Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Navy sailors from the UK's £3.1bn flagship aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth have been arrested in Florida, a Navy spokesman has said.The sailors, on shore leave, began fighting and urinating in public, according to local newspaper reports.Six crew members were arrested on drunk and disorderly charges on Wednesday, Sgt Larry Smith of Jacksonville Beach police department is quoted as saying
Ho hum. Ho hum.
Well, THAT’S never happened before has it!
Watch Sailor to see how it used to be on Ark Royal.
Watch Sailor to see how it used to be on Ark Royal.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flaws-in-mods-9...
"Flaws in MoD’s £9bn F-35 Lightning II jets ‘not being fixed’"
"Critical safety flaws in Britain’s new stealth warplanes are being reclassified rather than fixed, according to an investigation by a US spending watchdog.
Britain is buying 48 F-35 Lightning II fighter bombers from America for £9.1bn, with a pledge to purchase a total of 138. The fast-jet programme has, however, been marred by technical problems as the aircraft undergo testing ready to enter frontline service.
The warplane had 111 “category 1” deficiencies, which “could jeopardise safety, security or another critical requirement”, according to the Government Accountability Office, an agency that works for the US Congress.
An investigation by the spending watchdog Project on Government Oversight (Pogo) has now claimed that some of these deficiencies are being recategorised by defence officials as less severe, despite the…
Enjoy the runs ashore while they last, Jack..
"Flaws in MoD’s £9bn F-35 Lightning II jets ‘not being fixed’"
"Critical safety flaws in Britain’s new stealth warplanes are being reclassified rather than fixed, according to an investigation by a US spending watchdog.
Britain is buying 48 F-35 Lightning II fighter bombers from America for £9.1bn, with a pledge to purchase a total of 138. The fast-jet programme has, however, been marred by technical problems as the aircraft undergo testing ready to enter frontline service.
The warplane had 111 “category 1” deficiencies, which “could jeopardise safety, security or another critical requirement”, according to the Government Accountability Office, an agency that works for the US Congress.
An investigation by the spending watchdog Project on Government Oversight (Pogo) has now claimed that some of these deficiencies are being recategorised by defence officials as less severe, despite the…
Enjoy the runs ashore while they last, Jack..
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad Rag - of the 111 deficiencies that could compromise safety/ requirement/ security/ capability - how many actually do? How does 111 stack up against other similar/ comparable programmes? Anyone know?
Orca - I don't know, off the top of my head.
I do know how many other comparable programs have faced similar questions, 22 years after the start of major investments, that have never been deprived of a cent of requested funding.
I do know how many other comparable programs have faced similar questions, 22 years after the start of major investments, that have never been deprived of a cent of requested funding.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So no programmes from countries that pay in cents? Well done you for knowing all the programmes. That must be a lot.
Are there any made in some of the other countries? I heard a few countries made stuff. Could be wrong.
I imagined that there would be a couple of programmes out there (some even paid for in cents) which can only dream about 111 issues. When I say imagined...
Are there any made in some of the other countries? I heard a few countries made stuff. Could be wrong.
I imagined that there would be a couple of programmes out there (some even paid for in cents) which can only dream about 111 issues. When I say imagined...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite topical.
European F-35 fighter jet users push to drive down operating costs
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-us...-idUKKCN1LQ25X
Operating costs were a big issue when senior military officials from the United States, Israel and F-35 user nations in Europe - Britain, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, the Netherlands - met in Germany last week, they said.
“We discussed the importance of ensuring that future costs - specifically for sustainment - are kept to a minimum so that we don’t have to cut into future purchases,” U.S. Air Force Colonel Leslie Hauck, who heads the fifth generation integration office at the U.S. Air Force headquarters in Europe, told Reuters.
The latest Pentagon selected acquisition report on the programme put the cost per flying hour of the F-35 at around $30,000 per flying hour in 2012 dollars, compared to around $25,500 per hour for an older-generation F-16 fighter. Fuel cost changes could boost that sum in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The Pentagon’s F-35 programme office last week said it would compile and distribute information from users about maintenance procedures, staffing requirements and other key metrics.
Together the allies will have some 64 F-35s in Europe by 2019 and 550 by 2034, General Tod Wolters, the head of U.S. and NATO air forces in Europe, told officials at last week’s meeting.
The first U.S. F-35s are set to arrive in 2021.[ No doubt THEY will not require extensive re build to meet operational standards.]
Hmm. No mention of the use of synthetic trainers to reduce actual airframe usage.
Oh there aren't any...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-us...-idUKKCN1LQ25X
Operating costs were a big issue when senior military officials from the United States, Israel and F-35 user nations in Europe - Britain, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, the Netherlands - met in Germany last week, they said.
