CVF - News update
WEBF...give it up. We've lost it, now lets move forward.
Let's put this Ocean theory to bed as well. getting Ocean to do a CVF role is akin to fitting AMRAAM to the Jaguar to make it conduct Air Defence, yes you could do it, but frankly it would be ridiculous.
If you compare Ocean to CVS (not CVF) there are some key differences.
OCEAN
Ocean cannot achieve the speeds required to get heavily laden FJ off the deck, particularly in light winds/heavy seas.
Ocean is designed to transport troops and their equipment to theatre and get them ashore by landing craft/helicopter.
CVS
CVS is designed to transport aircraft where they are needed and operate them. To conduct this task the CVS has better accomodation, briefing facilities, better recovery aids, better engineering facilities, better hangerage, the ability to produce lots of demin water, the ability to produce GOX, the ability to supply lots of bombs, missiles and bullets, the ability to supply and repair SE, the ability to process intelligence material, the ability to support mission planning systems, the ability to provide briefing facilities, the ability to provide fighter control (ship borne or airbornes) and much much more.
CVF
In comparison with CVF, there is no argument.
The ability to put combat aircraft, or support helicopters, into the air over international waters or inland during operations without support from a host natio
A potential 50 year service life
The carrier will support 42 Joint Combat Aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 Joint Combat Aircraft sorties per 24-hour period
The MASC airborne early warning aircraft is an airborne early warning aircraft to succeed the Sea King AEW helicopter. AEW variants of the EH101 helicopter and the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey are being considered for the MASC requirement (V22 or even Hawkeye will solve the distance issue)
The hangar deck, 155m x 33.5m x 6.7m to 10m high, accommodates up to 20 fixed and rotary wing aircraft. (which will also accomodate Chinook without removing the blades. CVS and OCEAN's lifts are too small)
Plus all the other benefits that presently come with CVS and more.
The RN have always been aware that a lot of their role is in support of the Army in particular and have always been the most "purple" of the three services. A good example is why all frigates and destroyers still have a 4.5 inch gun...to support troops on the ground. Most of the RN's large ships are there to support and transport the Army and Marines. You could argue that CVF and JCA has the same role as well...and so it should be. Air Power has never won a war..only battles..only troops on the gound can win wars. The strike capability that will be brought by both GR7A/9 in the near future and JCA next decade, will give the UK the ability to project power( often in support of troops on the ground) like never before. The advantage of JCA is that it will also restore the ability to defend those platforms from hostile Air attack.
Without CVF we had all better go and get other jobs. Not just those in the RN but Army and RAF too. Without CVF and i'ts escorts we will not have the ability to transport troops anywhere in the world in LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. No Army means no need for those Tankers, Transports, etc.
So we will revert to our Island and defend it against the enemy. See you boys in light blue have a future after all!
Let's put this Ocean theory to bed as well. getting Ocean to do a CVF role is akin to fitting AMRAAM to the Jaguar to make it conduct Air Defence, yes you could do it, but frankly it would be ridiculous.
If you compare Ocean to CVS (not CVF) there are some key differences.
OCEAN
Ocean cannot achieve the speeds required to get heavily laden FJ off the deck, particularly in light winds/heavy seas.
Ocean is designed to transport troops and their equipment to theatre and get them ashore by landing craft/helicopter.
CVS
CVS is designed to transport aircraft where they are needed and operate them. To conduct this task the CVS has better accomodation, briefing facilities, better recovery aids, better engineering facilities, better hangerage, the ability to produce lots of demin water, the ability to produce GOX, the ability to supply lots of bombs, missiles and bullets, the ability to supply and repair SE, the ability to process intelligence material, the ability to support mission planning systems, the ability to provide briefing facilities, the ability to provide fighter control (ship borne or airbornes) and much much more.
CVF
In comparison with CVF, there is no argument.
The ability to put combat aircraft, or support helicopters, into the air over international waters or inland during operations without support from a host natio
A potential 50 year service life
The carrier will support 42 Joint Combat Aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 Joint Combat Aircraft sorties per 24-hour period
The MASC airborne early warning aircraft is an airborne early warning aircraft to succeed the Sea King AEW helicopter. AEW variants of the EH101 helicopter and the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey are being considered for the MASC requirement (V22 or even Hawkeye will solve the distance issue)
The hangar deck, 155m x 33.5m x 6.7m to 10m high, accommodates up to 20 fixed and rotary wing aircraft. (which will also accomodate Chinook without removing the blades. CVS and OCEAN's lifts are too small)
Plus all the other benefits that presently come with CVS and more.
