.

WhiteOvies

9th May 2006, 11:26

Good news! Wonder if having a Scot as Sec Def will help?:hmm:

Not_a_boffin

9th May 2006, 15:02

Don't hold your breath. The contracts announced are just the formalisation of the workshare and long-lead procurement "gate" that Reid announced six or seven months ago. In other words, they've spent six months trying to agree a contract structure to continue with the existing design. How much technical progress has been made in that time, I don't know. I do know the carrier alliance has just laid off a bunch of people.

Don't buy the guff about de-risking either - with the exception of a particular system to do with weapons preparation, there is nothing particularly complex or developmental about the ships - they just happen to be much bigger than we're used to is all.

Astute had major cockups because :

a. The original contract went to a non-submarine builder (who subsequently bought that yard to make up for it) and then were subsequently bought out by another company who implemented a completely new CADAM system.

b. During all this, the shipyard (and MoD) expertise in submarine design and build wasted away. That's why there are around 40+ blokes from the US submarine builder (Electric Boat) at Barrow now.

c. The project management structure was being run from Bristol or Farnboro, remote from the guys actually doing the work.

d. As usual no-one was actually in charge!

Nimrod went tits up for some similar reasons, plus the project costing assuming that all the aircraft were exactly the same, when in fact each wing-box / fuselage combo is pretty much bespoke.

WEBF - don't even think about STOBAR. When it was looked at as an option seven years ago we found that from a deck operations (and therefore ship layout and size) perspective it was the worst of both worlds. You still had a large recovery area requirement, but rather than a (relatively) short cat, you needed a 500ft + runway & ski-jump, which dramatically reduced your parking area, thereby increasing the size of ship required for a given sortie rate. Oh and Typhoon would still struggle to recover safely on it as it doesn't address the limitations of the aircraft's glideslope performance.......

Thta said, lets hope they can crack on and do the detailed design work so we can cut steel and get on with the ship. Once it gets going, as I've said before, it's not a particularly complex vessel. Someone (that's you CDP) just needs to take a deep breath and say go. Write a contract such that if the Alliance drops a bollock they pay for it (and equally if MoD changes its requirements or doesn't answer quickly enough, they pay a penalty). Oh b*gger, that means committing to the aircraft.............

ORAC

10th May 2006, 10:47

LONDON, UK, May 9, 2006 -- Lockheed Martin UK has been awarded a contract by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to study the potential of using Merlin helicopters as a platform for both maritime airborne early warning and command and control. Under the 15-month programme, Lockheed Martin will lead a three-way team which will include Thales UK and AgustaWestland. The overall study, with a total value of £3.4 million, includes two more contracts which will see AgustaWestland and Thales UK each leading similar teams looking at other airframe and mission system options.

All three contracts are part of the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) programme. MASC is the third component of the UK’s future carrier strike capability and will work with the future aircraft carrier (CVF) and the Joint Strike Fighter to provide airborne early warning and command and control capabilities.

Ron Christenson, group managing director for Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems said: “This award is yet another indication of how the strong collaboration between the Royal Navy and Lockheed Martin since the early 1990s has made the Merlin the very best helicopter system of its kind. This joint approach will allow the MoD to access the very best technological knowledge and experience to drive this important programme forward.”

MASC will replace the current Sea King Airborne Surveillance and Control capability, with increased emphasis on command and control functions as the Royal Navy develops its Network Enabled Capability.

Wanna make a guess on the platform they´ll recommend.... :rolleyes:

Not_a_boffin

10th May 2006, 11:46

The wrong one - but we knew that as soon as they chose the Stovie. Just gave the "IPT" (alright half-dozen blokes in the ship project) the excuse to bin the obvious proven, low-risk, fully capable, off the shelf candidate.

WE Branch Fanatic

10th May 2006, 23:33

At least it isn't being postponed even further....

Not_a_boffin

11th May 2006, 08:31

Beg to differ (hoping I'm wrong). From the looks of the contract announcements, these are feasibility studies which will assess what the airframe / proposed mission system combo's are capable of, what the major developmental risks are, plans around them and of course, cost. Once completed, expect the phrase "I like not this answer, bring me another answer" to start making its way around the 6th floor.......

WE Branch Fanatic

12th May 2006, 13:06

Lets face it, Merlin was always a likely contender for MASC. Could the addition of stub wings have that much of an effect on service ceiling?

N_a_b I assume you are talking about the E2 Hawkeye. But what about Osprey? Obviously if we had to pay all the development costs ourselves it would be expensive, but if we could share them with say the USMC........

Getting back onto the main topic of this thread, the carriers themselves, it occurs to me that if CVF is cancelled or bodged then that will probably be the end of major warship construction in the UK.

sense1

12th May 2006, 13:19

Getting back onto the main topic of this thread, the carriers themselves, it occurs to me that if CVF is cancelled or bodged then that will probably be the end of major warship construction in the UK.
And whats more, the Royal Navy have made sacrifices to get these ships (paying off 3 x Type 23 frigates & several minehunters early as well as reducing SSN hulls to 8 in the near future). If the CVFs are cancelled I doubt these assets will be reinstated! :ouch: The navy will be on the verge of being relegated to a coastal defence force i.e. no meaningful global power projection capability, except Trident of course, unless they all get used up in the desert sometime soon! :ooh:

LowObservable

12th May 2006, 17:42

But what about Osprey?

What about Osprey?

My first response to this was an extended excerpt from Napoleon XIV's classic hit "They're Coming to Take Me Away Ha Ha" but on two minutes' reflection I deleted it.

