Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so... fifty F-35's and one carrier. Won't be long now before the whole sorry saga is abandoned completely - as it should have been years ago. 
So, how long until the Harrier fleet gets the chop? I'm still putting my money on next September. And the GR4 fleet? Hmm... couple of years?
So, how long until the Harrier fleet gets the chop? I'm still putting my money on next September. And the GR4 fleet? Hmm... couple of years?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, I suggest you READ the article, not just the headline, even though it is an awful example of journalism. Before this news came out we were scheduled to get two carriers and a first tranche of about 50 F-35Bs. Now, we are sheduled to get... Two Carriers and 50 F-35Bs to achieve IOC around 2018. The plan was always to have one 'on call' carrier available and a second at a few weeks notice. The second could always double up as a LPH, just as we do now with Lusty and Ark. Buying more F-35Bs later on in the early 2020s is srill a possibility, and the current financial problems won't have any effect on that. The only ship under threat is the replacement for HMS Ocean, though I expect her to be extended into the early 2020s and a replacement to be reinstated sometime after the first CVF is delivered.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's rather missing my point - what I was getting- at is that it's just another stage in a path towards what seems to be an inevitable abandonment of the whole carrier/F-35 programme. The process will drag on and on until the carriers have gone, the F-35 is gone, the Harriers are gone, and probably the Tornado GR4 fleet as well. We can all see where we're heading, it's just that some people seem to be unwilling to accept the fact. We're bankrupt and (as ever) punching above our weight.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britain, and America, has a economically hard decade ahed.
By the time POW is in the water though the financial state "should" be better (cross-fingers).
Having said that it is inconceivable that POW will be finished without at least the bare minimum of equipment to be able to operate Lightnings "in an emergency". The savings between that and a full complement of maintenance bays is going to be small beer and I can see it being sneaked in sometime before she is finished.
The real story here is the sacrifice of an HMS Ocean replacement (already rumoured) and a cut in Lightning numbers, The second of these is easily rectified by a later buy of lightnings.
The actual article is a mess, typical both of defence reporting in general and of a Murdoch paper in particular.
.
By the time POW is in the water though the financial state "should" be better (cross-fingers).
Having said that it is inconceivable that POW will be finished without at least the bare minimum of equipment to be able to operate Lightnings "in an emergency". The savings between that and a full complement of maintenance bays is going to be small beer and I can see it being sneaked in sometime before she is finished.
The real story here is the sacrifice of an HMS Ocean replacement (already rumoured) and a cut in Lightning numbers, The second of these is easily rectified by a later buy of lightnings.
The actual article is a mess, typical both of defence reporting in general and of a Murdoch paper in particular.
.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting - I took this to be RN spin in overdrive- it feels like "Through Deck Cruisers" all over again.
In sum, this means that we're going to buy two QE-class CVFs, and buy the airwing for one. As other have said, this means that there is a buy of additional airframes later on, and since it would be more expensive to redesign the CVF design to be a super LPH, then it would be (in MoD PR09 world at any rate) a "SAVING" in not redesigning it. So what we have is two CVFs, one of which is called something else.
And, um, err, that's it.
I refer the honourable audience to my previous views on whether we should buy either of these things at all. (Synopsis: "No".)
S41
In sum, this means that we're going to buy two QE-class CVFs, and buy the airwing for one. As other have said, this means that there is a buy of additional airframes later on, and since it would be more expensive to redesign the CVF design to be a super LPH, then it would be (in MoD PR09 world at any rate) a "SAVING" in not redesigning it. So what we have is two CVFs, one of which is called something else.
And, um, err, that's it.
I refer the honourable audience to my previous views on whether we should buy either of these things at all. (Synopsis: "No".)
S41
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the brave new Gordy Brown scenario though - brilliant stuff...
Okay you evil Russians, don't forget our nuclear arsenal is out there somewhere, poised to attack you... well okay it might not be if it's in for a refit but that's just a risk you'll have to take... we might be poised to defend ourselves, then again we might not be... tricky little beggars us Brits, ain't we?
And think twice before you pick a fight with us, you evil foreign despots. We'll send our carrier out to get you. Ah yes, well we might not if it's in for a refit but we'll talk to our mates over in France as they said they might lend us a boat... unless theirs is in refit too.
It's enough to strike fear into the heart of any mere mortal.
Okay you evil Russians, don't forget our nuclear arsenal is out there somewhere, poised to attack you... well okay it might not be if it's in for a refit but that's just a risk you'll have to take... we might be poised to defend ourselves, then again we might not be... tricky little beggars us Brits, ain't we?
And think twice before you pick a fight with us, you evil foreign despots. We'll send our carrier out to get you. Ah yes, well we might not if it's in for a refit but we'll talk to our mates over in France as they said they might lend us a boat... unless theirs is in refit too.
It's enough to strike fear into the heart of any mere mortal.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVF
It's a golden rule in aircraft development ( and various other bits of kit for that matter ) that one does one thing at a time, i.e. new engine, new airframe but not both at the same time unless at war.
The F-35B ( or any other mark ) will take some serious testing from the CVF/s ; I'm not into gambling, but would happily put a whole £ in ( I AM half Scotish ) that the first fixed wing thing to touch the deck will be a Harrier.
