JSF first flight

[Red Snow]

For anyone’s who remotely interested, Boeing's X-32 JSF aircraft flew yesterday (Sept 18). Palmdale to Edwards, 20-odd minutes, all went well.

Those of you who saw that butt-ugly mockup at farnborough and said it would never fly were wrong!

X-35 due at Edwards soon but USAF stressing there will be no fly-off. What a pity!

(Edited to head off the pedants and say that I do know that the ACTUAL mockup at Farnborough wouldn't fly anyway – but you know what I mean)

[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 19 September 2000).]

[Small Cheese]

if you don't believe it there's pix on www.boeing.com (http://www.boeing.com)

Won't it just look lovely with a big Winged One on the intake sides (NOT)

[MrBernoulli]

Okay, so it flies. But so do pigs if thrown hard enough.

It is SSSSOOOOOO UGLY - once its flying whats it supposed to DO?

[Red Snow]

very good question – does anyone know?

[Jackonicko]

Once it's flying it's supposed to be CHEAP!

And that's the main driver. Many believe that the CTOL version will be much, much less useful than a Block 70 F-16 and certainly no match for EF or Rafale, and probably inferior in some respects to JAS 39.

And once the USMC have been persuaded that they don't need the STOVL variant, what is the point? Anyone know, cos it beats me!

[ORAC]

It does'nt fly, the ground repels it! God it's ugly.

[Spectre150]

Anyone know how the FCBA ish is progressing - I am right in thinking aren't I that JSF is just a contender at the moment?

[John Farley]

God - its ugly
God - that wing looks perfect for high alpha
God - if I was a jet engine I’d die to breathe through that inlet
God - the cockpit layout looks the best yet
God – just imagine what VIFFing that much gross thrust would do (yes gross not net)
God – the servicing access under that wing will be so easy in sun or rain
God – the F-22 sensor package looks middle aged already
God – I’d like to get my hands on it
God – its beautiful

[Red Snow]

You are right, Spectre, but is the one that is being 'pushed' the most by the PR/CC machine. With every day that goes by the VTOL JSF looks a little less likely (LM have just 'fessed up to problems with theirs and have had to put the X-35C first flight date back to late '01).

With the size of carrier envisaged for CV UK the US Navy’s CTOL JSF would be adequate, but so would Eurofighter and it seems like a straight fight between the two, unless of course HMG decides to scrap the whole carrier idea anyway. I guess F/A-18E/F is another possibility if you want something cheap and crap but proven. There have been many postings on this forum regarding CV Eurofighter – makes quite a lot of sense to me.

[S Potter Esq]

At least Boeing are doing something original and not just chopping an F22 in half. Personally, I hope Boeing wins, not only do I like the design but there'll be much less BAE Cisterns (formerly British WasteofSpace) content than in the LockMart effort, so it might actually come in on time/cost, and work. Come to think of it, Boeing are a few weeks ahead of LockMart, even at this stage.




------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"

[ORAC]

Maybe, maybe.

There is an old saying, looks right, flys right.
All based on experience and eye of course, but it worked so far.
And I never saw an ugly bird in flight.

Let it fly, maybe it it will grow on people.

Maybe computers now rule supreme.

But, no matter how good, it is UGLY.

We have had BUFF and SLUFF (which the users loved), maybe we need FLUFF (Future Light Ugly Fat F*****r ) for this bird.

(PS, No one ever said the A-10 was pretty, but as far as fighting wars are concerned I see it as one of the best combat machines of the second half of the twentieth century.


[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 20 September 2000).]

[Red Snow]

JF
You are aboslutely right, of course. A case of heart ruling head when you're first confronted with the brute. Any opinions you'd care to share on the X-35?

From what little one can glean, it seems that Boeing have really seized the initiative on this one (first out of the trap, agressive test schedule etc) – traditionally a Lockheed/GD virtue if F-16/F-17 and F-22/F-23 comps were anything to go by. Would also value some views on whether there is anything to be gained from actually flying the two against each other.

ORAC
Absolutely agreed about A-10. But if it wasn't for the Gulf it would probably have been killed off permaturely.
Its somewhat ironic, given its genesis, that the Hog (as OA-10) ended up being categorised as an HVA, worthy of special protection.

(PS I think FLUF has already gone to the Boeing 737-500 – Fat Little etc)

S.Potter
Glad to see you hold the fortunes of a few thousand workers so close to your heart. You'd make a good MP!!!

[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 20 September 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Red Snow (edited 20 September 2000).]

[John Farley]

Red Snow

My understanding (you may know better) is that the current UK MOD Plan A is to buy some STOVL variants of which ever JSF contender wins. I know nothing about the X-32 programme and very little about the X-35.

It seems to me that when politicians have big hopes for their military influence, but at the same time are not able to afford massive forces to exert that influence, then operating site flexibility becomes particularly important. So, I believe the UK should always have some top quality operational aeroplanes that can also do STOVL.

The operational capability (as opposed to the STOVL performance) of our current STOVL aeroplanes has been well preserved. The current clearance for all RAF GR7 mates to operate visually at low level in the dark using totally synthetic vision aids is a remarkable capability that few nations share. Likewise, for many years now, the RN FA2 has led the way in European air arms as the most effective BVR interceptor thanks to its AMRAAM capability.

But what about the STOVL bit?. The KISS Pegasus way of providing that has to be getting ever closer to its sell buy date. There are many reasons for this, but probably top of the heap is that it can never be used as an efficient supersonic powerplant – no matter how many corners you squirt fire from..

The X-32/35 ways of providing STOVL are very different. Both appear to have particular but different strengths and weaknesses.

Weaknesses first.

Boeing have to generate enough thrust in the hover to meet the bring back needs. But critically they must also keep the hot air out of the intake. Whether they will succeed in that remains to be seen.

Lockmart have not taken any chances with that and are using nice cold fan air to hold the front up. Driving that fan without wasting weight is a very demanding mechanical engineering task. But it is only mechanical engineering and do we seriously think that the clutch and gearbox issues are insoluble? Surely not? However, since the fan intake could never allow the fan to breathe at high forward speed, the fan cannot be used to help ACM. If the only thrust you can vector in ACM is at the back you are more limited.

The advantages?

Boeing can vector all of their installed thrust in ACM. That could provide some quite awesome tactics for the driver.

The Lockmart fan has to be a very efficient and calm way to generate hover capability. This will really help bring back capability and operating site issues. The drive may also be suitable to power specialised bits of combat kit that need massive bursts of power.

Bottom lines?

IMHO if the Boeing STOVL version is made to work it will be top dog in combat, but Lockmart seem to have an easier task on their hands so far as doing STOVL is concerned. If they both fail then UK needs a Harrier III. But who considers failure?

JF

PS Sorry, forgot your point about flying them against each other. Do you mean the current overall competition or a special flyoff? I see these as two X programmes to validate two different concepts. So don't think it right to fly one against the other and say the better one in the sky goes ahead. There are too many other factors to consider surely?
JF



[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 21 September 2000).]

