Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inventions...
As I said previously, the F-35B is the only way ahead, it gives the flexibity of landing at forward rough strips as well as other ships...
WeBranchFanatic, I usually agree with what you say, but have to point out the Germans came up indepently with jet engines & radar at about the same time if not a fraction earlier - as we all know, luckily they didn't use the jet properly, though radar was a problem for aircraft going cross - channel.
WeBranchFanatic, I usually agree with what you say, but have to point out the Germans came up indepently with jet engines & radar at about the same time if not a fraction earlier - as we all know, luckily they didn't use the jet properly, though radar was a problem for aircraft going cross - channel.
Dave B will be a compromise for the Dark Blue, Dave C will be a compromise for the Light Blue and also, put the Typhoon in the spotlight against a more capable aircraft. We all know that the UK will get Dave B because the light Blue pull the strings/have a more powerful lobby.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jungly,
Concur regarding SABR and V-22 but it is bloody expensive! An EV-22 with the ASaC7 mission system and extra consoles would be a perfect option for MASC but sadly prohibitively expensive. The costs of integrating the system and pressurising the airframe would just be too much.
It's about time your own Jungly Sea Kings were replaced with Merlin however! I know the RN have not had the greatest time with your HM1s but we like our Merlin HC2s.
We need to be realistic in our procurement. Buy more Merlin (with blade folding) for the RAF and RN Jungly guys. Buy more Chinook. Get rid of Puma and HC4 asap. Sink max cash into a Merlin MASC to ensure 3-4 control positions and compound wing/Oxy for a more useful op altitude.
Widger,
Typhoon has better manoeuverability, supercruise, endurance and payload than all F-35 variants. F-35 will however have better sensors as it's a generation ahead.
Concur regarding SABR and V-22 but it is bloody expensive! An EV-22 with the ASaC7 mission system and extra consoles would be a perfect option for MASC but sadly prohibitively expensive. The costs of integrating the system and pressurising the airframe would just be too much.
It's about time your own Jungly Sea Kings were replaced with Merlin however! I know the RN have not had the greatest time with your HM1s but we like our Merlin HC2s.
We need to be realistic in our procurement. Buy more Merlin (with blade folding) for the RAF and RN Jungly guys. Buy more Chinook. Get rid of Puma and HC4 asap. Sink max cash into a Merlin MASC to ensure 3-4 control positions and compound wing/Oxy for a more useful op altitude.
Widger,
Typhoon has better manoeuverability, supercruise, endurance and payload than all F-35 variants. F-35 will however have better sensors as it's a generation ahead.
Typhoon cannot land on a ship and needs host nation support and prepared runways....that's my point.
I am sure the Light Blue thought that the F3 was better than the Phantom! The F3 was faster, had longer range etc than the FA2, but got waxed every time. The Rafale was more manouevrable (SP?) than the FA2, longer range, payload etc, but still got waxed.
The Typhoon will be better than Dave B/C but the Dave C will still wax it!
I am sure the Light Blue thought that the F3 was better than the Phantom! The F3 was faster, had longer range etc than the FA2, but got waxed every time. The Rafale was more manouevrable (SP?) than the FA2, longer range, payload etc, but still got waxed.
The Typhoon will be better than Dave B/C but the Dave C will still wax it!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, the old HNS argument!
The SHAR most certainly didn't always wax the F3!!!!! When it did, it was because it had a better missile in AMRAAM. However, JTIDS, high speed and better endurance still sometimes won the day even when the F3 still only had Skyslug. Once F3 had AMRAAM, let alone ASRAAM and all the bells and whistles it now has, it was rare for an FA2 to beat an F3.
I won't engage in 'my dad's bigger than yours' spotter comparisons between Typhoon and F-35. Each will have positive and negative aspects over the other. The point is, Typhoon and F-35 B or C should complement each other very nicely and we need both.
Regards,
MM
The SHAR most certainly didn't always wax the F3!!!!! When it did, it was because it had a better missile in AMRAAM. However, JTIDS, high speed and better endurance still sometimes won the day even when the F3 still only had Skyslug. Once F3 had AMRAAM, let alone ASRAAM and all the bells and whistles it now has, it was rare for an FA2 to beat an F3.