I'll say it again, as the F-35B ( and the A & C models which they all they entail ), have a LOT of devopment work to do yet, a couple of dozen Harrier 2+ ( at the moment standing in the Mohave desert ) with AIM120 AMRAAMS could at the least provide fleet defence for ourseves & allies, and shares a great degree of ' commonality ' of parts with the Harrier GR7/9 strike / bomber, ( but unlike the Sea Harrier the media remembers, NO fighter ) - I think I'm in a position to know as I worked on both.
The F-35B ( or any other mark ) will take some serious testing from the CVF/s ; I'm not into gambling, but would happily put a whole £ in ( I AM half Scotish ) that the first fixed wing thing to touch the deck will be a Harrier.
I'll say it again, as the F-35B ( and the A & C models which they all they entail ), have a LOT of devopment work to do yet, a couple of dozen Harrier 2+ ( at the moment standing in the Mohave desert ) with AIM120 AMRAAMS could at the least provide fleet defence for ourseves & allies, and shares a great degree of ' commonality ' of parts with the Harrier GR7/9 strike / bomber, ( but unlike the Sea Harrier the media remembers, NO fighter ) - I think I'm in a position to know as I worked on both.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golden Rules
A "golden rule" eh?
As in F35?, or Nimrod whatever year it's now called?
About the last time we used a well proven engine in a combat aircraft was the Spey in the Bucc, and thanks to Blackburn and Roy Boot we have never had a better aircraft. Strange to think isn't it that thirty five years ago we had almost all the capability we are now praying for! Progress in the field of defence is an odd thing to behold. I sadly tend to believe that there will simply not be the will in either government of the Navy to push mightily to continue this; the time frame will slip into IGBAD refurbishment, batch two Astutes, Trident refurb, Type 45 buys, NGF, and the money simply will not be there.
As in F35?, or Nimrod whatever year it's now called?
About the last time we used a well proven engine in a combat aircraft was the Spey in the Bucc, and thanks to Blackburn and Roy Boot we have never had a better aircraft. Strange to think isn't it that thirty five years ago we had almost all the capability we are now praying for! Progress in the field of defence is an odd thing to behold. I sadly tend to believe that there will simply not be the will in either government of the Navy to push mightily to continue this; the time frame will slip into IGBAD refurbishment, batch two Astutes, Trident refurb, Type 45 buys, NGF, and the money simply will not be there.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see a pattern there: Avon and Hunter, Sapphire and Javelin, Olympus and Vulcan, Conway and Victor, Orpheus and Gnat (combat in India), Gannet and Double Mamba and, of course, Pegasus and Kestrel/Harrier. Yes, all very risky.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmm, 3 points.
1. I don't believe it was claimed that the POW would be modified to make it incapable of carrying the F-35B.
2. He doesn't actually address the number of F-35Bs to be purchsed or state that there will be 2 wings.
3. He never refutes the claim that there is $1-2B shortfall, only that Gray report doesn't give an evidence to prove it. And why would it?
This would seem to be a smokescreen. Nothing has been said to refute the original leaks regarding the cuts to the F-35B order, the reroling of the RAF sqns to Typhoon and the use of the POW to replace HMS Ocean with her planned replacement being deferred or cancelled.
Davies: both carriers will take JSF
Both the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers will be able to carry the joint strike fighter (JSF) according to defence equipment and support minister Quentin Davies. Speaking in the House of Commons he also rubbished the Gray Report's claim that there was a £2bn annual overspend in the MoD's equipment programme.
In October, it was reported that government would downgrade either the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales carrier, taking away their ability to carry the JSF. Reports stated the MoD was looking to save money on the 65,000 tonne carriers, which are already £1bn over budget.
Davies said reports the carrier plans were to be scaled down were "complete rubbish".
"There is no suggestion at all, and there has never been in our minds at all, to re-specify the two aircraft carriers," he said. "There has been no change in that programme, and neither has there been any change in our JSF programme. We are already committed to purchasing the first three aircraft."
He also said there was "no evidential basis" to the statement in the Gray report that between £1bn and £2.2bn was being lost each year as a result of failure to control equipment spending. "The very fact that the range is between £1bn and two point something billion shows how imprecise that statement inevitably would be," said Davies.
1. I don't believe it was claimed that the POW would be modified to make it incapable of carrying the F-35B.
2. He doesn't actually address the number of F-35Bs to be purchsed or state that there will be 2 wings.
3. He never refutes the claim that there is $1-2B shortfall, only that Gray report doesn't give an evidence to prove it. And why would it?
This would seem to be a smokescreen. Nothing has been said to refute the original leaks regarding the cuts to the F-35B order, the reroling of the RAF sqns to Typhoon and the use of the POW to replace HMS Ocean with her planned replacement being deferred or cancelled.
Davies: both carriers will take JSF
Both the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers will be able to carry the joint strike fighter (JSF) according to defence equipment and support minister Quentin Davies. Speaking in the House of Commons he also rubbished the Gray Report's claim that there was a £2bn annual overspend in the MoD's equipment programme.