The RN have always been aware that a lot of their role is in support of the Army in particular and have always been the most "purple" of the three services. A good example is why all frigates and destroyers still have a 4.5 inch gun...to support troops on the ground. Most of the RN's large ships are there to support and transport the Army and Marines. You could argue that CVF and JCA has the same role as well...and so it should be. Air Power has never won a war..only battles..only troops on the gound can win wars. The strike capability that will be brought by both GR7A/9 in the near future and JCA next decade, will give the UK the ability to project power( often in support of troops on the ground) like never before. The advantage of JCA is that it will also restore the ability to defend those platforms from hostile Air attack.
Without CVF we had all better go and get other jobs. Not just those in the RN but Army and RAF too. Without CVF and i'ts escorts we will not have the ability to transport troops anywhere in the world in LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. No Army means no need for those Tankers, Transports, etc.
So we will revert to our Island and defend it against the enemy. See you boys in light blue have a future after all!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking ****e......
Hmm, an awful lot of bollox being spouted here. Lets just see what December brings from MinDP shall we. Perhaps he'll have something rosy in his sack from Santa Gordon. Hopefully at the expense of something f*$king useless like Tranche 342 of Typhooey. Sorry, the RAFs premiere AD fighter/fighter-bomber/multi-role thingy (delete as aplicable depending on the argument). Mind you at least its got a decent radar (nicked from the SHAR).
"Remember, everything has a pk of one if it hits you...."
"Remember, everything has a pk of one if it hits you...."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sunday Times:
A plan to build two giant aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is in disarray amid repeated delays to the signing of the production contract and doubts over what aircraft will be available to fly from them.
The delivery date of the first of the carriers will now be pushed back four years to at least 2016. The overall cost is predicted to climb from Ł2.8 billion to as much as Ł4.2 billion.
Further complications have been caused by fears in America that the country’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, which it is proposed the carriers should deploy, may be scrapped. With Britain’s existing carriers, Ark Royal and Illustrious, due to be decommissioned by 2013, the navy faces keeping them in service or enduring a gap of three years with no replacements.
Janes Defence Industry: UK MoD distances itself from CVF in-service date
Hansard - Minutes of evidence 25th Oct
Hansard - Minutes of Evidence 18th Oct
Worrying comments on the 18th reference the stealth of the UK JCA, namely we will not be getting the same aircraft as the USA. Cdre Henley stonewalls for a while, but has no real response to Mr Jones remarks as to his briefing in Washington by Lockheed.
A plan to build two giant aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is in disarray amid repeated delays to the signing of the production contract and doubts over what aircraft will be available to fly from them.
The delivery date of the first of the carriers will now be pushed back four years to at least 2016. The overall cost is predicted to climb from Ł2.8 billion to as much as Ł4.2 billion.
Further complications have been caused by fears in America that the country’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, which it is proposed the carriers should deploy, may be scrapped. With Britain’s existing carriers, Ark Royal and Illustrious, due to be decommissioned by 2013, the navy faces keeping them in service or enduring a gap of three years with no replacements.
Janes Defence Industry: UK MoD distances itself from CVF in-service date
Hansard - Minutes of evidence 25th Oct
Hansard - Minutes of Evidence 18th Oct
Worrying comments on the 18th reference the stealth of the UK JCA, namely we will not be getting the same aircraft as the USA. Cdre Henley stonewalls for a while, but has no real response to Mr Jones remarks as to his briefing in Washington by Lockheed.
Last edited by ORAC; 27th Nov 2005 at 06:50.
Henley and Burbage were both pulling a lot of g trying to evade that question. One clue is that Burbage's comment about "codings" should almost certainly read "coatings". In fact there are three layers, as it were, to reduced radar cross section - shaping (which everyone accepts is the same for all versions, no news there) edge construction (leading and trailing edges and inlet lips) and surface treatments.
It's pretty clear from this evidence that the non-UK export model will be different from the US model. What's not clear is whether the US and UK models will be the same in terms of edges and coatings: the aircraft that rolls off the line may be identical, but it may not be the same once it is painted or if it gets some new edges added.
The "meet the same requirement" line is also subject to interpretation. It's entirely possible that the UK aircraft meets the requirement but that the US aircraft (or some of the US aircraft) exceeds it.
It's pretty clear from this evidence that the non-UK export model will be different from the US model. What's not clear is whether the US and UK models will be the same in terms of edges and coatings: the aircraft that rolls off the line may be identical, but it may not be the same once it is painted or if it gets some new edges added.