[Jackonicko]

JF,

I ask you, as the nearest thing Prune has to an air power 'thinker' the following questions?

1) Does operating site flexibility necessarily mean CV (F)? Do we need FCBA and/or a carrier? Can we afford to support squadron-sized deployments with a CV, SSN, oilers, guardships, radar pickets, and 2,000 + seamen, or should we just send a Harrier/Tornado/Jag squadron with 180 blokes?

2) What happens to UK FCBA if the USMC are persuaded to drop their STOVL JSF?

3) Do you still think STOVL (as opposed to rough field+STOL is STILL relevant for land-based air power? Should FOAS be STOVL, perhaps? Should JSF be FCBA AND FOAS?

JN

[Red Snow]

JF

Appreciate the insight. I share your opinions about the benefits of STOVL, especially as it appears to be available at less engineering/aerodynamic 'cost' these days. Unfortunately, in this case the extra financial cost is being seen by some in the US as being too much to pay, no matter what the benefits may be. Where a cancellation would leave the Marines is another matter.

[John Farley]

JN

Hey - I’m just a retired buff sitting on the beach!.

I don’t even know what some of those acronyms mean

I do know that by operating site flexibility I mean the ability to hover if necessary. Nothing more nothing less.

If you have the control and performance (albeit with limited bring back) to hover, then high weight STOL should come free and may well be the normal operating mode on land. At sea only VL gives true flexibility re ship or weather, as well as being a very relaxed and safe way of coming aboard. Hooks or SL must mean a big ship – and that to me is not operating site flexibility, it is just full blown carrier aviation which has a big price tag.

If you commit to carrier aviation how many ships is enough to guarantee the capability in even one theatre? It seems to me that carrier aviation cannot be entered into gradually to suit your purse. There is a minimum cost and that is not small. Indeed it is so not small I don’t see how the UK could seriously afford it. Does it not also mean that with all your eggs in two or maybe three baskets you don’t like to risk them much? Therefore you also stump up for their protection force. Then the whole lot needs replenishing. Does the UK ever want to risk say 3000 chaps and half their aeroplanes to one hit?

A carrier task force is a wonderful political/military option to behold – but is certainly not what I mean by operating site flexibility.

Should the UK have something bigger than the Invincible class – yes. Should it go for full blown carrier aviation – no (unless they find gold under the dome when they sweep up)

If neither JSF can be made to do the STOVL bit this time around then the USMC (like the RN in my view) need a Harrier III. Nobody has yet done the definitive subsonic jumpjet – which IMHO should only need your right hand to land it (like VAAC in its one and a half inceptor mode), would do .95M clean on the deck and only need replenishing, not servicing, at least until it had done a weeks work. Now that would be a useful bit of kit for anyone. Not sexy but useful.

JF

PS are we boring everyone?

[Jackonicko]

When you said:

"It seems to me that carrier aviation cannot be entered into gradually to suit your purse. There is a minimum cost and that is not small. Indeed it is so not small I don’t see how the UK could seriously afford it. Does it not also mean that with all your eggs in two or maybe three baskets you don’t like to risk them much? Therefore you also stump up for their protection force. Then the whole lot needs replenishing. Does the UK ever want to risk say 3000 chaps and half their aeroplanes to one hit?

A carrier task force is a wonderful political/military option to behold – but is certainly not what I mean by operating site flexibility."

I read it with enormous interest. Was the great JF going to pronounce carrier aviation a thing of the past?

Then you disappointed me and said what I'd have expected - that we need something bigger than the Invincibles.

But I don't understand (dumbo, I'm afraid) why these cogent arguments don't apply equally to the Invincible-class or similar sized ships. OK, sink an Invincible and you don't kill 3,000 people, but it's still a massively expensive and hugely vulnerable investment, isn't it?

Why do you think we still need these? Where would you use them? Where could you not equally well use land-based aviation?

Acronym alphabetti-spaghetti de-code:
CV (F) Carrier (vessel) future - UK requirement
FCBA Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (UK Requirement)
FOAS Future Offensive Aircraft System
HVA High Value Asset
SSN Nuclear sub


JN (Nacko Jacko!)

[ORAC]

I think you hit the nail on the head when mentioning carry back. If you always intend to throw everything at the enemy, fine. But if you want to carry AMRAAM, TIALD, recce, brimstone etc back you need a proper deck to do a run on landing or you have to throw it all over the side before landing. A bloody expensive way of patrolling a no-fly zone from a carrier for example!

Nobody has that kind of vertical capability, not even JSF. So if you need a proper deck to bring it all back, why do you need STOVL in the first place?

But you are now back to bigger carriers, support etc.....

JF, as you say, nice, but who can afford it?

[John Farley]

JN and ORAC

My brain hurts, we have drifted from a few remarks about JSF to arguments about major elements of UK defence strategy in less than a couple of pages of A4. Something not right there.

I’m know you guys appreciate that the issues you are raising are just are not amenable to simple one page answers but I suppose you will just go away thinking you have got it all sewn up if I don’t try…...so here’s a one line answer:

Its all about having some capability rather than none.

Back in the late 70’s I faced a howling mob of Ark Royal /Phantom/Bucc mates (just about to lose their ship) who kept saying that only the F4/Bucc could do the job and so Harrier was a total waste of time. I told them then that they had to come to terms with the fact that Harrier/Through deck cruiser was all they were going to be allowed to have. Period. So they might as well listen to what it could offer as some things might just surprise them.

Over 20 years later not much has changed. The Invincible class (plus Hermes) have been used a lot and many would say the UK would have been in the dwang without them. Today the FA2 plus AMRAAM is one lot of interceptor for the money.

Where would you use the replacement ships? Why not the same places - ie anywhere you had to. As to the size of them, a few feet here and there would do wonders for what you could fit in, I’m not suggesting twice as big. I’d sooner make ‘em smaller and have more of them than go huge. Do they all have to be independent beasts? With VL you can use a pretty simple flat deck as your mother ship’s wingman.

Bring back. It’s the same answer. Of course you can’t bring back as much to a ship as you can to a runway (and that applies to trapping as well, don’t kid yourself otherwise) but you may not have a runway - or be allowed the use of someone else’s – so what then? Just say sorry can’t come? No, you have to work within your bring back limits, just like any other limits.

BTW I remember we had to fire Martel in the 70’s to show a big firework would not snuff the donk and then do several VLs with just one – at over 1500lb not a bad asymm bring back for those days - before they would commit to the original Sea Harrier contract which called for Sea Eagle air launch capability.

Final important point. If you can VL it changes all your thoughts re go around following a bad approach. You just adjust your final position in the hover. Landing with two minutes fuel remaining is perfectly safe. Do you remember how bored you were watching a Harrier that just hovered for one minute without doing anything – let alone two minutes. Such safe low fuel landings really do help the bring back bit - anywhere.

