JSF Update
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Googling reveals
As for the remaining 6 names, cannot easily (or quickly) find them, but then they probably will not be required anyway ('
')
The first six of potentially twelve Type 45 Destroyers have been ordered by the MoD. The first is due to enter service in 2007 and will be named HMS Daring, the second and third are to be HMS Dauntless and Diamond respectively and these should be in service by 2009. The successor three ships, that will be joining the Fleet at intervals of about six months after HMS Diamond, are to be named HMS Duncan, Dragon and Defender.
')
<Dons anorak>
The names for the Type 45 all have some heritage behind them.
'Duncan' is the seventh to bear the name and there was, IIRC, a 'Duncan' class of battleships from about 1901. The name commemorates Admiral Duncan , who defeated the Dutch fleet off Camperdown in 1797.
We could also get a 'Diana' (presumably HMS Saint Diana to move with the times....) 'Dainty' and a 'Decoy'. Which would be a 'Delight' (again, all 'D' Class ships)....
<Anorak off>
The names for the Type 45 all have some heritage behind them.
'Duncan' is the seventh to bear the name and there was, IIRC, a 'Duncan' class of battleships from about 1901. The name commemorates Admiral Duncan , who defeated the Dutch fleet off Camperdown in 1797.
We could also get a 'Diana' (presumably HMS Saint Diana to move with the times....) 'Dainty' and a 'Decoy'. Which would be a 'Delight' (again, all 'D' Class ships)....
<Anorak off>
The intention is to only buy eight now, but they still haven't ordered the last two. Do you ever get the feeling the MoD don't understand the principle of economies of scale?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeller_Gait,
There are 2 crews for the remaining CVS, not one bouncing between the two.
Nothing sad about waiting as long as possible to decide what is actually a relatively minor procurement issue, the configuration of the deck and aircraft type. (The deck options are spring loaded and ready to go and both types of aircraft will be produced for the USN and USMC which ever one we decide upon). If you rush into things you end up with platforms that end up not being used for what they were designed for. Such as Nimrod MRA4. Or Typhoon. Or Merlin. I can go on if you like.
Feel free to edit your post from "sad state of affairs" to "aren't those Navy types really quite smart".
Partly agree with your comment about T42 (old, tired weapon system) and gaps in our capability. First T45 hull will float in January 06, into service 07. Lets hope that we don't need that kind of serious air defence capability until then. It's all about balancing risk vs our chequebook balance. I'm not saying we have it right but history will be the judge of that.
Pierre Argh
The one aircraft (F-35) is, in theory, more than twice as survivable as the two cheap and cheerful ones with half the weapons. Cost saving has never been the primary thought in winning battles, it's just a reality of an environment where the military isn't fighting wars of national survival and, to the tax paying public, reducing hospital waiting lists is more important than stocking our ships/aircraft/tanks with the best gear in the quantities we want. Don't fight the white.
Soddim
What happens if the "thing" you're buying doesn't deliver a weapon, like ASTOR for instance? As every day goes by, military personnel (and the kit they use) are less likely to be dropping weapons and more likely to be finding insurgents hideouts or drug production facilities for the indigenous police forces to deal with them. Cost per target kill would make a C130 or an OSKOSH refueller quite expensive compared to an F-35 or even, heaven forbid, a Typhoon. Actually, I'm going mad. Nothing is as expensive per unit cost as Typhoon. (No cheap shots about CVF or JSF, they don't exist yet).
There are 2 crews for the remaining CVS, not one bouncing between the two.
Nothing sad about waiting as long as possible to decide what is actually a relatively minor procurement issue, the configuration of the deck and aircraft type. (The deck options are spring loaded and ready to go and both types of aircraft will be produced for the USN and USMC which ever one we decide upon). If you rush into things you end up with platforms that end up not being used for what they were designed for. Such as Nimrod MRA4. Or Typhoon. Or Merlin. I can go on if you like.
Feel free to edit your post from "sad state of affairs" to "aren't those Navy types really quite smart".
Partly agree with your comment about T42 (old, tired weapon system) and gaps in our capability. First T45 hull will float in January 06, into service 07. Lets hope that we don't need that kind of serious air defence capability until then. It's all about balancing risk vs our chequebook balance. I'm not saying we have it right but history will be the judge of that.
Pierre Argh
One aircraft on a mission might get shot down, two aircraft, with half the number of bombs on each, means one may get through etc, etc?
Soddim
Surely the cost argument should be something like cost per target kill. That should give a clear picture of which is the more effective system and it follows that you will get more bang per buck.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11,
The truth is out there somewhere .........