The "meet the same requirement" line is also subject to interpretation. It's entirely possible that the UK aircraft meets the requirement but that the US aircraft (or some of the US aircraft) exceeds it.
No external ASRAAM carriage. Lock before launch will be fun.....
No internal Storm Shadow - the UK's primary 'Day One' stand off weapon.
No Paveway III - a 2,000-lb weapon when Cdre Henley says: "The requirement for the UK, if I could just clarify is actually one 1,000 lb bomb either side. The original requirement for the UK was just that. There was never a requirement for the UK aircraft (and the requirement document laid it out) that we would have a 1,000 lb weapon either side so we could carry two 1,000 lb bombs. At one stage in the programme we believed that we had enough spare capacity in the STOVL aircraft to move towards a common weapons bay with the other variants, which has a 2,000 lb capacity weapon bay. That is not the same as saying you can fit two 1,000 lb bombs. It means you can fit a single 2,000 lb class weapon. The UK does not have any 2,000 lb class weapons in its inventory, which is why a 1,000 lb class weapon was being deemed suitable."
And an overweight, under-stealthy jet whose programme unit cost (according to the US GAO) has already reached $100 m. The equivalent Typhoon cost is similar - at c.Ł61 m (for the 232 jets on order, additional aircraft would come in at a unit cost of c. Ł42 m).
And a programme which the US GAO wants to delay (to de-risk) because key production decisions are presently scheduled to be taken long before supporting R&D, test and demonstration work has been completed.
Great.....
No internal Storm Shadow - the UK's primary 'Day One' stand off weapon.
No Paveway III - a 2,000-lb weapon when Cdre Henley says: "The requirement for the UK, if I could just clarify is actually one 1,000 lb bomb either side. The original requirement for the UK was just that. There was never a requirement for the UK aircraft (and the requirement document laid it out) that we would have a 1,000 lb weapon either side so we could carry two 1,000 lb bombs. At one stage in the programme we believed that we had enough spare capacity in the STOVL aircraft to move towards a common weapons bay with the other variants, which has a 2,000 lb capacity weapon bay. That is not the same as saying you can fit two 1,000 lb bombs. It means you can fit a single 2,000 lb class weapon. The UK does not have any 2,000 lb class weapons in its inventory, which is why a 1,000 lb class weapon was being deemed suitable."
And an overweight, under-stealthy jet whose programme unit cost (according to the US GAO) has already reached $100 m. The equivalent Typhoon cost is similar - at c.Ł61 m (for the 232 jets on order, additional aircraft would come in at a unit cost of c. Ł42 m).
And a programme which the US GAO wants to delay (to de-risk) because key production decisions are presently scheduled to be taken long before supporting R&D, test and demonstration work has been completed.
Great.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if it's worth staying in this partnership with the yanks?
1/ Were not getting the full spec A/C, If that is the case then shouldn't the MoD be negotiating a comesurate unit price for them?
2/ Do we really need stealth? Last time I looked, some canadian Scientist had managed to trump it? Why not build F18 under licence?
3/ If the UK are getting into bed with the frogs WRT CVF then not do a deal with them to supply Aircraft? Design spec's for hardware say?
4/ the UK builds some of the best avionic systems in the world (Captor & Blue Vixen springs to mind) Why not buy F35 Airframe only and design in home made systems.
or....
5/ Dust off the Buccaneer design drawings, Reproduce the Jigs, Design in new avionics and engines,and were technically feasible use Carbon fibre. Once in service launch it from one of the new carriers and fly it at low level over the White House, whilst dropping stink bombs.
(well I can dream can't I?)
Yours Jingoistically
Al
1/ Were not getting the full spec A/C, If that is the case then shouldn't the MoD be negotiating a comesurate unit price for them?
2/ Do we really need stealth? Last time I looked, some canadian Scientist had managed to trump it? Why not build F18 under licence?
3/ If the UK are getting into bed with the frogs WRT CVF then not do a deal with them to supply Aircraft? Design spec's for hardware say?
4/ the UK builds some of the best avionic systems in the world (Captor & Blue Vixen springs to mind) Why not buy F35 Airframe only and design in home made systems.
or....
5/ Dust off the Buccaneer design drawings, Reproduce the Jigs, Design in new avionics and engines,and were technically feasible use Carbon fibre. Once in service launch it from one of the new carriers and fly it at low level over the White House, whilst dropping stink bombs.