This is worse than the old days. I’m off to watch Taggart.

[ORAC]

JF,

Sorry if it hurts - but the problems have not gone away. If you want to join the new fight, Welcome! If you want to watch to TV and have a good retirement, you earned it!

Carry back of of AIM-9 was OK, carry back of AMRAAM is marginal. All this was OK as part of the ASW screen around a US carrier group to "hack the shad". If you are talking about carry back of all the ECM/Ew/Recce/weapons for a fully integrated/independant force, then your mates in the 70s were bloody right!!

You can have a SHAR limited BVR AD capability, and that is it. Tell them exactly what you told them then. Do you still have the original brief/speech?? Nothing, but nothing, has changed.

(Sub-titled - why do you think things have changed while you have been away - you were right in the first place!!)

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 21 September 2000).]

[Jackonicko]

JF

MUCHO respect to you for all your epic work on SHAR. For the Falklands alone, it was worth having. (Though we now have an airfield there!). And SHAR 2/AMRAAM is indisputably a great bit of kit if you don't need to go far, bringback in hot weather etc. But name me one place apart from the Falklands in 1982 where we actually needed a carrier. I really believe that if you can't get basing rights nearby, the op probably would be a no-hoper politically anyway. Certainly there's never been an Op where the UK had no option apart from a carrier. And don't get us started on Sierra Leone!

I'm not running carriers down - they were a must have in the Cold War and the Falklands, it's just I can't see them as any more than a 'nice-to-have' today. I'm probably wrong. Only a know-nothing journo, after all!

PS: Best wishes to you and Adele, hope the floods didn't get you!

(And how unfair is that, when you don't know who the hell Jackonicko is!?)

[Noz Lee]

I have been reading with much interest the arguments presented so far, however would not like this forum to end on what appears to have been an uneven keel.

Why we need Carrier aviation:
It was not that long ago when aircraft, based in Italy, were unable to get airborne due to fog. What happens when countries don't want to have your aircraft based there? What do you think will happen if Slobodan gets a little restless in the elections coming up?
But, as has been said, the luxury of having your own carrier does not come cheap.
So, where should we be going for FCBA? A CTOL version would undoubtedly push up the cost of not only the ship but what about the training and support structure; the UK has not done proper carrier ops for some time. But it can't be ruled out especially if the VSTOL variants of JSF have so much to prove technically speaking. The other important factor is if we don't have a VSTOL FCBA then where the hell are we heading with JF2000? No doubt the GR7 community pray that we don't see a VSTOL FCBA so that the future guys won't be going to sea. Before we get started on that rather political topic I'll finish. Fine words by the way from JF.

And finally great effort from Boeing!

[Marine]

The all vertical Marine aviation was driven by the previous Commandant of the Marine Corps, he even had a vision to replace the -130J with a higher perfromance four engine tilt rotor.

Part of this was the roles and missions fight between the services and how badly NAVAIR screwed procurement. Witness the A-12 fiasco, what became of -18E/F, etc.

With all of the USAF bashing I, and lots of others, do they are the best of the U.S. services on procurement.

Without taking an official poll I would be willing to bet that most Marine aviators are not in favor of strictly vertical fixed wing aviation.

That said, either JSF should be an improvement on Harrier in most areas.

To parphrase Murphy, "If it's ugly and it works it ain't ugly!".

[Red Snow]

Denial of the use of land bases, whether through host nation decision or tactical circumstance, has happened. First night of Desert Fox.

[ORAC]

Denial of the use of carriers, whether through host nation decision or tactical circumstance, has happened. Coral Sea.

But, we are getting off the point of the thread. We already have this argument taking place elsewhere.

I wait to see how the flight trials go with the VSTOL version, when it eventually flies.

(- I should point out that bring back is not just a VSTOL/CTOL debate. One of the main selling points of the F18E/F is the far superior bring back capability v that of the C/D)

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 22 September 2000).]

[John Farley]

I should have stayed talking to you all about things that matter. Taggart was cr@p

Orac

Thanks for your kind remarks. Sorry I don’t have the script of the 70’s RN do. (If its very important I NEVER write it down because if you do then somebody with more stripes than you is just going to want it changed to something that is no longer true. Also if you use a script it comes out like you don’t mean it, and finally, what you say and how you say it should depend on what’s happening to the audiences faces as you tell the tale. Easy to wind me up eh?)

At the start I seem to remember excluding the STOVL capability of our current fleet from my remarks that the aircraft have been well kept up to date with kit. The engine story (not buying the big donk like the USMC) has been a sorry one and quite a few people should be ashamed about how they have let the operators down in that regard. The more the FCBA buy moves right the worse will be the eventual situation. Do you think the current delays in respect to JSF (and doubtless there will be plenty more) should be seen as an opportunity to buy some more contingency donks and also fly one behind the FA2 intake? It would make a lot of sense to me.

Sitting on the beach without Pprune would really suck.

JN

If you are a know-nothing journo then I reckon that makes me a failed PPL

Don’t get me started on why STOL is no answer to operating site flexibility or I will make you read WHY VL all over again. Just because you know how to wind me up doesn’t mean there will be no pain in it for you.

Noz Lee

Interesting moniker. Have faith because JF2000 (hey – I like it written like that) is not going to go away as the idea is too sound to give up. Only a dyed in the wool single service guy can argue against the concept that the UK is best served by putting soldiers, sailors and airmen. together in one package and moving them out in one lump. If they paid them ALL 10% more while they bobbed about on the water (for having to put up with each other’s customs) then there would soon be enough guys who WANTED to do it. It also would be an incentive for the politicians to bring em back sooner rather than later. Retention problems are the easiest ones to solve.

JF

[Noz Lee]

JF

I too believe that as a concept JF2000 is a sound idea although the joining of 2 fleets of Harriers is not a seemless one. I am sure you are aware of the differences. I am not convinced with your argument for retention though. I have heard that the Harrier is no longer the aircraft which everyone coming out of AFTS wish to fly. The poor ill informed youth prefer the 'mighty' Jaguar. If only they could have a trip on a warm day with a short runway. However their sights must be set on EF I guess?
There must be a deeper problem behind the lack lustre of the young guys to not want to fly the most challenging aircraft in the world from the most challenging environment - carriers. One reason I would offer is that the average age of the first tourist is now nearly 30, by which stage they have ankle biters tied on and probably a working wife and some sort of mortgage.

I feel I have veered off from the subject somewhat.

Have a good weekend!

[John Farley]

NL

I take all your points

Pity though

Have a good one as well. Silly time to have a GP. Now who's wandered off the point

JF

[ORAC]

Had a look at the UC on the Boeing on the front of this weeks Flight. Looks very lightweight!!

I know a few Marines who believe in "arrivals"where the earth flares, cos the aircraft won't!

I know the trial versions are always changed/ tweaked as they go on as the production versions are finalised but one thing I can guarantee, the gear is going to gain a couple of hundred pounds!!

