Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, that might be the harsh result of keeping the carriers. The Harrier will stay and the Tornado go.
When they talk about the Tornado though - they mean the GR4 don't they: "RAF fight to save Tornado fighter-bombers... Getting rid of all the 120 GR4 Tornados." The writers seem to be confused: "RAF chiefs have claimed that dumping the Tornados will threaten their ability to mount proper air defence operations around Britain.... Defence officials said the RAF could use Eurofighter/Typhoons for air defence, including against any future 9/11-style terror alert, and not Tornados."
When they talk about the Tornado though - they mean the GR4 don't they: "RAF fight to save Tornado fighter-bombers... Getting rid of all the 120 GR4 Tornados." The writers seem to be confused: "RAF chiefs have claimed that dumping the Tornados will threaten their ability to mount proper air defence operations around Britain.... Defence officials said the RAF could use Eurofighter/Typhoons for air defence, including against any future 9/11-style terror alert, and not Tornados."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well from the news reports/leaks today, it would appear that rearguard action succeeded, and it's the Harriers to go and the Gr4s to stay - though how many is undefined, all or just 4 sqns and 1 base?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems an odd decision given the gap to any new aircraft being delivered and getting into service properly. Be interesting to see what they propose to do and whether they will be going with that idea that we were floating about earlier - using QE as an amphibious helicopter carrier until its first major refit and enabling PoW to operate the F-35C.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WillDAQ, I don't think it would take much to put a steam boiler and reservoir on board. Electric cat will require a huge amount of electricity if we are talking linear motors and all the lights will go dim when it's used. You can store an awful lot of energy built up over time with high pressure steam.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Squirrel 41
I seem to remember that the USN has contract an SSK from Italy (??) to be based on the east coast to provide an SSK target for ASW training, and the US is paying the whole cost - crews, families, running costs, the lot - for 3 years.
Reading the latest tea-leaves, it seems likely that the plan now revolves around two CATOBAR carriers. Betty to commission as a helo carrier initially, while Chuck gets reworked for EMALS and wires.
Meanwhile, Harriers go out and Tonkas maintain deep strike w/Storm Shadow for the time being, while being available for CAS as long as AFG involvement continues.
Nominally the UK stays with F-35C, so at least the impact on JSF as a whole is not traumatic. However, that now depends entirely on the USN staying on board, a picture which changes if the B gets chopped, now within the realms of possibility. Yes, the B is vulnerable if the UK drops it. The vultures are circling & we will see what comes out of Technical Baseline Review.
SSSETOWF - All the concrete-breaking stuff comes from USN construction people, so go argue with them. The standards are there in black and white and notwithstanding LockMart's protestations they are still in force and are being used in current base construction solicitations.
On the bright side, a CATOBAR move relieves our colleague Mr Boffin of the need to follow through on certain planned actions involving a former MP and now TV dance sensation...
Meanwhile, Harriers go out and Tonkas maintain deep strike w/Storm Shadow for the time being, while being available for CAS as long as AFG involvement continues.
Nominally the UK stays with F-35C, so at least the impact on JSF as a whole is not traumatic. However, that now depends entirely on the USN staying on board, a picture which changes if the B gets chopped, now within the realms of possibility. Yes, the B is vulnerable if the UK drops it. The vultures are circling & we will see what comes out of Technical Baseline Review.
SSSETOWF - All the concrete-breaking stuff comes from USN construction people, so go argue with them. The standards are there in black and white and notwithstanding LockMart's protestations they are still in force and are being used in current base construction solicitations.
On the bright side, a CATOBAR move relieves our colleague Mr Boffin of the need to follow through on certain planned actions involving a former MP and now TV dance sensation...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...
Planned F-35B buys:
USMC 400+
Italy ~60
Spain ~20
UK doesn't order the 60-138 they were going to order, and everybody else gets told "Well, the Brits pulled out so you all lose"?
Boy, you Brits have a severely over-inflated sense of your own importance... still!
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Yes, the B is vulnerable if the UK drops it.
USMC 400+
Italy ~60
Spain ~20
UK doesn't order the 60-138 they were going to order, and everybody else gets told "Well, the Brits pulled out so you all lose"?
Boy, you Brits have a severely over-inflated sense of your own importance... still!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GreenKnight 121,
Italy and Spain have even smaller defence budgets than Britain. If you put the loss of 60 potential buys against their combined 80, it could well push the price over the threshold which they are prepared to consider.
I can't comment on how the USMC would cope with the price increase if their 400+ airframes were no longer discounted by a foreign sale of 140.
Italy and Spain have even smaller defence budgets than Britain. If you put the loss of 60 potential buys against their combined 80, it could well push the price over the threshold which they are prepared to consider.
I can't comment on how the USMC would cope with the price increase if their 400+ airframes were no longer discounted by a foreign sale of 140.
GK - Thanks for the not wholly accurate slur, confirming LO's First Precept that in any debate, JSF fans will get personal first.
It's not about the Brits, at least not entirely, although the "we have a commitment to our main international partner" has always been part of the defense of F-35B.
May I ask what the Marines plan to do with 420 JSFs? This is why the program always officially talks of "680 Department of the Navy" JSFs - there is an implicit and unresolved dispute as to whether F-35Bs replace Marine squadrons in the CVBG air wing. How are mixed STOVL/CATOBAR operations off a CVN a good idea?
Also, the idea of forward-deploying F-35B is rendered dubious by three factors: its F-4-like size and fuel requirement, the unresolved arguments about landing surface requirements and a future combat environment in which FARPs will be targeted by guided rockets and mortars.
