Future Carrier (Including Costs)
RonO,
No doubt the UK system buys things better than the USA....no cockups over there at all. Not that I am suggesting ours is anything but a disaster itself.
No doubt the UK system buys things better than the USA....no cockups over there at all. Not that I am suggesting ours is anything but a disaster itself.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by junglyAEO
reenigne
I was trying to get my number of posts up to 232!
jungly
I was trying to get my number of posts up to 232!
jungly
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Burbage told your parliament committee that's not the case.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Hill:
A Senate panel’s decision to cut significant funds from the Pentagon’s most expensive program to date, the Joint Strike Fighter, could create a maelstrom in the Pentagon and potentially during conference deliberations with the House over the 2007 defense authorization act.
The Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), slashed $1.2 billion from the Pentagon’s request for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a multiservice, multinational program....... McCain’s panel recommended cutting $870 million from the procurement funds for five of the Air Force’s JSF aircraft in fiscal 2007. The panel also recommended cutting $245 million, which makes up the entire so-called advance procurement funding for eight of the Marine Corps’s short-takeoff and vertical-landing version of the aircraft, slated for 2008, as well $85 million of the Air Force’s advance procurement request of $145 million for eight aircraft in 2008.......
Advance procurement ensures that some necessary components, parts and material are made available before the Pentagon makes the request to buy a certain number of aircraft in a specific budget year.
If the Airland decision passes muster with the entire Armed Service’s Committee, chaired by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), and on the Senate floor, it will complicate matters when the defense authorization bill goes to conference with the House Armed Services Committee. The full Senate panel is expected to consider the bill today.
The House panel, which has marked up its version of the 2007 defense authorization bill, has been more generous with the Joint Strike Fighter. The House panel cut $241 million from the advance procurement of 16 aircraft in 2008 because of concerns over the fact that the research and development for the fighter jet was too concurrent with the actual buying plan for the aircraft.....
While the House funded the advance procurement of five aircraft in 2008, the Senate funded no aircraft.
A Senate panel’s decision to cut significant funds from the Pentagon’s most expensive program to date, the Joint Strike Fighter, could create a maelstrom in the Pentagon and potentially during conference deliberations with the House over the 2007 defense authorization act.
The Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), slashed $1.2 billion from the Pentagon’s request for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a multiservice, multinational program....... McCain’s panel recommended cutting $870 million from the procurement funds for five of the Air Force’s JSF aircraft in fiscal 2007. The panel also recommended cutting $245 million, which makes up the entire so-called advance procurement funding for eight of the Marine Corps’s short-takeoff and vertical-landing version of the aircraft, slated for 2008, as well $85 million of the Air Force’s advance procurement request of $145 million for eight aircraft in 2008.......
Advance procurement ensures that some necessary components, parts and material are made available before the Pentagon makes the request to buy a certain number of aircraft in a specific budget year.
If the Airland decision passes muster with the entire Armed Service’s Committee, chaired by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), and on the Senate floor, it will complicate matters when the defense authorization bill goes to conference with the House Armed Services Committee. The full Senate panel is expected to consider the bill today.
The House panel, which has marked up its version of the 2007 defense authorization bill, has been more generous with the Joint Strike Fighter. The House panel cut $241 million from the advance procurement of 16 aircraft in 2008 because of concerns over the fact that the research and development for the fighter jet was too concurrent with the actual buying plan for the aircraft.....
While the House funded the advance procurement of five aircraft in 2008, the Senate funded no aircraft.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Navaleye - will CVF have through deck lifts?
Courtesy of RichardB's excellent site on the subject
Last edited by Navaleye; 4th May 2006 at 11:09.
Re LO and export JSFs:
The UK will get US-standard aircraft because they're designed to the same Joint Op Req Document (JORD). This defines signatures as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP).
All other export aircraft are designed to individual ORDs negotiated bilaterally and forming an appendix to the big PSFD MoU. Clearly, these may contain KPPs that are not the same as those in the US-UK JORD. Indeed, there's not a lot of point having them if they don't. Notably, these bilateral ORDs are described as being compatible with "national disclosure policy." Which means that it's more than the Norwegians wanting a brake parachute.