I won't engage in 'my dad's bigger than yours' spotter comparisons between Typhoon and F-35. Each will have positive and negative aspects over the other. The point is, Typhoon and F-35 B or C should complement each other very nicely and we need both.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd buy C, and there's actually quite a lot of support for that variant in the light blue as it's take-off run is potentially so short. Granted, it would need a longer strip in whatever sandpit we're deployed to but the cost of a few hundred more m of tarmac would, I'd suggest, be more than offset by the C's increased capabilities and lower technical risk.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 B Vs C.....and Other Stuff...
Responding to MM:
It seems that sometimes the B/C debate is conducted solely on the basis of the uniform supposed (and I mean supposed) to be supporting them. Let's try looking at this another way...
F-35C is designed to land and launch from a USN CVN. Period. That's why it gets a big wing, so it can fly slow to take the wire. It also gets LOTS of extra metal inside to take the stresses of the carrier landing, plus those of launch. So, it ends up with a lot more fuel (bigger wing tanks), a bit better range, but it weighs much more, and is slower than the A or the B.
It does not have a short takeoff run, unless you use a catapult. If you want STO, buy a STOVL F-35B.
Have to comment on this:
Typhoon has better manoeuverability, supercruise, endurance and payload than all F-35 variants. F-35 will however have better sensors as it's a generation ahead.
Typhoon endurance and payload better than all F-35 variants? Er no, not at all.....
And I HAVE to respond to the F3/SHAR stuff - selective memory or what? The SHAR was knocking ten bells out of F3s when they just had AIM-9s, and AMRAAM SHAR vs AMRAAM F3 was, for quite some time, another unequal contest. I don't mind about the interservice stuff, but can't we just, for once, recognise how GOOD the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combo was on FA2? And the JTIDS equipped FA2 was grounded by MoD order one day before first flight - how good that combo would have been....
Engines
It seems that sometimes the B/C debate is conducted solely on the basis of the uniform supposed (and I mean supposed) to be supporting them. Let's try looking at this another way...
F-35C is designed to land and launch from a USN CVN. Period. That's why it gets a big wing, so it can fly slow to take the wire. It also gets LOTS of extra metal inside to take the stresses of the carrier landing, plus those of launch. So, it ends up with a lot more fuel (bigger wing tanks), a bit better range, but it weighs much more, and is slower than the A or the B.
It does not have a short takeoff run, unless you use a catapult. If you want STO, buy a STOVL F-35B.
Have to comment on this:
Typhoon has better manoeuverability, supercruise, endurance and payload than all F-35 variants. F-35 will however have better sensors as it's a generation ahead.
Typhoon endurance and payload better than all F-35 variants? Er no, not at all.....
And I HAVE to respond to the F3/SHAR stuff - selective memory or what? The SHAR was knocking ten bells out of F3s when they just had AIM-9s, and AMRAAM SHAR vs AMRAAM F3 was, for quite some time, another unequal contest. I don't mind about the interservice stuff, but can't we just, for once, recognise how GOOD the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combo was on FA2? And the JTIDS equipped FA2 was grounded by MoD order one day before first flight - how good that combo would have been....
Engines
A few comments...
One of the main reasons that the C has a better range than the A is that it has no internal gun. The wing tanks are bigger and the span is greater (good) but not quite enough to offset the greater weight.
Comparing any F-35 to the Typhoon is difficult even though they have about the same power and gross weight. Yes, the F-35A/C can fly further if both are carrying the F-35 design load of 2 x AMRAAMs and 2 x 2K bombs, with no external fuel, but the Typhoon never was designed to fly that way. Conversely, the F-35A/C could theoretically go a long way in wall-to-wall configuration with external tanks, but they've been dropped as a combat-certified item - they are ferry-only. And in that mode it is non-stealthy with no active EW.
One of the main reasons that the C has a better range than the A is that it has no internal gun. The wing tanks are bigger and the span is greater (good) but not quite enough to offset the greater weight.
Comparing any F-35 to the Typhoon is difficult even though they have about the same power and gross weight. Yes, the F-35A/C can fly further if both are carrying the F-35 design load of 2 x AMRAAMs and 2 x 2K bombs, with no external fuel, but the Typhoon never was designed to fly that way. Conversely, the F-35A/C could theoretically go a long way in wall-to-wall configuration with external tanks, but they've been dropped as a combat-certified item - they are ferry-only. And in that mode it is non-stealthy with no active EW.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Conversely, the F-35A/C could theoretically go a long way in wall-to-wall configuration with external tanks, but they've been dropped as a combat-certified item - they are ferry-only.