(well I can dream can't I?)Yours Jingoistically
Al
As I interpreted the replies there is no difference in the UK and US variants re stealth. Nobody was hiding anything. The committee was chasing a non-story and they failed to recognise the frank and honest replies for what they were. I find it quite worrying that the cynical attitude of the questioners prevents them from recognising a truthful answer when they hear it. They come across as cynical fools to me, infact more like ignorant story hungry journos than a defence committee. Is it just me?
How hard do you think Blair and Co argue the UK's corner when it comes to things like technology transfer?
And now from Janes: Threat to UK Naval Industrial Base.
And now from Janes: Threat to UK Naval Industrial Base.
Jacko,
No EXTERNAL Storm Shadow either, if you want to recover it in VL.
JZF90: The committee was after a straight up-or-down answer - are the UK and US versions identical in terms of Stealth or not? "I'm not aware of any differences" doesn't count. It means "I'n not accessed into the LO configuration of the US aircraft."
No EXTERNAL Storm Shadow either, if you want to recover it in VL.
JZF90: The committee was after a straight up-or-down answer - are the UK and US versions identical in terms of Stealth or not? "I'm not aware of any differences" doesn't count. It means "I'n not accessed into the LO configuration of the US aircraft."
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East East Anglia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right
Widger,
Your Jaguar/AMRAAM comments are quite right - it would be ridiculous to give anything more potent when we are consistently clubbing F3s with the mighty 9L!
Ducks head below sandbags and awaits banter from anyone not on 25 Sqn (the worst fighter sqn in the world).
Your Jaguar/AMRAAM comments are quite right - it would be ridiculous to give anything more potent when we are consistently clubbing F3s with the mighty 9L!
Ducks head below sandbags and awaits banter from anyone not on 25 Sqn (the worst fighter sqn in the world).
LO - not sure I agree that "I'm not aware of any differences" doesn't count.
If you believe this then what you are in effect saying is that Simon isn't aware if there are differences. I find this hard to believe for someone in his position and it doesn't seem credible that he would not know about these things.
Conversely, if he is aware of some differences then by saying "I'm not aware of any differences" he would in effect be lying to the Defence Committee - I see no reason for him to do this as it would be an enormous and unnessary risk on his part, as team records will prove his knowledge of such variations and could land him in a lot of trouble. All he need say if there were differences is that there are slight variations but the UK model still meets UK requirements. Who would care? LO is overated anyway.
If you believe this then what you are in effect saying is that Simon isn't aware if there are differences. I find this hard to believe for someone in his position and it doesn't seem credible that he would not know about these things.
Conversely, if he is aware of some differences then by saying "I'm not aware of any differences" he would in effect be lying to the Defence Committee - I see no reason for him to do this as it would be an enormous and unnessary risk on his part, as team records will prove his knowledge of such variations and could land him in a lot of trouble. All he need say if there were differences is that there are slight variations but the UK model still meets UK requirements. Who would care? LO is overated anyway.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bighedsmallface,
Would you like to enlarge on your deprecating assessment of 25sqn?
Compared with many squadrons I have served on it was an excellent can-do, did-do outfit with first class people from top to bottom and enjoyed a good reputation at work and at play.
Has this all changed, and why?
I know this is off-thread, but what the hell!
Would you like to enlarge on your deprecating assessment of 25sqn?
Compared with many squadrons I have served on it was an excellent can-do, did-do outfit with first class people from top to bottom and enjoyed a good reputation at work and at play.
Has this all changed, and why?
I know this is off-thread, but what the hell!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Compared with many squadrons I have served on it was an excellent can-do, did-do outfit with first class people from top to bottom and enjoyed a good reputation at work and at play."
It still is!
Guess bighedsmallface wasn't good lookin enough to fly F3's
It still is!
Guess bighedsmallface wasn't good lookin enough to fly F3's
Last edited by The Rogue; 28th Nov 2005 at 19:45.
In 1977-78, the boss of USAF Aeronautical Systems Command If I remember the division name correctly) didn't know that Have Blue was being developed in his own shop. So "I'm not aware" is a perfectly honest answer.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
DefenceNews: U.K. Drops JSF Weapons Upgrade, Reduces Programs
Britain has dropped a key weapon upgrade package from the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and reduced the numbers or capabilities of equipment purchased on several major programs, a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) published Nov. 25 has revealed.... the biggest cost-saving measure the report reveals is a 659 million pound reduction in planned JSF spending. Some 368 million pounds of that resulted from an MoD decision to ax, for the time being, the Block IV weapon upgrade planned for the aircraft around 2022.