So while the good Col. Richard Harris (does he occasionally break into "MacArthur Park" in classified meetings? We do not know. But I think we should be told.) tells the Norwegians that there will be no differences in signatures, that issue is still technically subject to negotiations.
The UK will get US-standard aircraft because they're designed to the same Joint Op Req Document (JORD). This defines signatures as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP).
All other export aircraft are designed to individual ORDs negotiated bilaterally and forming an appendix to the big PSFD MoU. Clearly, these may contain KPPs that are not the same as those in the US-UK JORD. Indeed, there's not a lot of point having them if they don't. Notably, these bilateral ORDs are described as being compatible with "national disclosure policy." Which means that it's more than the Norwegians wanting a brake parachute.
So while the good Col. Richard Harris (does he occasionally break into "MacArthur Park" in classified meetings? We do not know. But I think we should be told.) tells the Norwegians that there will be no differences in signatures, that issue is still technically subject to negotiations.
Not only does CVF have deck-edge lifts, the Delta (current) design has provision for an integral angled deck at start of life (not retrofitted like our old carriers). The ship also has space and weight reserved for Mk 13-3 catapults and Mk 7 Mod 4 arrester gear - the current USN standards. However, there is some debate as to whether to contract a certain UK company to revisit their 1960s design for cats and arresters.
More importantly, the deck has been designed with both STOVL and CV-type operations in mind (ie launch and recovery parking positions for the two different modes of operation).
More importantly, the deck has been designed with both STOVL and CV-type operations in mind (ie launch and recovery parking positions for the two different modes of operation).
Thread Starter
GTP I first became aware of JSF (think it was called JAST at first) back in 1995 from Flight International in a local libary. Even back then the STOVL version was linked to the RN as well as the USMC.
I think manpower considerations do need to be taken into account in selecting equipment.
In the June 2005 edition of Air Forces Monthly had an article on UK Future Maritime Airpower by James S Bosbotinos. He claims that Lockheed Martin are/were studying a possible two seat version of the F35B for electronic attack.
I think manpower considerations do need to be taken into account in selecting equipment.
In the June 2005 edition of Air Forces Monthly had an article on UK Future Maritime Airpower by James S Bosbotinos. He claims that Lockheed Martin are/were studying a possible two seat version of the F35B for electronic attack.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, I googled this line from the committee report - seems they bought Burbage's story on LO. Attention span couldn't handle reading the whole thing so I guess they may have qualified it later.
"We have been assured that the STOVL variant of the JSF aircraft being procured by the UK and US are identical and are being designed to the same set of requirements, though, once delivered, the aircraft will be fitted with different weapons. "
Don't disagree that Burbage can get a bit weaselly wordy at times. He was recently asked what the plan was if the UK left the program, his reply was he doesn't think about that. Right. Like he's running a $300b program and no fallback if UK waves bye bye.
"We have been assured that the STOVL variant of the JSF aircraft being procured by the UK and US are identical and are being designed to the same set of requirements, though, once delivered, the aircraft will be fitted with different weapons. "
Don't disagree that Burbage can get a bit weaselly wordy at times. He was recently asked what the plan was if the UK left the program, his reply was he doesn't think about that. Right. Like he's running a $300b program and no fallback if UK waves bye bye.
For those interested, the relevant bit of the evidence in the Select Cttee report can be found at
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/554/554.pdf
with Mr Burbage's evidence at Q109 and following .
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/554/554.pdf
with Mr Burbage's evidence at Q109 and following .
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The weaselly bit is in the last question to him, Q118, where they finally try to pin it down. Look at his answer. He basically retreats to saying they both meet the common basic requirement - which isn't the question he was asked, and isn't the same as saying they are identical - one can meet meet it, the other can exceed it by x amount.