DID - April 28/06: A $52.4 million ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002). It exercises an option to certify the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb for the U. S. Air Force Joint Strike Fighter conventional take off and landing (CTOL) aircraft, and also eliminates the effort to certify the F-35A for wind corrected munitions dispenser (WCMD) GPS-guided cluster bombs, and for external fuel tanks.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
The F-35C should have a respectably short take-off run for a modern fast jet. My point was that it may be worth trading a little bit more tarmac for the C's greater capabilities over the B despite the latter's true STO run.
As far as endurance etc goes, this will clearly vary considerably on role and task. However, the unclass figures for a clean Typhoon suggest a combat radius of around 490nm. This compares to the combat radii for the F-35A (590nm), B(450nm) and C (600nm). However, I can think of few times when Typhoon will go into combat clean. More normally it'll have external tanks on which will extend it's combat radius to up to 1100nm. Unlike the F-35 ferry tanks, these are combat capable although I acknowledge they may have to be punched off. Realistically therefore, even a modest assessment of the Typhoon's combat radius would place it at 800nm. F-35 will only be able to reach that on current estimates with ferry tanks. Obviously however, Typhoon is not LO. But that's another argument and exactly why the 2 compliment one another.
As far as your comments ref F3 v Shar, a cursory glance through my past posts will illustrate that I'm a strong advocate of organic naval air. I'm not sure what your experience is; mine is 5000 hrs E-3D during which I've seen F3s, FRS1 and FA2 on live ops over Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and Iraq. In trg I've regularly worked those assets on opposing sides in exercises around the world. I would certainly agree that the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM mix was extremely capable. Unfortunately, it was mounted on a small, subsonic airframe the design of which originated in the first generation Harrier of the 1960s.
In a visual fight, a SHAR of whatever variant/AIM-9 should beat an F3/AIM-9. Likewise, when the FA2 got AMRAAM it was a very difficult opponent for any fighter equipped with only a SARH missile. However, the F3s additional speed, JTIDS and brain/pair of eyes still sometimes won the day. Once the F3 got ASRAAM, the capabilities of that missile largely offset the manoeuverability of the SHAR/AIM-9 in a turning fight.
However, I can think of very few cases where F3/AMRAAM/ASRAAM lost out to FA2/AMRAAM where exercise simulation/RoE/regen criteria etc were not a factor. Less manoeuverable yes, but the F3's 4 x AMRAAM/2 x ASRAAM, superior endurance, speed, JTIDS and EW gadgets various generally more than matched a subsonic FA2 with 4 x AMRAAM.
JTIDS/ASRAAM would have certainly helped the FA2 keep pace with the F3 upgrades although the pilot workload would have been huge. But FA2 and JTIDS/ASRAAM never happened.
I therefore stand by my earlier comments. From my op and ex experience, the F3 was more than equal to an FA2 in the majority of fights I've seen once the former received decent weapons. I still however lament the demise of the FA2 and AMRAAM.
Regards,
MM
The F-35C should have a respectably short take-off run for a modern fast jet. My point was that it may be worth trading a little bit more tarmac for the C's greater capabilities over the B despite the latter's true STO run.
As far as endurance etc goes, this will clearly vary considerably on role and task. However, the unclass figures for a clean Typhoon suggest a combat radius of around 490nm. This compares to the combat radii for the F-35A (590nm), B(450nm) and C (600nm). However, I can think of few times when Typhoon will go into combat clean. More normally it'll have external tanks on which will extend it's combat radius to up to 1100nm. Unlike the F-35 ferry tanks, these are combat capable although I acknowledge they may have to be punched off. Realistically therefore, even a modest assessment of the Typhoon's combat radius would place it at 800nm. F-35 will only be able to reach that on current estimates with ferry tanks. Obviously however, Typhoon is not LO. But that's another argument and exactly why the 2 compliment one another.
As far as your comments ref F3 v Shar, a cursory glance through my past posts will illustrate that I'm a strong advocate of organic naval air. I'm not sure what your experience is; mine is 5000 hrs E-3D during which I've seen F3s, FRS1 and FA2 on live ops over Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and Iraq. In trg I've regularly worked those assets on opposing sides in exercises around the world. I would certainly agree that the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM mix was extremely capable. Unfortunately, it was mounted on a small, subsonic airframe the design of which originated in the first generation Harrier of the 1960s.