[Small Cheese]

Rumour has it that it's got/going to have something called a 'BK 27 cannon' in it. Anyone remember them?

[grodge]

Had to join in this one. After years with Harriers, watching the US at close quarters and some links with the JSF, my thoughts (and as will almost everybody much respect to John Farley):

Yes the Boeing JSF is ugly as sin. However, I can't help but feel that the direct lift idea passes the KISS test. Some real challenges there though. All I'd observe is that the aircraft is at a VERY early stage in it's development, as is the engine. Don't forget the GE alternative with more power and lots of lovely RR involvement to please the politicos.

CV or not CV? JF hits the nail square on the head when he says we have to go for what we can afford. Full up conventional carriers are HUMUNGUOUSLY expensive (ask the French) and with aircraft at around JSF weight the case for 50,000 ton or less conventional ship is dodgy to say the least. STOVL allows useful air from around 35,000 tons and up.

Navalised Eurofighter was, I believe never a goer. EF is a great BVR AD aircraft. It's a very poor cat and trap candidate, too weak, not enough range.

Let's get real. Whatever JSF we go for, we're buying into a 4th generation stealth design with avionics at least 5 years on from the F-22. What's not to like?

[Jackonicko]

Grodge,

Just nervous that so many of its domestic customers have expresssed such willingness to scrap it, "if only we could have more F-22/F-14 Quickstrike/F/A-18E/F/F-15E, etc.)"

Is it fatally compromised by being so driven by cost? Is it poorer than a Block 70 F-16C, avionics wise? What will we do if the USMC are persuaded that they don't need the STOVL one? Those are the questions/allegations - where are the answers?

[ORAC]

Grodge,

1. Was? What do you know about the nval versions of the EF that we do not? BAe just offered the choice of 2 different versions to the Italian Navy. Too weak, short range, same question - what do you know of the versions on offer, conformal tanks etc.

2. Assuming the same size air wing, C2 system, SAW, crew size, why is 50Kt so much more expensive than 40Kt? And why do you need 50Kt to operate a modern high thrust CV wing? The CDG fully loaded with a Rafale M wing is 36Kt, smaller than we plan. And the Italian carrier is even smaller and BAe obviously are guaranteeing that the EF can operate from it!!

3. As asked, what is your fallback if the VSTOL version of JSF is cancelled? Why not plan to be able to operate STOVL and/or STOL. It gives you flexibility anyway.

4. At some stage the RAF will need to replace the GR7 part of JF2000. Do you plan on the RAF buying JSF as well as EF and operating a 3 ac type FJ force? I assure this will cost more than the difference between a 40Kt to 50Kt CV!! If not, a CV/STOL version of EF is probably the only way ahead, at least as far as the RAF is concerned. A mixed wing of RN JSF (maybe CV) and RAF EF (M) seems to offer a good mix of capabilities and to reduce procurement/operating costs.

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 28 September 2000).]

[Jackonicko]

RN JSF + EF (M) + FOAS still gives a 3-type UK MoD FJ fleet.

The answer surely has to be either:

JSF (RN + JF2000), JSF based FOAS + EF

OR

EF (M) + EF + FOAS

OR EVEN

EF (M) + EF + EF (FOAS)!

[Jensen]

JN, FCBA is/always was one ac type. Either JSF ("strong contender"), or "feasibility studies" for F/A-18E/F, Rafale M, Harrier 3, or marinated EF.
1st ac delivery: 2010; RN ISD: 2012; RAF ISD: 2015.....

[Jackonicko]

You misunderstand me (my fault)

I just have a problem with the affordability of FCBA + EFA + FOAS. Can FCBA and FOAS be done by one type? Or could EF fulfill one or both of the other requirements?

[Jensen]

If STOVL (or CTOL) JSF ends up being chosen for FCBA, then I suppose the USAF version of JSF could be FOAS. EF could be marinated into FCBA, for sure. But the capability of the ac would be massively compromised. As for EF doing FOAS (though not before 2018-ish), hmmmm. Although the EF airframe has had bits added to improve air-to-ground capability, its in no way designed to be a FOAS-type ac. Some people still talk about conformal tanks, (even Industry concept engineering folks) but the designers who would have do the work ruled out conformal tanks 10 years ago.

[ORAC]

Jacko, I said RAF 3 type FJ fleet. If we get JSF we will have JSF + EF + GR4. Plus we will only have a single 3 sqn wing to fulfill all the RAF tasks plus provide the RAF element of the JF2000 carrier force. I do not see it being very popular! if you want to be able to expand the wings on 2 carriers in a crisis either by upping the airframes or the crew ratio plus continue training, offer roulement etc you need more than a single wing back in the UK.

If the decision is JSF it, as you suggest, begs the question of whether FOAS can logically be anything else.

Still does not answer the questions of why we need VSTOL as opposed to it just being desirable?

[Edmund Blackadder]

Excuse my ignorance but if we all believe that JF2000 is the way ahead thaen why do we need 2 separate services to provide Logs,admin etc? Surely a rationalisation of the force under a single service banner would create a better understanding of methods of operation. Them upstairs would just have to swallow their pride and accept that theirs isn't the only way to run an air force/navy.

Off to shove two pencils up my nose......

[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 28 September 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Edmund Blackadder (edited 28 September 2000).]

[ORAC]

Dear mr Black Adder,

If the only war we are going to fight is at sea, you make a sensible case for amalgamating everything under a dark blue service.

If you think everything will take on land, you make a cogent case for amalgamating everything under a light blue service.

If you believe air power will only be used in the support of the army, you make a sensible case for amalgamating everything under a brown service.

If you believe, in peace time when we do not know when the next threat is coming from, that any one of the three is able or willing to present a totally balanced view....


May I suggest you go stand in the corner and stick two pencils up your nose.

(Lordy, where do they come from, if it was that easy, no one would ever lose a war!!)

[ORAC]

And, just to stir it. In the present climate I presume our carriers will be CVA, not CVN, so add about 1-3 RFA oilers per deployed carrier onto the bill!

[Engines]

Edmund Blackadder

Joint Force Harrier (JFH)is the way ahead. Engineering and logs support is already combining - witness a joint IPT to provide old fashioned Support Authority type engineering advice. Logs comes from the DLO which is getting more tri-service and once fleets are combined at Cott/Wit logs will be common. Admin for a/c and squadrons comes from a joint role office at Strike. Personnel admin is by necessity single service at present but as conditions and terms of service come to-gether then so will the admin. They're on the right track - give them a few years.

[ORAC]

There are, admitedly, a few savings to be made my "jointery". It is NOT however a new panacea which no one has noticed for the last 80 years!

The requirements of the forces are different. To give examples. The RAF has a log/supply system designed/equipped to track ac spares world-wide in case of AOG. It is gold plated as far as the army is concerned.