Q118:Mr Hancock: They have a different capability because they are going to do different things. The United States Marine Corps will not fly the plane in the same operational states as the Royal Navy fill fly it. So there are different capabilities. We are asking whether the plane itself, the product, is identical when it leaves the factory before it is customised to suit the use?
Mr Burbage: I would argue they are not being built to different capabilities. There was a common requirement constructed by the UK and US together. That common requirement is what we measure the airplane against and deliver the airplane against. There are some difference in UK weapons and US weapons.
He would argue? About what, on what grounds? Look also as Cdre Henley's reply to Q113.
Q113: Chairman: Okay. With many apologies I will repeat one question just for final confirmation. The US and UK STOVL versions will be identical in all respects, particularly in their Stealth characteristics. Is that correct?
Commodore Henley: Could I say I think we can only answer that by saying they share the same requirements.
That's what I mean by dodging the question.........
Q118:Mr Hancock: They have a different capability because they are going to do different things. The United States Marine Corps will not fly the plane in the same operational states as the Royal Navy fill fly it. So there are different capabilities. We are asking whether the plane itself, the product, is identical when it leaves the factory before it is customised to suit the use?
Mr Burbage: I would argue they are not being built to different capabilities. There was a common requirement constructed by the UK and US together. That common requirement is what we measure the airplane against and deliver the airplane against. There are some difference in UK weapons and US weapons.
He would argue? About what, on what grounds? Look also as Cdre Henley's reply to Q113.
Q113: Chairman: Okay. With many apologies I will repeat one question just for final confirmation. The US and UK STOVL versions will be identical in all respects, particularly in their Stealth characteristics. Is that correct?
Commodore Henley: Could I say I think we can only answer that by saying they share the same requirements.
That's what I mean by dodging the question.........
Last edited by ORAC; 5th May 2006 at 04:32.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be alone....but it is simply beyond me why the UK is pursuing ASTOVL. If you carry a lift-fan you give away miles and bombs, simple, end of story. I have heard arguments that ASTOVL is cheaper - i personally don't make planes but if i did i think i'd charge more for every bit that moved - makes me think ASTOVL will be more expensive to buy and maintain. Then the ASTOVL camp blahs on about the boat costing less, whilst at the same time patting themselves on the back that the boat could take a CV aircraft, so where's the saving there?!!
If the UK buy ASTOVL JSF/JCA they will have condemned yet another generation of UK aviators to the fate that the rest have suffered. Aircraft that don't go as far or carry as much as everyone else's.
If the UK buy ASTOVL JSF/JCA they will have condemned yet another generation of UK aviators to the fate that the rest have suffered. Aircraft that don't go as far or carry as much as everyone else's.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern day need for STOVL?
Back in the days when the Harrier was coming into service and throughout the Cold War - the Harrier was useful to the RAF because it could be very effectively dispersed. In the event of hostilities with the Soviet Bloc, the Harrier force could be operated from very simple concrete strips and forest clearings in Germany and at home - due to the fact that it can do VTOL & STOVL. That was fine - our jets would survive for longer than they would have at one of the main bases (hopefully!), therefore being able to do thier job of dropping BL755 (cluster bombs) and the like on Ivan and his pals. Handy in giving the navy some air defence from the baby carriers too. That, my dear chaps, is why STOVL came about - and what a good British idea it was too!(Not trying to give a history lesson!
)
The Harrier is still great at its job - it proved useful in Telic and is busy in Afghanistan by all acounts. How important is STOVL in modern day ops though?? Granted in Afghanistan it is just what is needed, but now that we don't need to conduct dispersed ops in Germany and the navy have the chance of acquiring these 'bigger than everything except Nimitz' CVFs, isn't purchasing CTOL a good idea? As has been very sensibly said just above - more miles and bombs must be better than having a couple of choices of approach back at base?!
Do the RAF need STOVL badly enough today to forego the chance to acquire a jet with increased capability? The CVFs will be big enough for CTOL so the navy don't have to have STOVL. Just why is it that STOVL is the 1st choice for UK MOD?? I'm not saying it shouldn't be and I am eager to hear reasons why we still need it over jets that are simply, well - better?!