I'd really question whether (even if it works and demonstrates acceptable reliability and safety, having already suffered more mishaps than the last several EMD programs put together) it will offer much over a Merlin. Long range and endurance are achievable in theory, but not with a large payload (such as a radar) and max range is at high altitude, which is fine and dandy except that the bloody thing is unpressurized and can't be pressurized.

Squirrel 41

12th May 2006, 17:46

WEBF et al,

I thought that there was some discussion (probably on Wet Jet thread) about an AEW Osprey - IIRC, impractical (unpressurised) and madly expensive. Are we to assume from these study contracts that the CTOL option is truly dead and buried? Or can we hope that Hawkeye is sufficiently well understood that we don't need to study it, in order to make the comparisons?

S41

Iron City

12th May 2006, 18:31

What about an Osprey. A tilt rotor AEW aircraft could be built I suppose, though I doubt using a rotodome for the radar woulld be feasible. Have to be a E-scan conformal antenna or antennas of some kind. Don't recall what the APS in the E-2 and the automation weighs but if there was not a lot of additional stuff could probably shoehorn it into a V-22, maybe only have 2 guys in back or something.

Presume what you get from using the V-22 (or Merlin or whatever other rotorwing a/c) is not needing cats and arresting gear, impact to ship design favorable. Problem is if you don't use VTOL/STOVL aircraft for the rest of your air wing you still have to design the ship to accept arrested landings and catipult launches. IIRC the E-2 does not generate exceptionally high loads on trap and launches easily (it is really a biplane, gets about 1/3 of it's lift from the rotodome BTW). Carrier suitability is good, pretty good to get aboard.

RonO

12th May 2006, 21:48

Jane's says stubby wings, ospreys & hawkeyes were booted off the list last summer and it's basically SK7's until they fall to bits then shift over the kit to the nearest Merlin. Maybe might happen if enough down the back of the couch is assists from unspecified UAV's as OTH relays and/or sensor platforms.

Not sure if you folks noticed there were 2 contracts awarded: Thales got one for the SK and Lockheed for the Merlin, same sort of stuff - MASC related viability studies.

WE Branch Fanatic

15th May 2006, 11:59

sense1

The RN has indeed but cut severely for the promise of CVF. Sea Harrier axed early, fleet cut by 20% approx, future projects cut. As described here (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ed200804.htm) by Richard Beedall.

And it has got worse since then (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ed260206.htm).

Off topic, have you see this? EYE ROBOT FLIES (http://navynews.co.uk/articles/2006/0605/0006050501.asp)

WE Branch Fanatic

17th May 2006, 11:11

Found this page on the MOD website: Carrier Strike (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/AgenciesOrganisations/CarrierStrike.htm)

It would appear that there is someone in charge.

The Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) Carrier Strike's mission is to ensure that all aspects of Carrier Strike military capability are delivered on time and within budget. The current SRO is Rear Admiral Nigel Guild.

I wonder if he reads PPRuNe?

Not_a_boffin

17th May 2006, 11:35

I'm afraid it's another red herring. SRO has been in post for two years now. His responsibilities are detailed in :

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/383/4022509.htm

Unfortunately, no-one saw fit to give him a budget to achieve this, so the meat of the role (which is getting the CVF, JCA, MARS IPTs plus Fleet and Strike to work to the same plan) is a bit difficult.

Don't be foolled by the use of the word responsible - it doesn't mean he's in charge......

rafloo

17th May 2006, 12:13

And it has got worse since then (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ed260206.htm).

Negat....Its got BETTER since then

WE Branch Fanatic

17th May 2006, 23:40

Better in what way? Do we have.....

More ships?
More aircraft?
More spending on upkeep, upgrades etc?
More training?

Or

None of the above, in fact less of everything?

rafloo

18th May 2006, 14:07

Better in what way? Do we have.....

More ships?
More aircraft?
More spending on upkeep, upgrades etc?
More training?

I didn't say that we had More ships, More aircraft More money, More training.

I said it was BETTER.

Better Ships, Better aircraft, Better training....and the Money spent on Upgrades.Upkeep etc is managed Better.

Not_a_boffin

18th May 2006, 14:43

Rafloo

I know what you're getting at with your argument and concur to some degree. The Stovie was getting way beyond a joke to support (particularly wrt the compressor issues discussed elsewhere) - as long as we eventually get the Air to Air capability back, it''ll all pan out.

However, better ships is debatable. The T45 will be the only operator or the WR21 turbine, cos it's crap and the LSD(A) propulsion system could have been improved upon by a six-year old with a crayon.

As for update/upkeep being better targetted, from personal experience I can guarantee that DLO has no idea where its money is going. The is a line item in a particular IPTs budget for tens of millions of £. No-one in that IPT could explain what the budget line was actually for.......

SASless

18th May 2006, 14:52

What am I missing here....an angled deck large carrier can do it all....a purpose built small carrier is limited to it's design purpose, ie. the ski ramp carrier and the Harrier.

Take off the blinders and step out of the box. Build in flexibility....don't build it out of the design.

Not_a_boffin

18th May 2006, 15:04

SASless - at a stroke you demonstrate a wider understanding of the project than most in town and many in Bristol. Thankfully, the Aircraft Carrier Alliance also think broadly the same way - you can't make it any smaller and be effective. Now if only we could stop people calling it the most complex defence project in UK history (it's nowhere near complex - controversial possibly) then we might actually get the bloody thing built.

