CVF - News update
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVF - News update
Click Here. To view the complete document.
As i'm sure WEBF and Navaleye would testify this guy has his finger pretty much on all aspects of the RN. I know all you PPruners out there probably think that this is not the place for dicussing the RN Surface fleet but since these ships are seen as 'Joint Force Platforms' I think that a couple of points are worthy of discussion here.
This man is obviously trying to get the Government to sign the contract before he retires. Quite understandable considering he lost his ship to air attack during the Falklands campaign. But who will be his successor? And will they be as pro-carrier?
...Now if this is the case then how will this affect JFH? Will FOAS become an extension of JCA? Will the E2's become part of a joint AEW Force with the RAF's AWAC's fleet. Would there then be any commonality of equipment and/or training and working doctrine within these seperate communities?
As i'm sure WEBF and Navaleye would testify this guy has his finger pretty much on all aspects of the RN. I know all you PPruners out there probably think that this is not the place for dicussing the RN Surface fleet but since these ships are seen as 'Joint Force Platforms' I think that a couple of points are worthy of discussion here.
Even the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, seems to be losing patience with the ever lengthening delays, he is quoted in a recent interview with International Fleet Review magazine as saying: “The key ... is to get the the order for the new carriers in place. We need to order the carriers and start cutting steel. There have been statements from Ministers to the effect hat they will be ordered and it is Government policy to build them. Even so we have still not got there. ... There is is no doubt that we have taken some hits on the current fleet in order to enable that to happen. The structure we are creating which includes cuts in the short term. does not make sense without the new carriers." If he's saying that in public, there can be little doubt of the battles being fought by the Royal Navy within the portals of the MOD to finally get CVF funded and approved.
There are also persistent reports that the MOD is seriously considering completing the new carriers in a conventional (CTOL) configuration with catapults and arresting gear, carrying E-2 Hawkeye's and F-35C JSF's. The additional costs for the carrier platform would be met by savings realised by switching from the F-35B to the F-35C, unfortunately its unclear exactly what these savings would be!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great news..... as soon as the steel gets cut we can truly celebrate.
Not true matey...this is exactly the place to talk about Surface ships.... If the Crabs can discuss their airfields then we can discuss ours.....just coz ours isn't in the same position it was when you left it doesn't make us second class.
I know all you PPruners out there probably think that this is not the place for dicussing the RN Surface fleet
The interest in the F-35C is understandable. Even with panic weight reduction measures in place, the F-35B cannot recover vertically, sea level, tropical day, with more than two 1,000 pound JDAMS and two AMRAAMs. That's the Key Performance Parameter and it is barely squeaking through as it is. So forget carrying Storm Shadow.
The F-35C also has much better range than the F-35B, since it has a honking big fuel tank where the F-35B keeps its lift fan.
Going cat/arrest also solves the AEW problem, since the USN is paying for Advanced Hawkeye.
The F-35C also has much better range than the F-35B, since it has a honking big fuel tank where the F-35B keeps its lift fan.
Going cat/arrest also solves the AEW problem, since the USN is paying for Advanced Hawkeye.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
just coz ours isn't in the same position it was when you left it doesn't make us second class
You'd have thought that Trust-Me would have worked out that CVF was just the platform for his come-as-you-are expeditionary warfare.
Last edited by airborne_artist; 28th Feb 2005 at 15:53.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, seems to be losing patience with the ever lengthening delays
Vapour.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
One of the advantages given for STOVL was the ease of conversion for RAF pilots to operate from the CVF and the limited currency training needed. The CTOL version will need a longer training period and very regular currency training. I am not sure it would even be possible taking into account the periods where either the CVF or RAF squadrons would not be within range due to detatchments/deployment.
It would raise the issue of the viability of the whole JFH concept.
It would raise the issue of the viability of the whole JFH concept.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I'm ex-light blue with much contact with the dark blue throughout my career of nearly 40 years. I suggest this is the place to put our differences aside when discussing such serious topics as the future effectiveness of our Armed Forces - attitudes such as those displayed by the likes of Sharkey Ward belong in the dark ages.
Like it or not, jointery is here to stay, the way of working in the future. And rightly so.
So can we keep inter-Service rivalry/banter to the more light-hearted topics?
Like it or not, jointery is here to stay, the way of working in the future. And rightly so.
So can we keep inter-Service rivalry/banter to the more light-hearted topics?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never understood the reason for going for the B version anyway, the C version offers so much more, if we are building a carrier capable of operating CTOL aircraft why settle for anything less?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't one great advantage of STOVL over CTOL be lost, that of recovery in near-zero viz? I'm reminded of a passage in the aforementioned Sharkey Ward's book in the Falklands. And I recall he had some nice things to say about the crabs he flew with.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref the E-2C argument,
It would be great to see CVF toting a decent airborne C2 platform such as Hawkeye 2000 or an Osprey variant.
By the time CVF will realistically come into service, the RAF E-3D fleet should (hopefully!) have been subject to a mid life upgrade (Project EAGLE). This should replace it's archaic 1970's computer systems with a modern Battle Management system. Accordingly, it may be able to dovetail some elements of mission systems to obtain commonality with MASC.
Even allowing for improvements offered by the Hawkeye 2000 however, the E-2 is more complimentary to AWACS than an interchangeable asset. This is due to it's small crew, limited radio fit, ceiling and endurance. It also has several other limitations. AAR could possibly cure the endurance issue, but the others are difficult to address. That said, it's still a very useful bit of kit and the ac that the RN should aspire to (if only because it'll cause the CVF design to be frozen at a useful deck size!).
