Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 20th Jan 2009, 12:26
  #2041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,640
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
So everything's just fine. The program director says so, and who would know better? Shut down every other fighter program and keep mailing the checks to JSF.

What could possibly go wrong?

LowObservable is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 02:05
  #2042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So everything's just fine.

Well, things are, to a certain extent. It looks like our Half Blood Prince (TM) isn't going to cut back on DoD and NASA spending. Maybe we'll get some increases.

All part of the eek-O-nomic stimulus plan to revitalize America.

Gimme my promotion now.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 17:19
  #2043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FormerFlake,

there could be some mileage in your idea; during the ( ongoing )restoration of the S.S.Great Britain at Bristol, they held a campaign when one could ' sponsor a plank, ' with a dedication to one's girlfriend etc inscribed on it.

Deck crew posing ' Top Gun ' style coloured shirts with ' Millets ' on the back could make a few quid too...

In reality I did wonder about the £4billion etc for CVF, but as a hundred times that can come out of thin air overnight for bankers ( sp ? ) I'd say we ought to have them.

Do I believe they won't chop them and probably JSF with aforesaid bankers as an excuse ? What do you think ?!
Double Zero is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2009, 21:21
  #2044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sir, The mutual respect the US and UK Armed Forces have for each other has never been stronger. Our shared commitment is clear — we are the two greatest providers of troops to Afghanistan. And UK troops have taken the fight to the enemy — clearing insurgents, disrupting enemy communication and destroying weapons and narcotics. These are not the actions of a country with, as Bronwen Maddox claims, no significant help left to give (Commentary, Jan 23).
I cannot speak on behalf on the Americans. That is better left to them. The US Supreme Commander in Afghanistan stated: “I have no plans for by-passing one of our most trusted partners in the mission.” And the US Corps Commander in Iraq said: “What the Brits have achieved in Basra is incredible. We need to take lessons from their approach.” These statements pour cold water on Bronwen Maddox’s view of a “caustic mood” about the UK’s “slither out of Basra”.
Our political and financial commitment to defending our nation remains resolute. Our defence budget is second only to that of the US and this Government has brought the longest period of growth for 20 years. By the end of 2009 will have spent nearly £14 billion on operations since 2001. This is why we can commit to a new generation of aircraft carriers — the only European country to have done so. Also why we have increased helicopter flying hours by 60 per cent, will send 700 more protected vehicles to Afghanistan and have given our troops the best body armour available.
These are not the signs of a country shrinking from defence, but of one committed to maintaining its military capability and working alongside its closest ally now and in the future.

John Hutton. Letter to the Times 26 Jan 2008.
spheroid is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2009, 22:43
  #2045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
" I am a doughnut " - J.F.K, June 1963

" Leave the gatling guns boys, we won't be needing those " - G.A. Custer

Sorry, those just spring to mind when I see quotes...
Double Zero is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2009, 23:08
  #2046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
we have increased helicopter flying hours by 60 per cent, will send 700 more protected vehicles to Afghanistan and have given our troops the best body armour available
Is it me or is this statement complete and utter Bo££eaux
spheroid is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2009, 23:20
  #2047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 80
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's from a politician ergo it's bolleaux.

For "60% additional helo flying hours" read "an extra 20% but we've announced it three times."

For "700 more protected vehicles" read "175 more protected vehicles but we've announced it four times."

For "given our troops the best body armour available" read "I hope to fcuk no stupid bl**dy Royal tries to test it."

Get the picture?
exscribbler is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 08:08
  #2048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Doesn't " we've increased helicopter flying hours by 60% " mean " we've shagged out our pitifully few helicopters " ?
Double Zero is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 08:41
  #2049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MASC anyone?

To get back more onto the Carrier thread, why is all of the attention focussed on the platform and JSF? Surely MASC is a vital component of the air group and crucial to delivering the overall capability, yet, in spite of the Hawkeye model hanging from the ceiling in Main Building, there is little apparent progress or comment on this element.

Just had a thought, if JSF is Dave, maybe we can call MASC Shirley.
Cpt_Pugwash is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2009, 16:19
  #2050 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,854
Received 63 Likes on 27 Posts
Surely MASC is a vital component of the air group and crucial to delivering the overall capability, yet, in spite of the Hawkeye model hanging from the ceiling in Main Building, there is little apparent progress or comment on this element.

Shhh! You are not allowed to mention MASC in the MOD, although it has been discussed here on this thread. Apparently the ASaCs Sea Kings are meant to keep going until 2018! MASC doesn't have the driving force of an IPT of its own. I don't think funding has been allocated either.

At least some of the preparations for building the carriers are actuallt taking place - including a lot of work at Rosyth.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2009, 19:44
  #2051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MASC is vital, but might cost more than a bottle of whiskey - therefore ignored.

This is a classic case of the services shooting themselves in the foot by getting a result no matter what crap kit they've got - as long as they keep winning - and getting killed in the process ( hey ho. I have to attend another tedious ceremony at Brize Norton today-).

No politician will sit up and put the money & kit in until we appear to be losing !!!