In a visual fight, a SHAR of whatever variant/AIM-9 should beat an F3/AIM-9. Likewise, when the FA2 got AMRAAM it was a very difficult opponent for any fighter equipped with only a SARH missile. However, the F3s additional speed, JTIDS and brain/pair of eyes still sometimes won the day. Once the F3 got ASRAAM, the capabilities of that missile largely offset the manoeuverability of the SHAR/AIM-9 in a turning fight.
However, I can think of very few cases where F3/AMRAAM/ASRAAM lost out to FA2/AMRAAM where exercise simulation/RoE/regen criteria etc were not a factor. Less manoeuverable yes, but the F3's 4 x AMRAAM/2 x ASRAAM, superior endurance, speed, JTIDS and EW gadgets various generally more than matched a subsonic FA2 with 4 x AMRAAM.
JTIDS/ASRAAM would have certainly helped the FA2 keep pace with the F3 upgrades although the pilot workload would have been huge. But FA2 and JTIDS/ASRAAM never happened.
I therefore stand by my earlier comments. From my op and ex experience, the F3 was more than equal to an FA2 in the majority of fights I've seen once the former received decent weapons. I still however lament the demise of the FA2 and AMRAAM.
Regards,
MM
Suspicion breeds confidence
Good post MM.
Time has moved on and we have to look forwards not backwards. The GR9 puts the fleet back 25+ years as far as AD is concerned, its hopeless, let face the facts. As far as strike goes, then its much better. History teaches everyone that both are equally important. As of now, JFH cannot equip even one CVS for anything apart from the odd ex once a year, lets not kid ourselves any more. The so called "Naval Air Wing" can not muster more than a handful of a/c or pilots and certainly cannot provide an airgroup for a CVS. We are in a much worse state than 25 yrs ago. How we get from here to a fully worked up CVF airgroup is beyond me. Things are that bad. Our current on call strike carrier has no air group and has to borrow one from the USMC. What a state of affairs.
Discuss.
Time has moved on and we have to look forwards not backwards. The GR9 puts the fleet back 25+ years as far as AD is concerned, its hopeless, let face the facts. As far as strike goes, then its much better. History teaches everyone that both are equally important. As of now, JFH cannot equip even one CVS for anything apart from the odd ex once a year, lets not kid ourselves any more. The so called "Naval Air Wing" can not muster more than a handful of a/c or pilots and certainly cannot provide an airgroup for a CVS. We are in a much worse state than 25 yrs ago. How we get from here to a fully worked up CVF airgroup is beyond me. Things are that bad. Our current on call strike carrier has no air group and has to borrow one from the USMC. What a state of affairs.
Discuss.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
I think some folks in their comparison of the various Daves and its potential rivals are getting a tad hung up on (claimed) combat radii.
If you take a look at such illustrious craft as the Tomcat and the Eagle both of these (according to open source material) do not compare favourably to Dave but I do not imagine many would say that they were not fit for purpose.
It is not simply a matter of how far Dave can fly and return but what it can do in that range.
If it is to remain stealthy then it is very limited in what it can carry. If it is not to remain stealthy then most of its competitors can carry far more.
As a stealthy Harrier replacement it is a good aircraft as for the others it is supposed to replace, I am not so sure.
Cheers
BHR
I think some folks in their comparison of the various Daves and its potential rivals are getting a tad hung up on (claimed) combat radii.
If you take a look at such illustrious craft as the Tomcat and the Eagle both of these (according to open source material) do not compare favourably to Dave but I do not imagine many would say that they were not fit for purpose.
It is not simply a matter of how far Dave can fly and return but what it can do in that range.
If it is to remain stealthy then it is very limited in what it can carry. If it is not to remain stealthy then most of its competitors can carry far more.
As a stealthy Harrier replacement it is a good aircraft as for the others it is supposed to replace, I am not so sure.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true BHR, and 'projected endurance' for aircraft that have yet to fly are often shown to be somewhat optimistic. Lies, damned lies and statistics etc.
Personally, I feel F-35C is the best option although F-35B will still be impressive and give the option for cross decking to other UK or coalition platforms. Why, for instance could we not stick a ski jump on the bow of Ocean's replacement?
We must also be wary of being rail roaded by the Army into a generation of land centric projects. The here and now is undoubtedly the Land Component and we do need to improve Air Land coop. But not at the expense of allowing several decades of effective TASMO which has allowed (imho) the RAF and RN to establish an excellent understanding of one another's needs and ops.