SASless

18th May 2006, 15:20

It is not beyond imagination that US Navy/Marine Corps aircraft could operate from the Carrier if it were set up to be compatible. I know the crews would make it a desired posting if for no other reason than the Curry and Beer at night. The large carrier design would then be able to operate jointly with US Fleet units.

Considering the fact our two nations seem to be tied together so closely (despite the bickering) the more we can work together makes sense it would seem.

Not_a_boffin

18th May 2006, 15:49

Heaven forfend that we should do something as sensible as make our capital ships interoperable with our principal ally (not to mention our occasional ally across the Channel). We might even find that economies in the logistics set-up might accrue such as a common US/UK/FR MASC basic training pipeline (using a sensible airframe).......Ooops, forgot Pierre already does that!

If only we could put another 3-4 knots of speed on the ship we'd be laughing........

sense1

18th May 2006, 16:17

[QUOTE=SASless]What am I missing here....an angled deck large carrier can do it all....

It would also mean that we could acquire E-2 to meet the MASC requirement instead of the half measure that is the Sea King/Merlin solution. It would give our future carrier group a significantly superior capability and it would be a straight forward, off the shelf purchase.

I would be very pleased to see those at the decision making level opt for a conventional, US style carrier with cats and traps..... money (rather the lack of!) will almost certainly mean that we never see this happen though. :{

Therefore, it is almost definitely going to be Merlin as our future MASC platform. The only other real alternative is the Osprey. The only scenario in which we could concievably purchase Osprey for MASC is as part of a wider Osprey purchase in which it would meet some of the FRC (Future Rotorcraft Capability) requirement, the budget over the next 10 years for which is £4 bn. Not going to happen me thinks! :(

SASless

18th May 2006, 16:27

At the risk of kicking off yet another MOD study....has anyone looked at the cost differences between the cat trap carrier, E-2's , etc vice buying, maintaining a fleet of Merlins for the E-2's task and capability? Reliability and cost of purchase for the E-2 concept surely must be cheaper and better than the helicopter route.

God forbid the V-22 is the choice of airframe....you think other programs were disasters just hang on!:=

WE Branch Fanatic

19th May 2006, 14:06

But the V22 is getting sorted out surely? See this from (http://targetlock.org.uk/osprey/origins.html) Target Lock.

Carrier borne Ospreys could also perform a limited organic AAR role - to complement FSTA. They could also perform a COD role. On that note, has the USN ever considered a tanker version of the E2?

Some interesting comments made here (http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3.showMessage?topicID=5088.topi c) on the ezboard RN board. No I am not a registered user.

SASless

19th May 2006, 14:29

V-22 sorted? Not hardly....it is still in use. One small example of the problems is an engine change aboard ship. It has to be done on the flight deck and not in the hangar deck due to height problems in the configuration required to change the engine.

Check the dimensions of the cabin and ramp entrance when you consider it as a COD aircraft. Also consider the payload as compared to current COD aircraft.

Bottom line....consider it's cost vice an airplane of any description that would fill these roles. The E-2 does the AEW role admirably (probably a bad use of word considering some of the Admirals about today). At approximately 51 Million USD per copy.....it beats the hell out of the V22. The E-2D is coming off the line and will be state of the art when it comes into service.

Rotorheads forum has an ongoing discussion of the V-22 in this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=204936&highlight=V22+Osprey

LowObservable

19th May 2006, 14:42

The V-22 is being forced into service whatever the cost. I have seen no numbers that suggest that has any advantages in a basic tactical transport role over a conventional helicopter (Merlin is the closest comparison) and it suffers several disadvantages (no good place to put defensive guns, high-energy downwash & brownouts). It will go farther at high speed than a helo, which gives it certain advantages in special ops (deeper penetration in the hours of night, for instance). I would also question whether its speed/altitude would even be adequate to refuel fighters, and its ability to give fuel at range would be marginal.

WE Branch Fanatic

20th May 2006, 10:05

SASless We (the UK) currently use helicopters for COD (well HDS) so V22 may be a step up.

I understand that the current Hawkeye has limitations that the new one will avoid, but if our carriers cannot take it, which throws something of a spanner in the works.

I have heard that the USMC are considering a Command and control version of the Osprey. The Target Lock link I gave suggested a service ceiling of 26 000 ft, which would give it a much better radar horizon than a pure rotary platform.

Not_a_boffin

22nd May 2006, 08:15

No way on Gods green earth should we even consider a MASC Osprey. Three principal reasons :

1. Aerodynamically a dome would be difficult to fit while deconflicting from the tilt-rotors in flight. You'd need a conformal array to make it work (the ground clearance prohibits a chin or belly fit).
2. Have you SEEN the folding mechanism for Osprey?????? Just imagine complicating that by avoiding a dome (or a bag if we do a cheapy)
3. The developmental / certification costs for the likely 12 airframes would make MRA4 look like a bargain.

The USMC do not have (and never will, they either talk to E3 or E2) a requirement for a MASC-like capability, so there's no commonality there. That leaves the handful of other fleet STOVL operators (Italians, Spanish) which is never going to make up sufficeint numbers.

If we want a decent MASC, buy cats and wires for CVF, bin the Stovie and buy Dave-CV and get some E2 for MASC. You never know, we might even be able to get some S3 airframes (or C2 Greyhounds) for COD/Tanker, rather than fit buddy tanks to a payload limited jet.......

Trouble is, there's probably no funding in the EP for anything more than a Bag / Merlin cross-deck, due to assumptions made 6-7 yrs ago and never updated. Mmmmm, Smart Procurement........