) The Harrier is still great at its job - it proved useful in Telic and is busy in Afghanistan by all acounts. How important is STOVL in modern day ops though?? Granted in Afghanistan it is just what is needed, but now that we don't need to conduct dispersed ops in Germany and the navy have the chance of acquiring these 'bigger than everything except Nimitz' CVFs, isn't purchasing CTOL a good idea? As has been very sensibly said just above - more miles and bombs must be better than having a couple of choices of approach back at base?!
Do the RAF need STOVL badly enough today to forego the chance to acquire a jet with increased capability? The CVFs will be big enough for CTOL so the navy don't have to have STOVL. Just why is it that STOVL is the 1st choice for UK MOD?? I'm not saying it shouldn't be and I am eager to hear reasons why we still need it over jets that are simply, well - better?!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac, I guess I have to fall back on the Norsemen, they've gotten their Pentagon stooge (I keep thinking Harry Potter, wasn't he the bearded one?) to categorically state that their F-35's will be as sneaky as ours. Maybe we can ask him about the RAF ones.
Seems an obliging feller - in return for the usual eenfidel yankee pig go home, he thanks them for their comments. Better man than me, I'd tell the miserable ingrates where to go and what to do with the parrots they rode in on.
Seems an obliging feller - in return for the usual eenfidel yankee pig go home, he thanks them for their comments. Better man than me, I'd tell the miserable ingrates where to go and what to do with the parrots they rode in on.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
RonO,
May I also point out that in November 2003 a supplemental contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, valued at US$603 million, covering the development of an "international partner version" for the JSF, including "a version of the JSF... that is as common as possible to the US air system within the National Disclosure Policy". And the wording used by JSF programme officials when questioned about it at the time finds a worrying echo in Burbage´s answer.....
Iinternational Defence Review, May 2004: "a JSF program official said that the export versions "would look the same" - implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that "all JSFs will have stealth features" but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance."
May I also point out that in November 2003 a supplemental contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, valued at US$603 million, covering the development of an "international partner version" for the JSF, including "a version of the JSF... that is as common as possible to the US air system within the National Disclosure Policy". And the wording used by JSF programme officials when questioned about it at the time finds a worrying echo in Burbage´s answer.....
Iinternational Defence Review, May 2004: "a JSF program official said that the export versions "would look the same" - implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that "all JSFs will have stealth features" but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance."
It would be interesting to do a comparison of accidents per embarked flight hour for CV vs STOVL ops today. Not entirely convinced that the difference is as great as JackoNicko implies.
The other thing about CV recoveries is that if something does go wrong, bolters are possible. In STOVL, you're entirely reliant on your thrust column(s). (Yes, I know you can only bolter if you have enough fuel for subsequent recoveries - which is also applicable to land ops).
The really disturbing thing with the current STOVL "bring-back" limitations is the proposal lurking around the bazaars to try Rolling Vertical Landings aboard ship. On finals at ~ 50kts relative, touchdown at 40 and then stand on the brakes. Sounds like just about the worst place imaginable, thrust winding down, limited braking area (with a splash at the end of it) and no way of getting airborne again. Shows how deperate the STOVL mafia are to try and stay in the game.
The other thing about CV recoveries is that if something does go wrong, bolters are possible. In STOVL, you're entirely reliant on your thrust column(s). (Yes, I know you can only bolter if you have enough fuel for subsequent recoveries - which is also applicable to land ops).
The really disturbing thing with the current STOVL "bring-back" limitations is the proposal lurking around the bazaars to try Rolling Vertical Landings aboard ship. On finals at ~ 50kts relative, touchdown at 40 and then stand on the brakes. Sounds like just about the worst place imaginable, thrust winding down, limited braking area (with a splash at the end of it) and no way of getting airborne again. Shows how deperate the STOVL mafia are to try and stay in the game.