The RAF pay/allowances system is designed to try and retain pilots. That is where the pool of money goes in flying pay. The RN system is designed to recompense everyone who goes to sea for long periods. That is where their money goes. There is not enough money for both. Change one or the other and one service will suddenly hear screams and have a retention problem. Having one of anything may be perceived as a saving, but economies of scale mean it cannot be optomised and may not meet the military requirement. It also means a possible single point of failure.

The Chinese tried and the Canadians tried to operate one homogeneous service. It did not work. The USA had their flying done for many years by the USAAF and eventually created the USAF. And, going back to first principals, the RAF was formed from the RFC and RNAS for good practical reasons.

[grodge]

Hey, this forum stuff is really good! Where to begin?

Navalised EF - never IMHO a starter for a CV aircraft. Not enough strong airframe bones to take the stresses of carrier life and the ideas BAE were pushing around for recovery and launch profiles were 'edgy' to say the least.

Sizes of carriers? Try these sound bites (and feel free to disagree)

Air is free and steel is cheap but the engines to push 50,000 tons around aren't. There are good physics that tell you how fast costs go up as ship size goes up. So why do the US build 95,000 ton Nimitzes? Because they can afford to. Larger carriers are more COST EFFECTIVE but by crikey they are not CHEAPER.

Joint Force Harrier (new brand name for JF2000): wholly owned by Strike, so now an RAF asset. Headed up by a joint staff. Logs: well, if you go joint, the logs are joint. These days, almost all ops are joint, so if JF goes on land, the logs will be prob be done by normal AT/Land routes. If JF is at sea, there'll be maritime logs involved. Another soundbite: joint means different services working together to achive the aim. Doesn't mean always giving all of one capability to one service. JFH will take a few years to bed down, I think. But it's the way to go (I think).

Jackonicko, the details of JSF performance are still very close hold. However, the price drive is being achieved as much by new technology as much as trading off performance. JSF vs ANY F-16? No contest, and the reason is probably signature, I'd guess.

[ORAC]

"Air is free and steel is cheap but the engines to push 50,000 tons around aren't".

Damn, best tell all the civvies to retire all their supertankers, Bulk Fuel carriers and LPG ships then!! If you decide to go CVN, then the price goes throught the roof - but I was under the impression that, in the present political climate, they are to be conventional.

"These days, almost all ops are joint, so if JF goes on land, the logs will be prob be done by normal AT/Land routes. If JF is at sea, there'll be maritime logs involved"

Ahem, logs for the FI done by the army, shipped by sea. I have a lovely gozzome present made from VV expensive aircraft repair kit.

Ordered as old stock lifed out.
Order into the army.
XXX later stock arrives at docks.
XXX mnoths later stock put on next planned ship to ASI.
XXX months later transhipped to next ship to FI.
Stock arrives as it reaches end of life and is passed on to units to make gozzome presents.
New stock already on order as old stock.....

Jointery is wonderful.

Time does not necessarily rationalise things just because they work together - ask STANAFORLANT.

Now if want standardisation:

New radar head required ASAP in FI to replace one damaged in storm. Decision made to fly it south in Condor (AN124). Panic message back to the UK:
"How do service and turn this thing round?" Reply "Do not worry, it is all NATO standard"

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 30 September 2000).]

[grodge]

Dear Orac:

The engines needed to push a 50,000 ton carrier around at 30kts (if you want cat launches), slow down to sail with the rest of a fleet, accelerate again to cat launch, turn inside 20 miles, or stop quickly are NOTHING like a VLCC or tanker (I've seen 4 cylinder 2 stroke designs - BIG cylinders), that plod away at high efficiency for days on end.

Joint logistics - yes, I've got a fat book of loggie mishaps- we all have - but the fact is that it's the way to go. Fron the JFH standpoint, the sad fact is that while the Air Force are SUPER at air logs, this is because we have assumed RAF bits loaded on to RAF aircraft at RAF bases in the UK to be flown on an RAF AT to an RAF deployed base guarded by RAF Regt with RAF cooks and..... get the picture? The future really is joint, not that it's easier or even, at this stage better. It's just that us taxpayers don't have to go on paying for 3 separate supply systems.

Back to JSF: anyone in the forum taking bets on the STOVL variants actually flying?

[John Farley]

Grodge

Re your last line above

Don't underestimate the USMC - ever.

JF

[ORAC]

Grodge,

Back to concepts. Present CV carriers needed VV quick speeds etc to get up to speed to launch under-powered jets. Now I accept, if you want to make the case for it, that these type of engines are required for these type of jets. But one of the questions I have been asking is why we require VSTOL? If you accept the case we do, we do not need military style engines. You can launch or recover at any speed you like. They have also finally completed the feasibility studies, and have announced the proposed start up of, the high speed trans-atlantic freight service using water jets powered 250,000 tons transports from Europe to the USA at 30 Knots+ normal, not surge, speed. So the engines are there.

The case still stands for separate logs systems. Different needs for different services.

As a personal opinion I would go the opposite direction. Instead of going for a single system we should just have a team/commitee setting information exchange standards and allow every budget holder to buy what he wants. Just, to make a point, like we are talking on the internet. There are PC/UNIX/Mac etc happily exchanging data. There is even a database standard to allow database exchange. Add the crypto... Different organisations/commands are interested in different things. Standardisation puts everything into a strait-jacket.

Look ahead at GCCS/TBMCS/WCCS etc and real-time information exchange and decision making and you realise this about a lot more than a simple supply system. If you want us to have our own GCCS equivalent, I agree, but it is far outside the scope of what we are discussing, has far more profound implications and will be far, far more expensive. The cost would rival that of introducing an aircraft type.

As to JSF STOVL, yes it will fly. The questions is will anyone buy? I have grave suspicions it will get cut in congress once large amounts of money are involved.

All the more reason for being at least CV capable.

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 01 October 2000).]

[grodge]

Thanks ORAC, and thank you John.

My last line was a bit of a wind up. I've had a little exposure to the US system and I really do believe that the USMC will get their advanced STOVL. They are SERIOUS about expeditionary warfare, not just trying to rebadge their existing systems to join in the game (look at the US Army's efforts). The JSF is a real programme and a lot of people in the MOD are, I belive, waking up from dreams - there are two demonstrators for 5th generation stealth, advanced manufacturing, avionics and engines to DIE for flyiing or about to fly. The US are, right now, in front and we have a choice. Stay behind and be good Europeans or get the kit our pilots deserve.

ORAC, the pysics of getting CTOL aircraft on and off carriers have changed less than anyone wouuld like. If you need to get a largish jet (say 50,000 lbs) up to flying speed with a useful load, you need a cat of a certain length. Likewise, to reliably haul it out of the air to a useful stop, you need a set of arrester gear of a certain size.

What you get to is a deck of around CVN size if you want to operate around 50-60 useful jets with a decent surge cycle. Not my prejudice, and I'm really not patronising, but read some of Norman Freidman's books on carrier design. I've been around this game for years and after reading them I realised there was TONS I didn't know.