LowObservable

22nd May 2006, 14:46

The AEW V-22 was supposed to look like this:
http://de.geocities.com/glupscherle/v22aew.jpg
although I think I have seen concepts with a Sea King ASaC radar hanging off the rear ramp.
Fugly in either case.

Lazer-Hound

22nd May 2006, 22:48

Accoridng to the French, the RN will only get 1 CVF (and not replace Trident):

Translation www.assemblee-nationale.f...506033.asp

Logo of the site of the French National Assembly

Reports of the commission of national defense and the armed forces Businesses trangres

COMMISSION of NATIONAL DEFENSE and the ARMED FORCES

Report N° 33

(Application of article 46 of the Payment)

Wednesday May 3, 2006
(10 hours Meeting)

Presidency of Mr. Guy Teissier, president

Hearing of Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf, general president-director of DCN.

The commission of national defense and the armed forces heard Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf, president-director general of DCN.

President Guy Teissier observed that the company, in 2005, had obtained very satisfactory results, underlining the level record of the order takings thanks in particular to the European frigates multimissions - FREMM -, to the Scorpene submarines and the conditional phase of the SNLE - nuclear submarine launcher of machines - the Terrible one.

It wished to obtain precise details on the final results of 2005 and their distribution, on the operational performances of the company, in constant improvement, on the progress report of the programs in co-operation, particularly of the second aircraft carrier, the PA2, on the prospects as regards exports, the final stages of the agreement between DCN and Thales Naval France, which made run much ink, like on the difficulties encountered concerning the development of the system of combat of the Mistral.

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf recalled that DCN, it there has less than three years, still belonged to the administration of the ministry for defense, before being transformed, the 1erJune 2003, in national company of private law. The evolution was initiated at the beginning of the years 2000 and the first stage carried out in 2003, with two objectives: to improve the effectiveness, the reactivity, the productivity of the company; he to give the capacity to take part in the necessary structuring of the naval sector of defense French and European.

He confirmed that 2005 had been one record year in terms of order takings: more than 4 billion euros for 2,8 billion sales turnover, with three great contracts. Firstly, the contract on the FREMM, signed in November 2005, which comprises a firm phase of eight buildings, has been the best obtained by DCN for fifty years: it will structure during the ten next years its presence on the segment of the armed ships, which represents a little more than 60 % of its activity. Secondly, the contract with the export of six Scorpene towards India, signed and come into effect at the end of 2005, is the third recorded in five years, which refers of this submarine world. Thirdly, in the field of the maintenance in operational condition, i.e. services, which represents 30 % of the activity of DCN, the majority of the contracts signed to the profit of the national marine came to a end in 2005 and it was a question of renewing them: the company gained 70 % of those which were opened with competition - better than its objective of 50 % -, without counting the contracts withdrawn from the competition taking into account their specificity, relating to the maintenance of the nuclear buildings primarily. Thus DCN saw the total of its order book to place from 6 billion to more than 8 billion euros between beginning and the end of 2005.

Acting of the activity, 2005 were also an important year since DCN delivered in December its first Scorpene to the Chilean navy as well as the first frigate on a contract of six to the Singaporean navy and the last to Saudi Arabia. The other programs continued to proceed in an active way. The first building of the program Horizon, the Forbin frigate, was launched. The construction of the fourth SNLE of new generation, the Terrible one, continued, its delivery and its startup being always planned for 2010. The first building of projection and command, the Mistral, were delivered on February 27, 2006, certainly late and with reserves, but those are gradually raised - they related primarily to the integration of the system of combat - and confidence is of setting as for its complete entry in operational condition. The second building of this type, the Thunder, still under test in Brest, should join Toulon this summer. The availability of the ships, still defective three years ago and priority of the Minister for defense, is in significant improvement since it passed from 58 to 71 %. For the nuclear submarines of attack, SNA, in Toulon, the record of 1997 was beaten of more than one hundred days, in spite of the ageing of the park. It is the fruit of the motivation of the personnel of DCN, the change of statute having made it possible to install tools to recognize their implication in the respect of the objectives of the company, in particular of the premiums of participation in the result, under the terms of a decree published on December 27, 2005. DCN is thus on the good way, even if progress remains to be achieved, in particular in the control of the deadlines.

In the field of the economic results, 2005, like 2004, were also a positive year: the sales turnover increased by 8,6 %, the turnover of 18,6 % and the net income of 30 % - with certainly nearly 100 million euros of exceptional result.

Last year was remembered by an extremely important decision of the Government and companies Thales and DCN, was taken on December 15, tending to structure the naval sector. Will be gathered around DCN the whole of the French naval sector of defense except equipment, i.e. the Armaris joint venture, created in 2002, which carries all the international naval activity, as well as the subsidiary companies of the latter and Thales Naval France except equipment, is a transfer of approximately 350 people. In parallel, the Government will possibly open the capital of DCN to height of 25 % then of 35 % at the end of two years.

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf estimated that 2006 will be one year hinge for the activity of DCN, with two crucial contracts. Firstly, with regard to SNA of the type Barracuda, a joint offer with Technicatome, the third, on April 28 for the signing of one contract was given to the end of the summer or the autumn. It acts of a project structuring over ten even fifteen years for the underwater activity of DCN, more particularly for the sites of Cherbourg and Indret; if it came to be deferred or shifted, that would involve industrial and social decisions delicate. Secondly, with regard to the PA2, an integrated team DCN-Thales currently works in Bristol, animated by two objectives: to confirm the general study of conclusive last year to compatibility enter the specific needs for the French navy and the British project, and to detail the modifications of design to be designed to meet the national needs; to be based on the experience gained with Charles-of-Gaulle to convince the British teams of the advisability of reducing the cost of the building, in particular by using more civil technical solutions for the design as for construction.