Regards,
MM
Personally, I feel F-35C is the best option although F-35B will still be impressive and give the option for cross decking to other UK or coalition platforms. Why, for instance could we not stick a ski jump on the bow of Ocean's replacement?
We must also be wary of being rail roaded by the Army into a generation of land centric projects. The here and now is undoubtedly the Land Component and we do need to improve Air Land coop. But not at the expense of allowing several decades of effective TASMO which has allowed (imho) the RAF and RN to establish an excellent understanding of one another's needs and ops.
Regards,
MM
I was thinking for a moment there that we were actually having some good discussion on here, then someone mentioned TASMO.................ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, 
Anyway, does anyone know if Dave of either variant will be buddy buddy capable. This is quite a crucial area as the USN use F18s in just that role, which significantly increases payload and range.
TASMO....................that's a good one.........nearly fell of my chair!
Anyway, does anyone know if Dave of either variant will be buddy buddy capable. This is quite a crucial area as the USN use F18s in just that role, which significantly increases payload and range.
TASMO....................that's a good one.........nearly fell of my chair!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always seemed to work okay from my E-3D!!!
Not sure about Buddy AR and F-35. I doubt whether the C will get it as the FA-18 will be able to carry more gas. As the USMC have never had it, I doubt whether the B will get it either.
Obviously, buddy AR is only really used to top up aircraft in the immediate vicinity of mother when the deck is black etc. Even the USN S-3B only ever ventured as far as the very southern bit of the driveways during OEF. Only 'real' tankers can provide the offload required for formations.
As the RN have not had such a capability since 78, it may be difficult to get past the financiers. However, let's hope we do get such a capability although I suspect there'll be bigger fish to fry in the foreseeable future!!
Maybe this could provide more weight for a dual purchase of EV-22 MASC and KV-22 AR for CVF? If only...
Off to dust off my copy of ATP-34!!!!!
Regards,
MM
Not sure about Buddy AR and F-35. I doubt whether the C will get it as the FA-18 will be able to carry more gas. As the USMC have never had it, I doubt whether the B will get it either.
Obviously, buddy AR is only really used to top up aircraft in the immediate vicinity of mother when the deck is black etc. Even the USN S-3B only ever ventured as far as the very southern bit of the driveways during OEF. Only 'real' tankers can provide the offload required for formations.
As the RN have not had such a capability since 78, it may be difficult to get past the financiers. However, let's hope we do get such a capability although I suspect there'll be bigger fish to fry in the foreseeable future!!
Maybe this could provide more weight for a dual purchase of EV-22 MASC and KV-22 AR for CVF? If only...
Off to dust off my copy of ATP-34!!!!!
Regards,
MM
I know from recent discussions that AAR is very important to the USN, particularly during recovery. After a bolter, a quick suck of gas can be the difference between safe recovery and a possible ditching or diversion (if an airfield is in diversion range).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bolter AR when a pilot is having a bad day or other factors are making recovery difficult are indeed very important and why the AR assets are often the last back on deck in a cycle. I guess that may therefore be another plus for F-35B in that AR is not as important (apart from the few occasions where a guy gets lost and there's not a convenient Spanish Freighter!!).
Sorry, cheap shot...
Sorry, cheap shot...
AR is likely to be more important for both Dave B and Dave C because of the larger recoveries that the CVF Flypro is likely to generate. STOVL or not, if there's a foul deck and a large number of c/s ahead of you in the recovery, those at the end are liable to get very twitchy. Cat n trap will be even worse, BUT (and here's yet another argument in favour of Dave-C), a cat n' trap ship might just allow for a more capable tanker a/c (eg the boneyard S3s or whatever the USN buy if they go down a non-buddy route).
A buddy pack and wing tanks will only get you (say) 4000lb of F44, which isn't going to go very far, particularly for Dave C.
A buddy pack and wing tanks will only get you (say) 4000lb of F44, which isn't going to go very far, particularly for Dave C.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no way you'll get S-3. Very expensive to maintain despite being a very useful and versatile platform (I was lucky enough to do a sortie in an ES-3A from the Eisenhower many years ago). At the end of the day, it's a 1960's design.
As far as I'm aware, the USN have opted for FA-18E as their buddy of choice (a fact which has horrified the fighter dudes and is not, I'd imagine, a duty of choice!).
As far as I'm aware, the USN have opted for FA-18E as their buddy of choice (a fact which has horrified the fighter dudes and is not, I'd imagine, a duty of choice!).