I believe it was JF who said it's better to stop and land than land and stop. STOVL is the latest UK contribution to maritime aviation; it gets you more 'air' from a smaller carrier.

Comments anyone?

[ORAC]

How have the French managed it with the CDG, 36K tons? (Sunday Times reports today it has finally been accepted/commissioned). It cost £1.8 billion. Look at the budget, £2 billion for both!

I enclose the information below for interest:


Regardless, they are going to be built commercially in the UK. Below is the answer given by one of the major bidders:


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280 - 299)


WEDNESDAY 24 MAY 2000

SIR ROBERT WALMSLEY AND VICE-ADMIRAL SIR JEREMY BLACKHAM

280. I think you have already indicated the answer to the next question but I would like to pursue it just a shade further. Let us suppose on the black downbeat scenario, as it were, that there is a very significant delay after we had selected the JSF: we selected it and after we had committed ourselves to design the carriers appropriately, would it then be the case that if there were a very significant delay of JSF that the carriers would have to be delayed themselves, or would it be in any way practicable to switch to another contender to be an alternative aircraft for the carrier? I suspect the answer is that by this stage it would be too late to switch judging from what you have just said about the way the carriers would have to be designed and tailored to meet the aircraft that we selected.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) I think it would depend on which version you had chosen. If you had chosen a conventional take-off aircraft then it is not impossible to suppose that one might switch. If you had chosen a vertical take-off version there are not many competitors. It is worth remarking that we are making the choice of aircraft manufacturer later this year and we do not have to decide at that point the form of launch, whether it is a vertical one or a conventional one. We do not have to fix the final design of the carrier until we do that, so we have actually got a bit of time to see the aircraft fly, to monitor the progress of the programme.


281. My final question on this is the one I indicated earlier that I would be asking. Would you please tell us a little bit about some of the other aircraft that are in contention for this contract?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) The F18 is well known about and Rafale is the French version which will have some carrier experience before we need to use it. There is thought about a marinised version of Eurofighter which we do not currently have in the programme. That involves changes to the structure of the aircraft. There has been some thought given as to whether an advanced Harrier might be designed. None of these aircraft yet exist in carrier form because we have not selected it.
(Sir Robert Walmsley) The number of aircraft that the Royal Navy would require for carrier operations is relatively small and the loading on to the price of production of those aircraft, any significant development costs, really makes it a very unattractive proposition in terms of value for money.


282. What numbers of aircraft are we talking about?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) Perhaps 60.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) It would probably be slightly more than that because one of the decisions that the SDR made was to replace the Harrier FA2, the naval Harrier, and the Harrier GR7, the RAF model, with the same aircraft, so I would expect the numbers[3] to be a little greater than that. The actual operational fleet combined might not be more than about 60.

Chairman

283. If the MoD selects Thomson-CSF will there be any advantage in going the whole hog and purchasing Rafale to fly off it? Is there any synergy between the French bid and the type of aircraft flying off it?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) I would not have thought so, not unless it is the right aeroplane. We are talking about the design of the ship and that is an independent thing. It could be closely related to the aircraft but I would not have thought in a commercial sense—


284. You gave a very serious answer to what was meant to be a very provocative question.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) One I hope I will not have to answer.

Chairman: The next question I very reluctantly hand to my colleague, Mike Gapes, but I might come in. One from Mr Hancock first.

Mr Hancock

285. I am very interested in what you said, I thought your serious comment was to a serious question from the Chairman.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) I always assume the Chairman asks serious questions.

Chairman: I hope it was not a serious question.

Mr Hancock




286. I thought it was. He does pose the question that you yourself have posed about designing the ship around the aircraft. Are we still on target, or is it the wish of the MoD to go for carriers in excess of 40,000 tonnes which would be capable of taking 30 aircraft or maybe more?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) I know there is a great fascination with the tonnage of a ship which personally I do not share. The key issue is what is the aircraft going to be and what numbers are we going to deploy. The public position, and I have no reason whatsoever to dissent from it, is that we might want to deploy up to 50 aircraft but we would have to fix the number a bit more clearly than that. Once we have decided on the aircraft we will have to build a carrier to accommodate it. Should it be a conventional take-off and landing aircraft we will need arresting gear and catapults and that will cause the ship to be larger and certainly more expensive than if we do not need it. Depending on the size of the aircraft we will have to consider the size of the flight deck and the size of the hangar arrangements. Different sized aircraft require different amounts of space, you have got to build in a gap between them or they all bang into each other. It does not make sense to determine exactly what the size of the carrier will be until we know what the aircraft is.


287. That goes right back to Julian Lewis' point about the type of aircraft delays in getting a decision on the conventional take-off fighter as opposed to the vertical take-off fighter. What is your timescale now?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) For?

288. For making a decision on these carriers?

(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) The carrier will have to be ordered in about 2005. We are expecting to down select the type of aircraft, the make of aircraft, later this year and we will have to consider the actual version system after that. That will still be well before the decision to design and order the carrier.
(Sir Robert Walmsley) I think I would like to just make a point there. It is absolutely true, of course, that these extra equipments have to be accommodated and designed if we choose a conventional take-off and landing aircraft. A carrier is not a complicated ship, it is basically a big box with a big hangar inside it and a flat deck and a sufficient degree of command and control arrangements to enable the ship to communicate, as it has to. It is not going to have lots of other weapons. It is not full of systems like a destroyer that is stuffed full of the most complicated electronics, etc.. When you go on board a carrier it is basically empty, it is just a box. What is complicated is the aeroplane. I do not want to allow us to create an impression in your minds that the construction of the ship is an immense technological achievement. I have got Mr Baghaei sitting behind me who is the leader of the Integrated Project Team, who I asked to come to hear the Committee's enthusiasm for this programme today. He used to be a production director at Kvaerner on the Clyde. He knows about building ships. He is not going to allow himself to get bogged down in some minutiae as to whether or not it is difficult to accommodate. We will do the ship.

I also include the following for background information:

WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Defence on the Major Procurement Projects Survey (10 May 1999)

1. The Committee asked the MoD for separate memoranda on a number of procurement programmes. We were asked to include in each memorandum "a general summary of the equipment and its component parts, the project's history, progress to date and future prospects" and to provide as much as possible of the details required to answer a series of "core questions".


2. Separate memoranda are accordingly being provided to the Committee on:


Future Carriers—CVF

The decision in the Strategic Defence Review to purchase two large aircraft carriers, to replace the three Invincible-class carriers from around 2012, is being taken forward in an Assessment phase. Invitations to tender for Assessment were issued in January, with a view to the award of contracts for the first part of this phase. Analysis of Options, with up to three prime contractors in the autumn. A wide range of design options, to be reviewed alongside the options for the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft, FCBA, see separate memorandum, will be considered.


OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT

1. The Strategic Defence Review concluded that the ability to deploy offensive air power will be central to future force projection operations, and that aircraft carriers can provide valuable flexibility in a range of operational circumstances. They can also offer a coercive presence, which may forestall the need for war fighting. The SDR recognised that there is an increasing likelihood of future operations being conducted by forces far from their home bases. In such operations, host-nation support, including access to suitable air bases, cannot be guaranteed, particularly during an evolving regional crisis or the early stages of a conflict. The SDR concluded that there is a continuing need for Britain to have the capability offered by aircraft carriers. Our three Invincible-class carriers were designed for Cold War anti-submarine operations. The intention, announced in the SDR, is to plan to replace these with a new class of larger and more capable carriers, known as the CVF, Carrier Vessel Future, class.


2. Initial Gate approval, utilising the Smart Procurement model, was given in December 1998 for an Assessment phase. Studies to be undertaken in Assessment will examine the Staff Target and develop it, using cost/capability trade-offs to produce an affordable Staff Requirement. The objective is to build a replacement for the current carriers that has an increased emphasis on offensive air operations and is capable of operating the largest possible range of aircraft in the widest possible range of roles.


TRADE-OFFS

3. Trade-offs between cost/capability and time/capability will be integral to the Assessment work.


NUMBERS

4. The original plan was to replace the three Invincible-class carriers with three 20,000 tonne vessels. Operational analysis demonstrated, however, that it would be more cost-effective to procure two large carriers, each capable of carrying up to about 50 aircraft. The SDR also saw advantage in future carriers being capable of carrying more fixed-wing aircraft than the current vessels, in order to be able to contribute more effectively to the support of operations on land and at sea.


STRATEGIC DEFENCE REVIEW

5. The SDR assessed the requirement for aircraft carriers within the overall requirement for an offensive air capability. We concluded that "there is .

. a continuing need for Britain to have the capability offered by aircraft carriers" and the emphasis for replacement carriers should be on "increased offensive air power, and an ability to operate the largest possible range of aircraft in the widest possible range of roles"—The Strategic Defence Review, Supporting Essays, pages 6-6 to 6-8.


MILITARY CAPABILITY

6. The CVR will deploy offensive air power in support of the full spectrum of future operations, including force projection as a central component of the maritime contribution to joint operations.


EQUIPMENT TO BE REPLACED AND IN -SERVICE DATE

7. The planned out of service dates for HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal are 2010, 2012 and 2015 respectively. The SDR introduced no changes to this programme of withdrawals from service. The first CVF is scheduled to enter operational service in 2012 and the second in 2015. The in-service date of CVF is defined as the "Operational Data Material Assessment", which is the date at which it will be accepted as fit for entry into the operational fleet.


PROCUREMENT APPROACH

8. The CVF procurement strategy is based on competition and prime contractorship, with clear and unambiguous output requirement specifications. Although we intend that the ships should be built in the UK, prospective prime contractors are from the UK, USA and France.


9. In accordance with the Smart Procurement model, the project will follow a two-stage approval process. An invitation to tender for the Assessment phase was issued in January 1999 to six potential prime contractors—BAe Defence Systems, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Marconi Electronic Systems, Raytheon and Thomson-CSF. On completion of tender evaluation, we aim to award up to three parallel contracts in the autumn.

10. The Assessment phase will comprise two main stages. The first, an Analysis of Options, will involve examination of design options to inform the selection decision, due in late 2000/early 2001, on the type and numbers of aircraft to meet the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft, FCBA requirement. At the end of this stage, two of the three potential prime contractors will be selected to proceed to the second stage. This will involve detailed work to determine the carriers' design parameters and to reduce technological risk, informed by the choice of FCBA. It will culminate at the Main Gate approval decision, planned for 2003, to down-select to one preferred prime contractor to proceed to Demonstration and Manufacture of two carriers. The Demonstration phase will begin with the design of a virtual prototype by the selected prime contractor, using computer-aided technology. The intention is to achieve, so far as possible, a freeze on a mature design before construction begins.


ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT OPTIONS

11. During Assessment, a wide range of carrier and aircraft options, including conventional take-off and landing, short take off and vertical landing, and short take off but arrested recovery, will be considered. As part of this work, and following normal practice, the cost of life-extending the three existing carriers, by 10 years, will be assessed to provide a baseline against which all the options can be evaluated.


COLLABORATION

12. It is too early to be specific about the prospects for collaboration. Some informal discussions have taken place with the US, Spanish, French and Italian navys to identify any common ground in carrier replacement programmes or requirements. At present, whole ship collaboration would appear unlikely to be a viable option, but collaborative opportunities will be reviewed during Assessment, especially for equipment and systems.


EXPORT POTENTIAL

13. It is unlikely that this project will lead directly to whole-ship sales, although the commercial marketing of CVF design skills and production technology could benefit UK industry. Much of the ship's equipment could have export potential. Industrial Participation proposals will be invited, as appropriate, for offshore content of the proposed solution.


INDUSTRIAL FACTORS

14. In accordance with government policy for the construction of warships, the CVF will be built in a UK shipyard. Industrial factors will be taken into account in the selection of a contractor.


SMART PROCUREMENT

15. The CVF programme will adopt Smart Procurement techniques. An integrated project team will manage the project. A competition is being held to recruit a leader with appropriate skills. In accordance with Smart Procurement, what would previously have been Feasibility and Project Definition stages have been combined into a single Assessment phase, with increased investment at this stage to achieve early risk reduction. Potential prime contractors are being currently encouraged to be innovative throughout the project.


ACQUISITION PHASES

16. So far only a number of small-scale feasibility studies have been completed. Subsequent acquisition phases were described at paragraph 10. A risk register will be maintained throughout the life of the project as the core of an integrated risk management system. It will contain both MoD and contractor inputs from the Analysis of Options studies undertaken by industry. Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appraisal that will support the Main Gate submission to proceed with Demonstration and Manufacture.


MILESTONES AND COSTS

17. CVF milestones, as currently planned, are shown in the table below.
Staff Target endorsement and
Initial Gate approval December 1998
Issue ITT January 1999
Start Assessment autumn 1999
FCBA downselection late 2000/early 2001
Staff Requirement endorsement and Main Gate approval late 2003
Order date late 2004
Contract acceptance date 2011
ISDs 2012 and 2015

18. We envisage a total acquisition cost for the two carriers of around £2 billion, including combat system and initial support costs, but excluding the aircraft. The peak years of expenditure are likely to be between 2008 and 2012. Costs incurred so far, including pre-feasibility studies, total just over £2 million.


IN -SERVICE SUPPORT

19. We plan to let a design/build/support-through-life contract. Collaborative support arrangements are unlikely.

20. Manning levels will be based on work by human factors designers, to achieve a balance between automated and manual tasks and by training needs analysis, in accordance with the RN training equipment strategy. The size of ship's complement is planned to be about the same as for the Invincible class. Contractors will be tasked to propose the most efficient manning strategies for their designs, which will be examined during Assessment.