It announced that all the actions of progress engaged since the change of statute will be continued. After the plan "Ahead 2005", which federated the personnel of the company of 2003 at at the end of 2005, in particular on the subjects of the purchases, the industrial processes and the information systems, new a three years plan, "Challenge 2008", was committed beginning 2006 with the objective to reduce the costs of 500 million euros: more half on the level of the die of purchase in the broad sense, the supply chain, the remainder through the modernization of the industrial process.

The bringing together between DCN and Thales is halfway, due diligence coming to a end: DCN buys a part of the activity of Thales in the naval field and Thales buys 25 % of DCN. Parallel to the building site of organization spreads an intercultural building site; to gain this human project, it is indeed advisable to marry two cultures - those of deprived and the administration -, to make them evolve/move, take best one and other to create a French industrialist who will be the spearhead of the European bringing together.

The project "Convergence" is indeed led from the European point of view, as those which knew, these last years, sectors of aeronautics, electronics and the missiles. The reorganization of the shipbuilding industry is quite committed in Germany, with creation, last year, of TKMS, regrouping of six building sites - three in Germany, two in Sweden and one in Greece. The Izar Spaniard, born from separation, in spring 2005, between the military shipbuilding and the civil shipbuilding, should reach balance as of this year. In Great Britain, BAE thinks of the repurchase of Babcock and a part of Vosper. The bringing together between DCN and Thales proceeds of the same logic. The following stage will be a consolidation at the level European, impossible to circumvent with the rise of Europe of defense and the armament, even if it is still impossible to envisage its methods.

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf added that such a structuring depended on the existence of European projects and that, as regards buildings of surface, only France and Italy had œuvré jointly, with frigates Horizon and FREMM. It does not remain about it less than one European co-operation would be useful, in particular in the field of the conventional submarines, where new competitors - Korea, Russia, China and perhaps, tomorrow, India - are involved in the world competition beside Germany and of France. If Europe wants to continue to exist in this sector of excellence, it has of another solution to only proceed to bringings together, and they are projects with Germany and/or Spain which would make more the smell.

President Guy Teissier asked whether the prices of the six SNA of the Barracuda type could be revised without the results of DCN being some faded and if Russian competition were not likely to disturb the play.

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf specified that the first offer relating to the Barracuda project, given on June 25, 2005, did not enter the budgetary diagram. At the end of technical discussions held during the summer and the autumn with the general delegation for the armament, the national navy, Commissariat à l' Énergie Atomique, the ECA and Technicatome, a second offer, subjected in November 2005, was perceived like a clear improvement, allowing to continue the technical discussions and to lead to a third offer, presented on April 28, 2006. The industrialists adapted their offer to the budgetary constraint while following three axes: adjustment of the technical contents; simplification of the industrial engineering; reduction of the risks taken by the industrialists so that they are not exposed to risks in a ill-considered way. The contract will run until 2030.

The export of such buildings is excluded. Only the United States and Great Britain are concerned. And still, British industry, for lack of continuity, lost competence; its Astute project took four years of delay and depends on the Americans. In comparison with the American and British prices, the French offer is largely competitive and its product is much smaller. After the range of the Rubies, which made 2 500 tons, the Barracuda reach 4 800 tons, to achieve the goals in nuclear term of safety and acoustic discretion, against 7 000 to 8 000 tons for the competitor buildings.

Referring to advertisements published in the press, president Guy Teissier wondered about the proposal made by DCN dismantle Clemenceau whereas France had initially chosen to make precisely carry out this work in India for reasons of cost.

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf required prudence on this file, the journalists venturing sometimes beyond his thought and even of his words. Such an operation, foreign with Cœur of activity of DCN, is complex and requires specific competences that does not have the company, in particular depollution recycling. But DCN is ready, if necessary, in a form remaining to determine, place its knowledge of the military ships and Clemenceau at the disposal of those which will take the responsability for dismantling: it does not have vocation to be the Master of œuvrefor it but is laid out to accompany it. To evaluate the means of developing the operation economically, it will be necessary however to wait to know what the ministry for defense will require of the industrialists.

Mr. Philippe Vitel congratulated DCN for his decisive role in the design, obtaining and the animation of the pole of competitiveness sea with world dimension gathering the areas Provence-Alp-Coast of Azure and Brittany, which preceded the Entente Cordiale and fraternal with Thales, and it paid homage to Bernard Planchais for his action in Toulon. Then it asked precise information on manpower and the recruitings in the company, whereas the communications of the direction and the trade unions are contradictory.

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf stressed that the activity was constant in all establishments DCN and that, if the Barracuda project were actually signed during 2006, visibility in the medium and long term would be good. The two sides of industry obviously always wish that manpower increase. From the quantitative point of view, manpower, in fifteen years, fell in a drastic way - of 28 000 at the beginning of the years 1990 to 12 000 in 2006 - but they will be stabilized if the current level of activity is maintained. The sales turnover of DCN
- which rises to 2,8 billion euros - indeed, is brought back to the number of employees, comparable with that of best undertaken European: for the armed ships, very rich in equipment, it is 300 000 euros against 240 000 at TKMS; for the services, which incorporate much more hand-ofœuvre, the ratio gives 130 000 euros against 100 000 at Vosper, which constitutes the reference. From the qualitative point of view, DCN improved architecture of employment in order to adapt competences to the needs: since the change of statute, more than 5 000 changes in staff were operated - 3 000 exits for 2 500 entries -, which is considerable, and the rate of framing grew of 20 % with 26 or 27 %. the die purchase, for example, employed more than 500 people including 80 frameworks and 250 executive staff; today, its manpower fell to 380 people including 140 frameworks and less than 100 executive staff; the evolution is similar in the die financial management. It is comprehensible that that causes concern at the two sides of industry but largest from the movements passed and DCN will continue to replace the departures and will maintain manpower about at the current level.