In October, it was reported that government would downgrade either the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales carrier, taking away their ability to carry the JSF. Reports stated the MoD was looking to save money on the 65,000 tonne carriers, which are already £1bn over budget.
Davies said reports the carrier plans were to be scaled down were "complete rubbish".
"There is no suggestion at all, and there has never been in our minds at all, to re-specify the two aircraft carriers," he said. "There has been no change in that programme, and neither has there been any change in our JSF programme. We are already committed to purchasing the first three aircraft."
He also said there was "no evidential basis" to the statement in the Gray report that between £1bn and £2.2bn was being lost each year as a result of failure to control equipment spending. "The very fact that the range is between £1bn and two point something billion shows how imprecise that statement inevitably would be," said Davies.
Denying everything except the main point is a long established tactic.
In fact, reducing the JSF force could make much sense.
It defuses the RAF "we'd rather have more Typhoons" option.
It reduces the cost of the carrier project in current budget projections, while in theory leaving open the option of buying more aircraft later, or equipping both ships when it comes time to replace the JSF-B.
There are many circumstances (for example, where you'd like CAS and BAI ashore, but there's no direct air threat to the ships) when a smaller embarked force of JSFs would be adequate.
It avoids early commitment to an aircraft that seems to have trouble making it from FW to Pax, much less doing a VL. (Today's question is from Meteorology 101: What is the weather on the Atlantic seaboard like in November and December, and how is it different from the weather in summer?)
In fact, reducing the JSF force could make much sense.
It defuses the RAF "we'd rather have more Typhoons" option.
It reduces the cost of the carrier project in current budget projections, while in theory leaving open the option of buying more aircraft later, or equipping both ships when it comes time to replace the JSF-B.
There are many circumstances (for example, where you'd like CAS and BAI ashore, but there's no direct air threat to the ships) when a smaller embarked force of JSFs would be adequate.
It avoids early commitment to an aircraft that seems to have trouble making it from FW to Pax, much less doing a VL. (Today's question is from Meteorology 101: What is the weather on the Atlantic seaboard like in November and December, and how is it different from the weather in summer?)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course there is no change in Britain's JSF programme, as they have only ordered two Initial Operational Test & Evaluation models and are committed to buying another third as that is so far all they have been required to do in terms of orders. Davies himself said last year that a decision on how many F-35Bs will be ordered won't be made fully until about 2014. Besides, the thing has yet to finish its development to say something like "we are going to buy xx(x) F-35Bs. Definitely. The I.O.U. slip is already in the post." Nobody has done that yet as far as I was aware.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the Times article:-
As far as I understand the Tornado F3 were always going to convert to Typhoon and there has been no decisions regarding replacing the GR's with F-35.
Does this journalist actually mean RAF harriers or does he not have a clue? Maybe it is me that is out of the loop?
"The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead."
Does this journalist actually mean RAF harriers or does he not have a clue? Maybe it is me that is out of the loop?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caspian,
Ignoring the confusion of the article, if you wanted to save some serious cash in the next Defence Review (we do) then if you decided that CVF was the wrong / an unaffordable capability, then you could do the following:
- Cancel CVF
- Chop CVS (minus CVF, unnecessary)
- Chop Harrier (not going back to the 'Stan, not needed for CVS or CVF)
- Chop Dave-B and procure Dave-C in 2020 to replace GR4
Which would save lots of cash - and lot of Matelots to do other, more useful, things.
The question is, would MoD have the nerve...
S41
Ignoring the confusion of the article, if you wanted to save some serious cash in the next Defence Review (we do) then if you decided that CVF was the wrong / an unaffordable capability, then you could do the following:
- Cancel CVF
- Chop CVS (minus CVF, unnecessary)
- Chop Harrier (not going back to the 'Stan, not needed for CVS or CVF)
- Chop Dave-B and procure Dave-C in 2020 to replace GR4
Which would save lots of cash - and lot of Matelots to do other, more useful, things.
The question is, would MoD have the nerve...
S41
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Squirre 41
It also begs the question, if HMS Prince of Wales is going to be a pure amphibious warfare vessel as the article suggests (which I don't believe by the way) then clearly it is overkill as a HMS Ocean replacement. Might then this be an opportunity to chop another amphibious asset as well as HMS Ocean?
I'm not saying this would be a good thing. Certainly not for moral anyway and job prospects in the Royal Navy.
It also begs the question, if HMS Prince of Wales is going to be a pure amphibious warfare vessel as the article suggests (which I don't believe by the way) then clearly it is overkill as a HMS Ocean replacement. Might then this be an opportunity to chop another amphibious asset as well as HMS Ocean?
I'm not saying this would be a good thing. Certainly not for moral anyway and job prospects in the Royal Navy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caspian, Quentin Davies has already kicked the story into touch, it is just the fevered dribble of a bored journo who knows nothing about defence matters. The clue should be he didn't understand the difference between the Tornado F3 and GR4. Both Carriers will be fully able to support the F-35B, and both will be able to act as LPHs when required. That was always the plan and nothing has changed. There has been no reduction in the order for F-35Bs, as the total has yet to pass three!