The weight and size of the jet limits the numbers that can be carried on an amphib. Even the America-class with no well deck are quoted with a maximum of 22-some jets, but that's with only a couple of rescue helicopters, so it makes no sense: you have a boat full of Marines and equipment and no way to get them ashore.
Now consider those numbers in the only context that is sane: if you need stealth and supersonic speed to deal with the defenses, will the President and Joint Staff ever send in the Marines without a CVN and its Growlers and Hawkeyes?
It's not about the Brits, at least not entirely, although the "we have a commitment to our main international partner" has always been part of the defense of F-35B.
May I ask what the Marines plan to do with 420 JSFs? This is why the program always officially talks of "680 Department of the Navy" JSFs - there is an implicit and unresolved dispute as to whether F-35Bs replace Marine squadrons in the CVBG air wing. How are mixed STOVL/CATOBAR operations off a CVN a good idea?
Also, the idea of forward-deploying F-35B is rendered dubious by three factors: its F-4-like size and fuel requirement, the unresolved arguments about landing surface requirements and a future combat environment in which FARPs will be targeted by guided rockets and mortars.
The weight and size of the jet limits the numbers that can be carried on an amphib. Even the America-class with no well deck are quoted with a maximum of 22-some jets, but that's with only a couple of rescue helicopters, so it makes no sense: you have a boat full of Marines and equipment and no way to get them ashore.
Now consider those numbers in the only context that is sane: if you need stealth and supersonic speed to deal with the defenses, will the President and Joint Staff ever send in the Marines without a CVN and its Growlers and Hawkeyes?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changing tack slightly, what do the rest of the RN (None FAA) think of sacrifices that will be made by the service to secure two carriers?
If these SWAGs become reality then the RN are due to loose a significant portion of the surface fleet, on top of the ships and boats already sacrificed in the last few years to maintain the project.
Obviously the RN top brass have all brought into carrier centric operations and that is all us none RN hear, just like upper echelons of the RAF spouting fast jet rhetoric. However just like in the RAF there must be many who believe their masters may be 'slightly' misguided.
Naturally most contributions already on here from the RN will have a FAA slant.
SWAG - Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess
If these SWAGs become reality then the RN are due to loose a significant portion of the surface fleet, on top of the ships and boats already sacrificed in the last few years to maintain the project.
Obviously the RN top brass have all brought into carrier centric operations and that is all us none RN hear, just like upper echelons of the RAF spouting fast jet rhetoric. However just like in the RAF there must be many who believe their masters may be 'slightly' misguided.
Naturally most contributions already on here from the RN will have a FAA slant.
SWAG - Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this today:
Defence cuts latest: Two carriers but no jet fighters as the iconic Harrier is axed | Mail Online
but apparently, both of the RAF's aircraft will stay.......
Defence cuts latest: Two carriers but no jet fighters as the iconic Harrier is axed | Mail Online
but apparently, both of the RAF's aircraft will stay.......
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks the papers are still churning out some news rather than "the" news
RAF, police and welfare budgets to bear brunt of £83bn cuts - Telegraph
Virtually the entire fleet of RAF Tornadoes are set to be taken out of service early while the Navy may be reduced to just 20 vessels. Even the Army, whose mission in Afghanistan is expected to last until 2015, is to lose up to 5,000 troops over this period
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments aside
The abbreviation of PoW for the Prince of Wales, strikes me as one which should be dropped - surely we can do better than that - i.e. Invince; Lusty; etc..
Ok so we have a CV with no aircraft, fit the CATOBAR - the major structural area, the well deck is there - buy a relevent quantity of F18SH - sufficient to commence and maintain initial operations, say three years - drop the JSF, by the time its ready, if ever, the Rolls version will have been cancelled anyway on cost grounds or NIH. In any event the JSF sensitivity of the cloaking paint to damage, does not auger well for operations such as Iraq and Afghan, nor the operational environmental requirements, including landing pads. The F18's are off the shelf, so ordering can wait until when the CV is fitting out and the deficit is nearly cleared, which makes for easier financing.
No development costs.
Provides a working CV as soon as completed trials.
Allows for loss of Harriers.
Financially a better solution.
Avoids the stupidity of having the main unit of our Navy as a toothless tiger, and our Navy therefore consisting of a few Frigates and MCM's with a helicopter carrier. The Maldives might be frightened.
If the latest go faster whizzbang is really desired, purchase the then hot future favourite in 2040 or when you can afford it.
Worth a try??
Ok so we have a CV with no aircraft, fit the CATOBAR - the major structural area, the well deck is there - buy a relevent quantity of F18SH - sufficient to commence and maintain initial operations, say three years - drop the JSF, by the time its ready, if ever, the Rolls version will have been cancelled anyway on cost grounds or NIH. In any event the JSF sensitivity of the cloaking paint to damage, does not auger well for operations such as Iraq and Afghan, nor the operational environmental requirements, including landing pads. The F18's are off the shelf, so ordering can wait until when the CV is fitting out and the deficit is nearly cleared, which makes for easier financing.
No development costs.
Provides a working CV as soon as completed trials.
Allows for loss of Harriers.
Financially a better solution.
Avoids the stupidity of having the main unit of our Navy as a toothless tiger, and our Navy therefore consisting of a few Frigates and MCM's with a helicopter carrier. The Maldives might be frightened.
If the latest go faster whizzbang is really desired, purchase the then hot future favourite in 2040 or when you can afford it.
Worth a try??
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN already has pilots trainig with the USN on Super Hornets so a core of a squadron will be ready ( I think there are about twelve of them ). Speedy delivery should not be a problem if the USN gives up a few slots.
The RAAF even have one carrier qualified Super Hornet pilot....
The RAAF even have one carrier qualified Super Hornet pilot....