Mr. Gilbert Meyer estimated that the availability ratio of the ships depended not only on the legal status on the personnel but also on the degree on fungibility of the spare parts provided by the various people receiving benefits, like had underlined it his ratio of 2002. Is the bringing together with Thales likely to improve the availability ratio, being understood that it relates to only maintenance, other than the equipment?

Then it is enquis on behalf of the foreign orders in the 2 billion additional euros recorded on the notebook of DCN in 2005.

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf explained that the service of support of the fleet had radically made evolve/move the philosophy of the contracts, with an important effect on fungibility: the national navy signed from contracts of short duration, enjoignant with the industrialists to proceed to precise operations of maintenance, with contracts from three to five years, more total, giving them for task to guarantee a level of availability of the ships. The industrialists have thus from now on the responsibility to organize themselves and engage of the purchases as of the signature of the contracts, so as to carry out the exchanges necessary, with a flexibility as regards purchase which did not exist when DCN was subjected to the Code des Marches Publics. But the reflexion with the service of support of the fleet and the large equipment suppliers must still be thorough. The bringing together with Thales excluding the equipment, it would be appropriate to decline the inclusive contracts of service of availability with the co-operators equipment suppliers - Thales, Sagem, EADS-MBDA, etc. Way remains to be traversed to cross the responsibility for the main industrialist ofœuvre of the ship and the responsibility for the equipment suppliers on their installations, common to several ships: this organization remains perfectible.

It added that the orders were made up to 30 % approximately of future exports.

Mr. Jean-Claude Viollet insisted on the importance of the sums concerned in the project "Convergence", a puncture on the benefit of DCN intended for reinvestments on great programs being even evoked. It remains to negotiate a cooperation agreement. Isn't the maintenance of the foreign naval subsidiary companies of Thales likely to enter in competition with the new unit?

Where is alliance between BAE, Fincantieri, Navantia, Shipbuilding Limited and DCN on the equipment?

Which is the thrust of the signature of the Barracuda contract, taking into account the workload and of the prospects opened by this new order?

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf indicated that work relating to the valorization of the companies was in hand but that the teams reasoned on the basis of announced element on December 15: a balance from 100 to 150 million euros will compensate for the difference between the sums paid in cash by DCN with Thales and Thales in the State. The treasury of DCN is completely satisfactory, which led the State to carry the dividends to 450 million euros, and the project "Convergence" does not have nothing to do there. The State must still pour a part of the capital - twice 150 million euros, in 2006 and 2007 - but the treasury of DCN remains and will remain healthy, even after the purchase of the naval activity of Thales. It is still necessary to sign an agreement of shareholders between the State and Thales as well as an industrial and commercial agreement between DCN and Thales, pursuing three goals. Firstly, it is a question of creating synergies so that the two industrialists optimize their efforts of investment in the search and the development for new technologies while avoiding paying twice and while benefitting from competences of the other. Secondly, each one must remain on its international strategic positioning: Master ofœuvre of the ships armed for DCN, systémier equipment supplier for Thales. Thirdly, it is important to hold account of the existence of foreign subsidiary companies of Thales in the naval field - the project "Convergence" fitting moreover in a step of integration of these structures - in order to regulate the conflicts of interest suitably: a mechanism is designed in particular to prepare the offers in most total independence when Thales is concerned taking into account its international positioning, which will not change basically compared to today because it is already able at Armaris to be in competition with subsidiary companies of Thales.

International alliance in gestation is a purely industrial agreement of coordination between companies: it is a question of weighing on the European and world equipment suppliers to profit from the best possible prices.

If the Barracuda contract had been suddenly shifted after 2006, the industrial and social repercussions would be heavy, in Cherbourg as in Indret. A notification during 2006 will cause already a light underactivity in these two establishments but this one will be compensated by a solidarity between sites on the other projects, in particular that of the FREMM, with a system of subcontractings. The fixing of the methods of distribution in their details is not urgent since the construction of the second frigate must start in the current of the second half of 2008 - the facts of the case depend moreover contents on the Barracuda programs and PA2.

Mr. Charles Cova said to appreciate the rectification of DCN, which releases from the benefit whereas, at the time of the change of statute, aucuns predicted that it would follow the way of GIAT Industries.

Within won't the framework of the reorganization of the European shipbuilding industry and taking into account the workload of DCN, be necessary to buy a European shipyard to increase the competitiveness of the French naval pole, in particular for the construction of corvettes of 1 000 and 1 200 tons and from the point of view of the Gowind corvettes?

Is it exact that the British trail the feet to provide the plans concerning the PA2 in time and hour and that a delay of two months was already recorded? Don't they await the result of the future French elections to accelerate their work?

Mr. Jerome Rivière complimented in his turn DCN for his satisfying assessment and his results, which exceed the hopes: the decisions of the Government, supported by the Parliament, were the maid. It also greeted its general president-director, symbol of a successful change of statute.