Time will tell when we see both CV out on ops at the same time.
Question ?
Is it usual in the RN for an officer to be in command of a ship for 4-5-6 years or more? Looking at the fleet bridge card from Mar 05, it appears that some captains have been in post since 1999, or even earlier. The average tour for a station commander in the RAF is in the region of 3 years.
Still, it must feel good to be captain of the Enterprise
Fleet Bridge Card
The truth is out there somewhere .........
Time will tell when we see both CV out on ops at the same time.
Question ?
Is it usual in the RN for an officer to be in command of a ship for 4-5-6 years or more? Looking at the fleet bridge card from Mar 05, it appears that some captains have been in post since 1999, or even earlier. The average tour for a station commander in the RAF is in the region of 3 years.
Still, it must feel good to be captain of the Enterprise
Fleet Bridge Card
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: On The Road
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a guess but it's probably something to do with this chap.
"Admiral Lord Viscount Duncan of Camperdown was born in Dundee on 1st July 1731. In a naval career spanning fifty-four years, he saw early service in the search for Prince Charles Edward Stuart off the West coast of Scotland, and afterwards with the British Navy in the Mediterranean, America, West Africa and Cuba. In his later years he earned wide respect for his handling of the serious naval mutiny of 1797, but achieved his greatest fame through his remarkable defeat of the Dutch fleet under Admiral de Winter off Camperdown on the 11th October 1797, thus thwarting a possible invasion by French and Dutch troops. He was made a Viscount on 17th October 1797 and died on 4 August 1804. In the words of Admiral Lord Nelson, 'the name of Duncan will never be forgot by Britain and in particular by its Navy'."
Either that or it's named after a gay bar on Old Compton street that was blown up in '99.................perhaps not.
"Admiral Lord Viscount Duncan of Camperdown was born in Dundee on 1st July 1731. In a naval career spanning fifty-four years, he saw early service in the search for Prince Charles Edward Stuart off the West coast of Scotland, and afterwards with the British Navy in the Mediterranean, America, West Africa and Cuba. In his later years he earned wide respect for his handling of the serious naval mutiny of 1797, but achieved his greatest fame through his remarkable defeat of the Dutch fleet under Admiral de Winter off Camperdown on the 11th October 1797, thus thwarting a possible invasion by French and Dutch troops. He was made a Viscount on 17th October 1797 and died on 4 August 1804. In the words of Admiral Lord Nelson, 'the name of Duncan will never be forgot by Britain and in particular by its Navy'."
Either that or it's named after a gay bar on Old Compton street that was blown up in '99.................perhaps not.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... back to the aircraft arguement, Twice as effective, half a many airframes, expensive to buy but cheaper running costs,... it'd work providing the new aircraft is at least twice as serviceable as its replacement.... to be effective it needs to be able to get out of the hangar?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre Argh,
Aircraft are procured on requirement to generate X sorties per day in surge and Y sorties per day in sustained ops.
But your blinding glimpse of the obvious is indeed valid, an aircraft does need to be in the air to have a kinetic effect. (Unlike a B2 or F117 for example which, after it's proved itself as capable once, has an aura about it which may negate a reason for it flying. I believe they call it a deterrent.)
Good job we have Tornado as a baseline to work against, I could design an aircraft more serviceable than that old girl.
Anyway, I believe the Spifire production line is now closed and it would take as much to make the tooling again as buying F-35 so let's ride with it.
Aircraft are procured on requirement to generate X sorties per day in surge and Y sorties per day in sustained ops.
But your blinding glimpse of the obvious is indeed valid, an aircraft does need to be in the air to have a kinetic effect. (Unlike a B2 or F117 for example which, after it's proved itself as capable once, has an aura about it which may negate a reason for it flying. I believe they call it a deterrent.)
Good job we have Tornado as a baseline to work against, I could design an aircraft more serviceable than that old girl.
Anyway, I believe the Spifire production line is now closed and it would take as much to make the tooling again as buying F-35 so let's ride with it.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
AWST - 31 Oct:
Pentagon leaders are considering the fate of the JSF... in the Quadrennial Defence Review. Under the then Chief of Staff Gen John Jumper's watch, the Air Force was considering the idea of buying the STOVL variant and diminishing its buy of CTOL F-35s. Only weeks after succeeding Jumper, however, Gen T Michael Moseley is mulling a an all-CTOL buy. In the meantime, observers say acting Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England may be looking to kill one JSF variant as a way to curb the increasing cost of procurement effort....