The services are too good in this respect, to the point of being their own worst enemy - all it takes is some staff level type, serving at the time, to say " No we we can't do that without more resources / kit," be it body armour, warships, vehicles or aircraft - rather than casting an eye on their pensions.
Double Zero is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2009, 02:35
  #2052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
During January in a written answer to a parlimentary question regarding the proposed Out of service dates for the Seaking ASaC Mk 7 the Government indicated that the MoD is “expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2022”

Although the way they have been going recently the MoD do not appear to know their backsides from joint in the arm Telling Parliment that the Harrier did not participate in Op Telic

ANy way`s here is the OSD Schedule from the records

Aircraft type/markCurrent planned OSDsCommentsAgusta 109
2009
It is expected these aircraft will be replaced during 2009 by four EC 365N3s
Apache
2030
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft (eg to address obsolescence and meet emerging requirements) during the next decade, in order to sustain its service life up to 2030
Chinook Mk2
2015 (2040)
We expect to have to invest further in these aircraft (eg to address obsolescence, meet emerging requirements and extend the planned date of their retirement to 2040) during the next decade, although no investment decisions have yet been made
Chinook Mk2a
2025 (2040)
As above
Gazelle
2012
Where there is an enduring requirement for the capability currently provided by Gazelle we are exploring arrangements based on leased aircraft
Lynx Mk3
2013
It is expected that these aircraft will be replaced by the Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft (SCMR) variant of Future Lynx from 2015
Lynx Mk8
2015
As above
Lynx Mk7
2013
It is expected that these aircraft will be replaced by the Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter (BRH) variant of Future Lynx from 2014
Lynx Mk9
2013
As above
Merlin Mk1
2029
We are currently preparing to upgrade these aircraft through the Merlin Mk1 Capability Sustainment Programme
Merlin Mk3
2030
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft (eg to address obsolescence and meet emerging requirements) during the next decade, in order to sustain its service life up to 2030
Merlin Mk3a
2030
As above
Puma
2012 (2022)
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of its retirement to 2022, when it is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by the Future Medium Helicopter programme
Sea King Mk3/3a
2017
It is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by a joint PFI service with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Sea King Mk4
2012 (2018)
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2018, where upon it is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by the Future Medium Helicopter programme
Sea King Mk6c
2010

Sea King Mk5
2017
It is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by a joint PFI service with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Sea King Mk7
2018 (2022)
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2022
RumourMonger is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2009, 19:18
  #2053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Watch it and weep JSF lovers.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/sit..._id=12&lang=EN
glad rag is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2009, 19:44
  #2054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A MBDA promo of an Aeronavale Rafale dropping a SCALP missile. So?
mick2088 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2009, 23:02
  #2055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not at all, Mick, lookee a capable twin engined navalised fighter that IS PROVEN on operations, does not cost the earth, and delivers the most modern, accurate, up to date ordnance from a small carrier, why bother with the outlandish JSF £black hole??
glad rag is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2009, 00:09
  #2056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A 4.5 gen, "low-observable but non-stealthy", non-STOVL land/cat-equipped carrier based fighter.

When the RAF, RN, USMC, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy all want a STOVL 5th gen, stealthy fighter to fly from Non-cat/trap carriers and limited-runway-length land bases (like USMC/RAF Harriers have been doing in Iraq/Afganistan)?

Rafale does not meet the requirements, thus is non-compliant for the contract.

Ho, hum.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2009, 11:36
  #2057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes on 17 Posts
GreenKnight121 - You obviously don't work at the MoD then.

Since when has being appropriate for the given/planned task be the driving factor in defence procurement?

No matter what the requirements you can pretty much guarantee that someone underling at the MoD is thinking how to hammer square peg (a) into round hole (b) driven purely by the mindset of 'cheap'.
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2009, 12:52
  #2058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tx, USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No matter what the requirements you can pretty much guarantee that someone underling at the MoD is thinking how to hammer square peg (a) into round hole (b) driven purely by the mindset of 'cheap'.
That's what the myriad of Staff Officers at the MoD are supposed to do.....look at all possible options. However, they are only that.

Until they start throwing serious money at alternatives such as Rafale then I'm sorry, it's not even a possibility.

I'm with GreenKnight121 on this quite frankly. Why settle for less capability by switching the entire focus from 5th Gen to 4th Gen. 4.5 Gen is just a made up category with the express intention of making the F-18E/F, Typhoon and Rafale crowd feel slightly more special IMHO!
Barn Doors is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2009, 09:26
  #2059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the various press reports in the US about the expected cancellation of both the F-22 and F-35 programs.

What do those in here feel this means for the HMS Great White Elephant class?
BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2009, 11:52
  #2060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes on 17 Posts
Perhaps they'll take the logical route and stick some catapults on the things instead.

Of course then the government would take the illogical route and probably spend a shedload of money getting BAe to nail an extendable nose oleo, a beefed up tail hook and some sort of camera to the nose so that the poor sod RAF pilot who has to fly the things off and more importantly back onto said white elephant carriers has at least a sporting chance of being able to see where he is going.
The Helpful Stacker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.