21. All logistic support will be considered as a direct cost to the project, with an emphasis on avoiding expenditure on new infrastructure. The maintenance management system will be required to integrate with other MoD logistic systems and to take account of emerging developments in IT. Innovative support solutions will be examined, using integrated logistic support methodology to minimise costs throughout the ship's life.


22. Contractor Logistic Support, CLS, will be examined for some or all of the maintenance and logistics. The benefits of CLS include a strong focus on reliability for initial designs; better standards of availability, reliability and maintenance; and an incentive to the contractor to design and build systems that minimise support costs. One option to be considered is the adoption of best practice in supply chain techniques, to minimise MoD ownership of spares, by contracting for agreed spares availability from industry. CLS options for up to 30 years will be examined during Assessment.


23. The upkeep cycle of the CVF will reflect the vessels' modern design, and developments in upkeep practice such as "reliability centred maintenance" rather than lengthy and expensive refits. This will enable availability requirements to be met by only two carriers.


FRONT LINE NUMBERS

24. Both CVF will be assigned to the front line.


INTEROPERABILITY

25. The aim is to maximise the interoperability of the CVF with the greatest possible range of UK and allied aircraft and with other carriers, to the extent that this can be achieved cost-effectively. The choice of aircraft as FCBA will be a major factor: a decision to procure JSF would enhance interoperability with the US, whereas a decision to procure a marinised Eurofighter would enhance interoperability with other NATO allies. The issue will be explored further during Assessment.


DISPOSAL OF EQUIPMENT REPLACED

26. Prospects for the sale of the Invincible class to other nations will be explored in due course.


IN -SERVICE LIFE

27. Each CVF is planned to have an in-service life of 30 years.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

28. The CVF programme is closely linked with the FCBA and Future Organic Airborne Early Warning programmes.
----------------------------------------

So,

1. the decision on the aircraft this year or next (read after the election). Followed by the decision of the size, weight etc of the new carriers up to 2-4 years later after design approval. (After the next, next election??)

2. I find there comment about the carriers just being "a box" intriguing, particularily when you look at the budget. When you tie it to the commercial tendering, minimising spares, spares from industry etc you can see why I start to look at the civilian solutions....not the pointed reference to no requirment for a weapon system and the C2 limited to communications. This is to be no JFACC Afloat/JFMHQ. It appears to be more a couple of extra HMS Oceans.

3. Note the comment about the number of aircraft to replace both the SHAR and GR7 being "about" 60 to replace all 3 GR7 squadrons, the OCU and the complete FAA SHAR fleet.


[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 01 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 01 October 2000).]

[Jackonicko]

STOBAR seems to do exactly the same - get's more 'Air' from a given length of carrier deck, allowing Su-33s and MiG-29s to operate in numbers from very small ships.

Gorshkov, for instance, will be able to take 30 MiG-29s, and to operate waves of 12 of the bleedin' things. And it's a minnow of a ship, at 44,000 tonnes and 932 ft long - smaller than Ark Royal!

[grodge]

Orac, Jackonico:

First, STOBAR. Let's actually see what the Gorshkov can do. The US did plenty of STOBAR related work in the 70s and 80s and came to the conclusion that ramp launches of CTOL aircraft (even using a short catapult as well on the flat bits) gave useful improvements at low weights but ran out of go at mission weights. STOBAR gives you the worst of both worlds: you lose lots of deck to the takeoff run and still need the space to get the things back on.

Orac, I confess that when Walmesley starts saying that 'carriers are basically a big box', my heart sinks. They can get VERY complicated. and are regarded as a severe test of design competence. The UK hasn't designed and built a large carrier since the 40s. There's risk here. That said, we can get a lot from the civilian sector, but that should not be a surprise: the most successful UK carriers ever were the Light Fleets (Melbourne, 25th May, etc.) that were built to commercial standards.

As for CDG and the French: I belive that they'll run into the same size trap the US avoided. Let's see what their launch rate from the thing is.

Ain't this fun? Now, who's for a bet on STOVL first flight dates? My shots: March 01 for Boeing, Sept 01 for Lockheed.

[S Potter Esq]

OK, time to bring you chaps back to reality.

CdG cost approx. GBP1.9bn, for a country which has been operating similarly-sized, indigenous carriers since the 1960's. The RN hasn't operated 'real' CV's since the 1970's and hasn't built any since the 1950's. Does anyone believe we can build TWO similar ships for only GBP2bn?

{BTW, arguing that CdG is more expensive 'cos it's a nuke is a non-starter -the reactors were already developed for the French SSBN programme and think of the fuel savings.}

Factor in the additional costs of FCBA and FOAEW, add a considerable amount for delays, cost overruns etc. Factor in the running costs in fuel, spares, crew, escorts, RFA's, etc.

A firm commitment to CVF is easy for this government to make because no real money will have to be spent on the project until 2005 or so and, incidentally, the promise of CVF made the otherwise swingeing cuts of SDR palatable.

However, come 2005 and the decision whether or not to proceed with CVF (and FCBA, FOAEW, supporting escorts & RFA's), which by then will be having a serious impact on future budgetary planning, and, well, I think you get the picture...

Oh well, maybe then the UK will come to a realistic appraisal about its place in the world (but then again, such things haven't shattered our delusuions of grandeur in the last 50 years or so).

[John Farley]

I have to agree with Grodge re STOBAR. For a take off you need upwards velocity (either from lift or a ramp) and control.

With a high thrust to weight (.9 or more) the distance needed to accelerate to a speed where a 15 deg ramp will really work and provide loads of upward velocity (and hence time in the sky so that you can continue to accelerate to flying speed before gravity brings you back down close to the sea again) is quite modest – 80 kts say – but control of attitude after leaving the ramp at that speed is a problem.

Control at low speed comes free with a vertical lander but a conventional design may not have enough to be able to use a significant ramp effect. It happens that the Su-27 and MiG-29 families are unusually controllable at high alphas and low speeds so they can use STOBAR to a degree. But that ability is not a given with all designs.

JF


[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 02 October 2000).]

[grodge]

Can we get the carriers built for the currently quoted prices? Well, let's say it's a severe challenge. That said, if we want to do it (and this lot say they do) the money will come. By the way, with EF at around 15bn pounds so far, the carriers don't look so bad.

The best way to get the carriers is to aim at what we can achieve. They WILL get cut back in size (all our carriers have) and a 35,000 tonner would make a good STOVL ship but a rotten CTOL design.

John Farley, thank you for your comments, glad to talk on email if you wish. Thoroughly agree that STOBAR looks good if you don't worry about control and also if you don't want to carry very much. Most estimates I have heard of EF STOBAR performance seem to assume a 'flying display' configuration. Add a few bombs and those T/W ratios drop away quickly.

Come on then: bets on STOVL JSF first flights? Boeing next March, LM around Sept 01 I reckon.

------------------