The ministry declined to state which weapons that will affect. However, analysts said plans to integrate the Storm Shadow cruise missile, Brimstone anti-armor weapon and Selective Precision Effects At Range weapon on the joint Royal Air Force/Navy aircraft may have been put on the back burner. Raytheon’s AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), Paveway IV precision-guided bomb and the MBDA Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile have been earmarked by the MoD for the aircraft when it enters service around 2014. Now it looks as though those weapons will arm JSF until at least 2025.....
Hopes that Britain’s JSF force will eventually be equipped with the MBDA-developed Meteor also have been muddied following news of the Block IV decision. The MoD never committed to Meteor on JSF, but has considered it as a longer-term option, perhaps even as part of Block IV. However, an MoD spokesman said Nov. 21, “There are no plans, no funds and no intentions to consider the [Meteor] missile” for the Joint Combat Aircraft.
That took MBDA by surprise. A spokesman said the company “is not in a position to comment, as we are not aware of any decision from the U.K. MoD.”
Meteor already is slated for service on British Eurofighter Typhoons, and the goal was to have a single BVRAAM type in the British inventory. The government agreed to an interim deal last year with Raytheon to continue supplying AMRAAMs for the Tornado F3 and Typhoon until Meteor enters service in 2012.
Sidelining Meteor on JSF for the foreseeable future would be a blow to MBDA. British integration of the weapon on what could become the modern era’s most successful fighter program is a key step in the European missile maker’s battle for supremacy with Raytheon in the air-to-air market. Britain is the lead nation in the pan-European program to design and build Meteor. The weapon has been selected by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain for the Typhoon, by France for the Rafale and by Sweden for the Gripen. All those nations are partners in Meteor. The MBDA design beat out an advanced version of AMRAAM in a bruising battle for the British contract to arm Typhoon and later possibly the JSF.
In September, MBDA reported it had redesigned the Meteor’s fin configuration to make it easier to integrate on British JSFs.
Norway goes wobbly on JSF
Britain has dropped a key weapon upgrade package from the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and reduced the numbers or capabilities of equipment purchased on several major programs, a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) published Nov. 25 has revealed.... the biggest cost-saving measure the report reveals is a 659 million pound reduction in planned JSF spending. Some 368 million pounds of that resulted from an MoD decision to ax, for the time being, the Block IV weapon upgrade planned for the aircraft around 2022.
The ministry declined to state which weapons that will affect. However, analysts said plans to integrate the Storm Shadow cruise missile, Brimstone anti-armor weapon and Selective Precision Effects At Range weapon on the joint Royal Air Force/Navy aircraft may have been put on the back burner. Raytheon’s AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), Paveway IV precision-guided bomb and the MBDA Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile have been earmarked by the MoD for the aircraft when it enters service around 2014. Now it looks as though those weapons will arm JSF until at least 2025.....
Hopes that Britain’s JSF force will eventually be equipped with the MBDA-developed Meteor also have been muddied following news of the Block IV decision. The MoD never committed to Meteor on JSF, but has considered it as a longer-term option, perhaps even as part of Block IV. However, an MoD spokesman said Nov. 21, “There are no plans, no funds and no intentions to consider the [Meteor] missile” for the Joint Combat Aircraft.
That took MBDA by surprise. A spokesman said the company “is not in a position to comment, as we are not aware of any decision from the U.K. MoD.”
Meteor already is slated for service on British Eurofighter Typhoons, and the goal was to have a single BVRAAM type in the British inventory. The government agreed to an interim deal last year with Raytheon to continue supplying AMRAAMs for the Tornado F3 and Typhoon until Meteor enters service in 2012.
Sidelining Meteor on JSF for the foreseeable future would be a blow to MBDA. British integration of the weapon on what could become the modern era’s most successful fighter program is a key step in the European missile maker’s battle for supremacy with Raytheon in the air-to-air market. Britain is the lead nation in the pan-European program to design and build Meteor. The weapon has been selected by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain for the Typhoon, by France for the Rafale and by Sweden for the Gripen. All those nations are partners in Meteor. The MBDA design beat out an advanced version of AMRAAM in a bruising battle for the British contract to arm Typhoon and later possibly the JSF.
In September, MBDA reported it had redesigned the Meteor’s fin configuration to make it easier to integrate on British JSFs.
Norway goes wobbly on JSF
Suspicion breeds confidence
The government agreed to an interim deal last year with Raytheon to continue supplying AMRAAMs for the Tornado F3