In a context of risk of attrition or in any case of stagnation of the appropriations of defense, it could be considered, even if it acts of an iconoclast proposal, that France and Great Britain together have only three aircraft carriers and not four. Perhaps in the same way, to believe certain British experts of them, the English do not need to launch out in the production of SNLE whereas dissuasion and the presence with the sea of French submarines could be enough. Aren't France and Great Britain being the two European leaders as regards appropriations of defense, including in the naval field, of great projects possible between the two countries rather than with Germany, Italy or Spain or in any case as much as with these three States?

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf then brought the following precise details:

- the purchase of a building site to produce buildings with weak tonnage is not in the intentions of DCN, which prefers to benefit from the capacities available in Europe, to organize competition and to play with the contract appropriatenesses, for example in Bulgaria or Croatia, to support its projects with export, which does not prevent from considering, in the long term, of the participations crossed between Navantia, TKMS and DCN.

- acting of the PA2, there was delay at the beginning of the project but, since the signature of the "memorandum of understanding", the French integrated team does not meet restrictions: the contacts are good and the books are open for him.

- It is well Great Britain and France which have the naval activities most intense of Europe. Logic should thus indeed result in organizing industrial co-operations with the English but they run up against two obstacles: British industry is very turned towards the deck chair for SNA, the SNLE, the systems and the equipment; DCN has still way to traverse, Great Britain and with less title Germany considering it still too official to consider an integrated industrial bringing together. The project "Convergence" will help DCN but, to hope for such an exit, it will be necessary to persevere.

Mr. Jean-Marie Poimbœuf finally thanked the deputies for their encouragements, which must be addressed to the whole of the personnel, in the beginning for the results for DCN.

--____--

© National Parliament

ttp://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&url=%2F%2Fwww.assemblee-natio...506033.asp (http://p216.ezboard.com/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.assemblee-nationale.fr%2F12%2Fcr-cdef%2F05-06%2Fc0506033.asp)

WE Branch Fanatic

24th May 2006, 12:32

Do they know something we don't? Please tell me the above comments do not reflect official policy.

LowObservable

I have seen concepts with a Sea King ASaC radar hanging off the rear ramp.

How would that work? Open ramp, deploy bag............

Not_a_boffin

24th May 2006, 12:53

Given the quality of the translation, I wouldn't put too much store by it, it appears to be an interpretation of possible UK policy options from the perspective of Pierre. Note that it includes the idea that BigAndExpensiveSystems buy out VT, to create VeryBigAndExpensiveShips which (for the moment at least) is on the back-burner. Having said that, if Brown / Browne are reading this it might give them some ideas........so lets keep schtum.

As for Bag / V22, it wouldn't work for the reasons discussed previously. Bag would be outside the aircraft (on the ramp slope).

WE Branch Fanatic

26th May 2006, 00:05

In today's (Thursday) Daily Mail, there was a letter from someone offering the view that the carriers need to be nuclear powered. This was ruled out many moons ago, partly for political reasons, also other issues.

However, have they decided what sort of propulsion to use? Will it be....

Diesel generators powering electric motors (cf Albion class LPD)?
Gas Turbines (WR21?)
A mix of diesel generators powering electric motors (for normal cruising and situations where quietness is needed) and gas turbines for high speed (not completely unlike the T23 propulsion system)?

CVF will use a lot of the same technology as other naval projects (T45, LPD(R), MARS (if it gets ordered) and even Astute). As such both the complexity and the risks involved will be considerably mitigated - even the technique of building parts of ships at different yards and then integrating them is being done with the T45.

RonO

26th May 2006, 02:07

AFAIK all brit MT30 gas turbine gensets running Alstom electric motors. Same combo as being trialled for USN's DDX.

WE Branch Fanatic

27th May 2006, 13:48

Some good news regarding technology transfer and the F35, as reported by DefenseNews (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1830051&C=americas).

On a slight tangent:

Bush and Blair also spoke in the statement of a need to enhance U.S.-British military cooperation.

Hmmm, perhaps they could fit CEC to the Type 23 Frigates as intended?

Now that this issue is resolved, perhaps the Goverment might like to think about getting the building of these mighty ships started?

Not_a_boffin

30th May 2006, 10:28

The propulsion fit for the ship is derived from the Type 45. Rono is correct it will be two Trent MT30s (upgradable to MT40) and two 8-10MW diesel generators for low speed / cruise powering four Alstom electric motors on two shafts.

The reason CVF is so difficult is that the original cost estimates were done for a MoD design of 40000 tonnes in 1997 and NEVER updated as the ship design evolved. When they did, funny old thing the ship got a lot bigger (operational parking being a major design driver). As MoD (and industry) cost on weight - lo and behold the ship got more expensive than the EP provision which has led to the last three years faffing about trying to find ways of making it fit the EP line (and therefore not upset Gordon). What is possible if people make decisions quickly is illustrated by the fact that Fincantieri in Venice have just laid the keel of a Queen Mary sized cruise ship (90000 gross te). She will be delivered in December 2007 and enter service that month.

Navaleye

30th May 2006, 14:37

That's the new Queen Victoria for Cunard. They have built 6 other ships to the same basic general arrangement, so I guess they must be good at it by now. I suspect the Cunarder will operate fewer strike aircraft making it less useful. Nice in the hot weather on the med in July though.

SASless

30th May 2006, 15:35

All this special design worry, the bickering over which powerplant and such, cats vice no cats, traps vice no traps...and the cost keeps growing with each delay.

I again offer the Nimitz class....but look at it from a different perspective. No matter what aircraft types, helicopters, whatever is decided upon will work. With all the unused space on the flight deck and below deck...imagine the overflow capability it would have.