Regrettably however, I would be very surprised if MASC turns out to be anything more than a Merlin with an updated ASaC7 system inside (hopefully including a missionised co-pilot position). This would overcome some of the limitations of the current Sea King, but a rotary wing MASC would be of questionable use when one considers how CVF is hoped to be employed. Certainly, the 849 guys that I've spoken to have all accepted that there is just not the cash for a fixed wing or Osprey based platform. The E-2 is still a very costly asset, and any system integration in Osprey would mean paying for the platform to be pressurised and have all the systems integration.
We can but hope however...
Regards,
M2
It would be great to see CVF toting a decent airborne C2 platform such as Hawkeye 2000 or an Osprey variant.
By the time CVF will realistically come into service, the RAF E-3D fleet should (hopefully!) have been subject to a mid life upgrade (Project EAGLE). This should replace it's archaic 1970's computer systems with a modern Battle Management system. Accordingly, it may be able to dovetail some elements of mission systems to obtain commonality with MASC.
Even allowing for improvements offered by the Hawkeye 2000 however, the E-2 is more complimentary to AWACS than an interchangeable asset. This is due to it's small crew, limited radio fit, ceiling and endurance. It also has several other limitations. AAR could possibly cure the endurance issue, but the others are difficult to address. That said, it's still a very useful bit of kit and the ac that the RN should aspire to (if only because it'll cause the CVF design to be frozen at a useful deck size!).
Regrettably however, I would be very surprised if MASC turns out to be anything more than a Merlin with an updated ASaC7 system inside (hopefully including a missionised co-pilot position). This would overcome some of the limitations of the current Sea King, but a rotary wing MASC would be of questionable use when one considers how CVF is hoped to be employed. Certainly, the 849 guys that I've spoken to have all accepted that there is just not the cash for a fixed wing or Osprey based platform. The E-2 is still a very costly asset, and any system integration in Osprey would mean paying for the platform to be pressurised and have all the systems integration.
We can but hope however...
Regards,
M2
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
For the carriers to be cancelled after losing so many vessels would be a disaster for the Navy.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So could this be the future shape of the Fleet Air Arm?...Boat + Plane = 
For the Tech spec check out the file c130fp.zip at the bottom of the page.
For the Tech spec check out the file c130fp.zip at the bottom of the page.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC27,
That may be an option; by 2015ish UAV technology will be more mature. There was even a plan to place 2 phased arrays on the outboard pylons of a SHAR to provide AEW!! I bet that would have been about as popular with the SHAR boys as AAR is with the Super Hornet dudes!!
However, the big issue with UAVs is bandwidth and the risk of losing connectivity. At least when you have guys on board, they can go autonomous. From that respect alone, I suspect that 849 would rather keep a rotary platform rather than go for the unmanned (personed?) option.
Regards,
M2
That may be an option; by 2015ish UAV technology will be more mature. There was even a plan to place 2 phased arrays on the outboard pylons of a SHAR to provide AEW!! I bet that would have been about as popular with the SHAR boys as AAR is with the Super Hornet dudes!!
However, the big issue with UAVs is bandwidth and the risk of losing connectivity. At least when you have guys on board, they can go autonomous. From that respect alone, I suspect that 849 would rather keep a rotary platform rather than go for the unmanned (personed?) option.
Regards,
M2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken from Richard Beedal's excellent website...
Therefore there is no savings in the unit cost of the CATOBAR Variant of JSF (Apart from maybe the simplification of the airframe due to the lack of fan). And the cost of CVF can only go up with the added cat and trap equipt. Therefore where are these spends going to be clawed back? Commonality of Airframe and support of JCA and FOAS would be a good start. The RAF opting for the 'A' variant would certainly go a long way to streamlining support and training. but over the lifespan of CVF/JSF would the figures even out. Another option would to be to pull out of JCA altogether. The only viable alternatives being Rafale (Unit Cost $70 Million) or more attractively F/18 Super Hornet (Unit cost $48 Million) and if the UK were to go down the E2C route then surely the Hornet would be a far more attractive proposition (Especially to the Bean Counters)
Al
FJJP - Nicely put down before it started (i\'m getting a bit fed up with it myself) But BTW, Sharkey\'s problems were not with his fellow light blue pilots (in the main) but were with the RAF Hierarchy treating him like sh1t on various occasions. (i\'ve read the book 3 times - absolutely fascinating! - I know i\'m a sad g1t )
In practice its unlikely that the F-35 target unit costs will be fully met, for example the GAO estimates they will be exceeded by 47-51%, depending on the variant. The CBO believes that the likely unit procurement costs are $65 million for the CTOL version and about $77 million for the other two.
Al
Guys, I\'m ex-light blue with much contact with the dark blue throughout my career of nearly 40 years. I suggest this is the place to put our differences aside when discussing such serious topics as the future effectiveness of our Armed Forces - attitudes such as those displayed by the likes of Sharkey Ward belong in the dark ages
Another very interesting article by Richard Beedall, which I orginally posted on the Sea Jet thread - MASC.
If the main options are Merlin, Osprey or Hawkeye, and cost rules out the the non helicopter options, then why not consider using a larger helicopter - say a Chinook. I think I'm correct in saying that it has a higher service ceiling than Merlin (even with stub wings), hence a greater radar range, and more room for equipment and crew.
Or am I just being dumb?
If the main options are Merlin, Osprey or Hawkeye, and cost rules out the the non helicopter options, then why not consider using a larger helicopter - say a Chinook. I think I'm correct in saying that it has a higher service ceiling than Merlin (even with stub wings), hence a greater radar range, and more room for equipment and crew.
Or am I just being dumb?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Admiral Sir Alan West: ....There is no doubt that I would like all helicopters marinised, but that costs money, and I do not think we could afford that. For example, things like Chinooks, to go for something like a rotor fold and for us to be the only people in the world doing it, I think, is too great a risk. We cannot afford to take risks like that.