“We discussed the importance of ensuring that future costs - specifically for sustainment - are kept to a minimum so that we don’t have to cut into future purchases,” U.S. Air Force Colonel Leslie Hauck, who heads the fifth generation integration office at the U.S. Air Force headquarters in Europe, told Reuters.
The latest Pentagon selected acquisition report on the programme put the cost per flying hour of the F-35 at around $30,000 per flying hour in 2012 dollars, compared to around $25,500 per hour for an older-generation F-16 fighter. Fuel cost changes could boost that sum in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The Pentagon’s F-35 programme office last week said it would compile and distribute information from users about maintenance procedures, staffing requirements and other key metrics.
Together the allies will have some 64 F-35s in Europe by 2019 and 550 by 2034, General Tod Wolters, the head of U.S. and NATO air forces in Europe, told officials at last week’s meeting.
The first U.S. F-35s are set to arrive in 2021.[ No doubt THEY will not require extensive re build to meet operational standards.]
Hmm. No mention of the use of synthetic trainers to reduce actual airframe usage.
Oh there aren't any...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So no programmes from countries that pay in cents? Well done you for knowing all the programmes. That must be a lot.
Are there any made in some of the other countries? I heard a few countries made stuff. Could be wrong.
I imagined that there would be a couple of programmes out there (some even paid for in cents) which can only dream about 111 issues. When I say imagined...
Are there any made in some of the other countries? I heard a few countries made stuff. Could be wrong.
I imagined that there would be a couple of programmes out there (some even paid for in cents) which can only dream about 111 issues. When I say imagined...
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...2017f35jsf.pdf
Only 111 Cat 1s? Bloody well done I say. I recall 53 on one comms LRU alone in Merlin/Lynx/Sea King in about 1984. (Yes, Merlin comms system design was complete then). Funding turned down and they just sit on record should anything happen. It was fixed in 1994 on ASaC Mk7, mainly due to role, but not retrospectively to those older designs.
Edit: Should just add those 53 were not caused by the manufacturer, but by the Home Office changing the spec.
Edit: Should just add those 53 were not caused by the manufacturer, but by the Home Office changing the spec.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. An enemy that nukes a carrier battle group "with no collateral" has no military assets anywhere that could be nuked "with no collateral"? And once a nuclear exchange begins that is pure military "with no collateral" (yah shur), it will in no wise escalate? Yah shur.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Ken, it might escalate but the whole point of selecting a purely military target is to reduce the certainty of escalation.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Derby
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think kenv is right... you let the N cat out of the bag and all bets are off
nuke maybe 8000 people and god knows how many zillion dollars worth of kit..... no political system anywhere could stand by and not retaliate....
nuke maybe 8000 people and god knows how many zillion dollars worth of kit..... no political system anywhere could stand by and not retaliate....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Destruction of a nuclear asset by non nuclear means is still retaliation. You could boil a bit of sea but an SSN has a greater chance of a confirmed kill and of course why stop at one?
Nuking a CVS with any certainty is not as easy as it sounds. Penetrating the defensive screen is not easy. Launching a 'barrage' of SSM/ASM might give a greater assurance of at least one hit, but would they want to salvo off all their missiles in one blow? Of course there is the question of use it or lose it.
*
In one paper exercise, pre-Able Archer, a subordinate commander sought first use ofva nuclear weapon to stop the Red advance. SACEUR got authorisation for nuclear release. We were surprised that the target list was 50 targets; it certainly showed the thinking at star level.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Reduce the certainty of escalation?" Which is more certain, that it will or that it will not escalate? And given the uncertainly, you are willing to bet the vast majority of the planet's entire civilized population that it will not? Sounds like a terrible bet to me, whether the target is a CBG or a land air base.
And on the subject of "proportionality", what's proportional about using a Super Hornet launched from a super carrier and now cruising at 15,000 ft releasing a 1000lb guided bomb to take out a Taliban on a bicycle with an RPG? Or using Stealth bombers who've just flown the long way round from the US to Afghanistan to bomb a bunch of stinking dudes hiding in a cave? In the real world of actual military operations, "proportionality" is usually the last thing on any one's mind. If the folks in the field are given weapons free to use nukes, the target list is CERTAIN to include lots of stuff that is not going to be remotely "proportional" in the sense used here.
Consider that Japan bombed "purely military targets" (most of them naval) in Hawaii in 1941. What was the response? B-25s launched from a carrier which bombed the biggest (and very densely civilian populated) city in Japan. And ultimately two nukes on two cities. Why imagine the response will be so much different today?
In short, "proportionality" in military operations is almost certainly a pipe dream. The US has a long history of meeting a direct military threat with overwhelming force. Why imagine that will change? And the US does not even have to use nukes to provide a very devastating response. Is bombing Shanghai or another strategic target into oblivion using non nukes "proportional" to using nukes to take out a CBG? I don't know. Do you?
Last edited by KenV; 12th Sep 2018 at 14:26.