With the USN and USAF and overseas orders for the A and C, and the adding complexity and differences, the B is the logical model to go. The USMC can just go back to using the main USN carriers.
What, however, does it say about the UK $2 Bn investment and Rolls-Royce involvement?
Not a lot back for our money....
Pentagon leaders are considering the fate of the JSF... in the Quadrennial Defence Review. Under the then Chief of Staff Gen John Jumper's watch, the Air Force was considering the idea of buying the STOVL variant and diminishing its buy of CTOL F-35s. Only weeks after succeeding Jumper, however, Gen T Michael Moseley is mulling a an all-CTOL buy. In the meantime, observers say acting Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England may be looking to kill one JSF variant as a way to curb the increasing cost of procurement effort....
With the USN and USAF and overseas orders for the A and C, and the adding complexity and differences, the B is the logical model to go. The USMC can just go back to using the main USN carriers.
What, however, does it say about the UK $2 Bn investment and Rolls-Royce involvement?
Not a lot back for our money....
Not necessarily so, ORAC. The RN CVF design has always had the option to fit catapults and arrester gear, so the C is not ruled out as an option for the RN if this was to happen.
ISD might be affected a tad, of course, but then again maybe not since development of the STOVL variant was always likely to be the trickiest of all options. The CV variant may well have a reduced development period c.f. the B, I'd guess.
ISD might be affected a tad, of course, but then again maybe not since development of the STOVL variant was always likely to be the trickiest of all options. The CV variant may well have a reduced development period c.f. the B, I'd guess.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I was thinking on manufacture. Out goes the lift engine and a some airframe manufacture work. I know we contribute towards the A and C. Just not sure how much me lose if the B is cancelled.
As numbers reduce the chances of a second production line outside the USA are shrinking, and if there is one it is likely to be in Italy, who have increased their order above ours to get it. Even support and maintenance is looking dodgy.
Many of you will have been following the ITAR saga. We wish to be able to maintain and modify our own jets. That means access to source code etc. The promise was that ITAR would be changed and that BAe would do it. It is looking increasingly like it will never happen and contingency work is in hand to look at fallback options. The following is a revealing extract from the latest AWST where Cmdre Henley, the JSF IPT lead, was addressing the defence committee.
"Operational sovreignity is the key", says Henley. "We have defined the capability that we will require in the UK - and maintenance, repair and upgrade is but one of those - and we understande the technologies that will be needed to underpin that capability. We need to have those under sovereign control. They could either be in government or in the hands of US industry under direct contract with us, or they could be in the UK industrial base. We are working with the US goverbment to understand exactly where that will lie".
Henley says the process of "identifying stoppers and finding workarounds" on technology access and support issues is ongoing. He recognises that "we havenīt removed all [of these] to date".
Committee members repeatedly raised the issue of technology access and the UKīs ability to support the aircraft independently. Of these negotiations, Henley says: "We have set ourselves some milestones in the future, points at which we measure that achievement and take a judgement. Right now we are making progress and we have made some progress in the last few months"
He did not elelaborate on the nature of the "judgements", nor what the options were if achievements fell well short of the desired milestones.......
As numbers reduce the chances of a second production line outside the USA are shrinking, and if there is one it is likely to be in Italy, who have increased their order above ours to get it. Even support and maintenance is looking dodgy.
Many of you will have been following the ITAR saga. We wish to be able to maintain and modify our own jets. That means access to source code etc. The promise was that ITAR would be changed and that BAe would do it. It is looking increasingly like it will never happen and contingency work is in hand to look at fallback options. The following is a revealing extract from the latest AWST where Cmdre Henley, the JSF IPT lead, was addressing the defence committee.
"Operational sovreignity is the key", says Henley. "We have defined the capability that we will require in the UK - and maintenance, repair and upgrade is but one of those - and we understande the technologies that will be needed to underpin that capability. We need to have those under sovereign control. They could either be in government or in the hands of US industry under direct contract with us, or they could be in the UK industrial base. We are working with the US goverbment to understand exactly where that will lie".
Henley says the process of "identifying stoppers and finding workarounds" on technology access and support issues is ongoing. He recognises that "we havenīt removed all [of these] to date".
Committee members repeatedly raised the issue of technology access and the UKīs ability to support the aircraft independently. Of these negotiations, Henley says: "We have set ourselves some milestones in the future, points at which we measure that achievement and take a judgement. Right now we are making progress and we have made some progress in the last few months"
He did not elelaborate on the nature of the "judgements", nor what the options were if achievements fell well short of the desired milestones.......
Last edited by ORAC; 4th Nov 2005 at 05:57.