Need to go to Sierra Leone and evacuate civilains, diplomats, insert peace keepers and provide CAP for the troops ashore. There you have it...all in one ship. Send along one Amphib vessel with a well deck and LCM's or LCU's to haul the armored vehicles ashore and you have it made. Fetch back the evacuees and open up the unused mess decks, sick bays, berthing spaces and good to go.

Just like the cruise ships really....use a proven design....and remember to buy American!

Not_a_boffin

30th May 2006, 15:49

Navaleye - you're quite right and the magazine capacity is probably a bit low as well. The point is that the quantities of material, work content etc are comparable to CVF and yet can be done by one yard in two years......

SASless - if they fit the ship for Cats and traps it will be enough. Nimitz is a tired design (CVN 21 is the planned(!) way forward) and we could never retain enough people to man a Nimitz in the accommodation standards they use. If MoD would just order the bl00dy thing, all will be well eventually - although there are a number of things that need fixing in the design in slower time.

Navaleye

30th May 2006, 15:56

Actually a carrier is more like a giant car ferry than a cruise liner. Anyhow has anyone see Poseidon yet?

Not_a_boffin

30th May 2006, 16:08

An upside down car ferry, possibly, although they're really not as complex as a carrier or cruise ship. Best definition I ever heard was "an airfield, on top of a city, on top of a munitions complex....."

Apparently Poseidon is even worse than the original.

WE Branch Fanatic

30th May 2006, 23:17

Anyhow has anyone see Poseidon yet?

Will there be a (allegedly) cheaper version made in the UK called Chevaline?

Last film set aboard a ship that I enjoyed was Flight of The Intruder.

Going back to the issue of proplusion - the arrangement (CODLAG?) sounds as if it will offer good fuel efficiency during every day operations whilst having the capacity for higher speeds when needed. Which will reduce running costs, and reduce the amount of support needed from the RFA (just as well since MARS has been delayed again and again).

SASless' post has reminded me of another thing. Why does it appear that the MOD see Carrier Strike and Amphibious stuff as seperate? I've mentioned this on the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) (yeah I know another link), but the two are obviously connected. Does the reduction the frigate/destroyer numbers (less platforms for Naval Gunfire Support) increase the demand for carrier based CAS? Or the reduction the AS90 numbers as a result of the 2004 cuts/Future Army Structure? What role will MASC play in the digitized littoral battlespace? What if there's still a threat offshore (surface, submarine, air)?

RonO

31st May 2006, 01:10

Depends what you mean by "higher speeds". Current design tops out at around 25 knots - rather slow by carrier standards. If fitted the cats will be a bit short of steam too.

WE Branch Fanatic

3rd Jun 2006, 19:36

Have cats ever been fitted to a carrier that wasn't steam or nuclear powered?

Would anyone else like to comment on my points regarding the connection between the new carriers and littoral capability?

Biggus

4th Jun 2006, 07:35

Apparently not - frustrating isn't it?

Navaleye

4th Jun 2006, 11:44

Apparently Poseidon is even worse than the original.
You couldn't call either of them classics, however, the special effects in the new one are top notch.
Here's a
Teaser (http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/poseidon/poseidon-tlr2_h640w.mov)

Not_a_boffin

5th Jun 2006, 07:48

WEBF in some sort of order -

1. No carrier with cats has ever been other than steam / nuclear powered. Mind you, the only carriers that haven't been steam or nuclear have been STOVL jobs, like CVS, the Spanish & Italian ships and the Thai one.

2. It won't be CODLAG, it'll be some sort of integrated electric system (acronym not yet invented!)

3. You're correct - amphib and carrier strike are closely linked. But, you can use a carrier without the need for the Amphibs. Basically, the capability argument is too difficult to get past the treasury, (let alone for the DEC & IPTs to understand).

Widger

5th Jun 2006, 11:31

SASLESS, Nimitz class great idea but, Portsmouth is not deep or wide enough, it will not fit under the Forth Bridge and will not fit up Plymouth Sound either. So manpower aside, there is no-where in the UK where it could get alongside without being shunted out of the way by the Queen Mary etc. and no dock large enough to repair/refit! So either it goes back to the US for maintainance (JCA all over again!) or let the French repair it at Lorient!

Green Meat

5th Jun 2006, 11:44

I'm sure I have seen a picture of the Nimitz at Portsmouth somewhere, maybe DRJ or 'trade journal' (read spotter's mag!)

I might be wrong, and it would have been some time ago as, IIRC, there were Phantoms embarked.

Widger

5th Jun 2006, 11:46

It most certainly was at Portsmouth, but anchored in the Solent! That would be a great draft.....three years of liberty boats!

Navaleye

5th Jun 2006, 11:48

I've never seen a Nimitz at Portsmouth, however, they would frequently anchor in Spithead. I think the last carrier to actually go alongside would have been an Essex or (at a pinch) a Midway. Portsmouth has a very narrow harbour mouth and the channel would need to be heavily dredged.

Green Meat

5th Jun 2006, 11:54

Thank goodness, though the old goldfish memory was failing me. Next numpty questions are:

A) The picture showed visitors on board, would they have been shipped (floated/bussed/armada of small boats) out?
B) Is it beyond comprehension to dredge the channel given the huge investment in the new carriers?

I'll call for the taxi now...:confused:

Navaleye

5th Jun 2006, 12:04

They would run a tender service from ship to shore. No mean feat when you have a crew of 5,000 plus visitors to manage. The harbour is being dredged for CVF of course, but the Nimitz has a deeper draft then even a CVF. The problem with dredging is that you have to keep at it, its not a one off job and therefore costs dosh which seems to be in very short supply.