Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Thread Starter
But F35B is looking more certain now - it has done vertical landings, flown supersonic, and other things.
Why the UK needs the Joint Strike Fighter
As the most powerful single-engine fighter ever made, it has been assessed that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements, eight times more effective in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets, and three times more effective in new age Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defences and Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD/DEAD) missions. It will require a significantly smaller basing footprint.
I do wonder how these assesments were made? However, hopefully this will make the "F35 is not a fighter" brigade pipe down a bit.
To satisfy the cost cutters, the choice for the UK is not between JSF and something comparable at half the price but between having a meaningful fast jet to serve alongside Typhoon or nothing at all.
If the UK is to remain a major league player, it needs the F-35. The $300bn F-35 JSF programme is potentially the largest weapons procurement programme in history. There are currently 115 US-UK defence information exchange agreements, with a further 20 in the pipeline. The fighter will increase interoperability among allied air forces and create new training and maintenance requirements that will foster stronger military-to-military and industry ties. F-35 production techniques will revolutionise stealth aircraft manufacturing. If the UK opts out of the JSF programme, there is a serious risk that the UK's position in world aerospace, as well as the transatlantic defence technology relationship, could go with it.
Yesterday, our politicians seemed to grasp that industry and technology are important. Supporting our technological base goes hand in hand with supporting and equipping our armed forces. F35/JSF is worth at least £30 Billion to UK industry, much of it exported. There are off course other spin offs. Hundreds of UK companies, of all sizes, are involved.
Critics often overlook the fact that the F-35 is an awesome intelligence gathering tool underpinned by around 20 million lines of software code. This software controls the fire control and weapon systems, as well as the radar and sensors, but most importantly, the code allows all the systems to recognise each other and work together. Block 0.1 software (about two million lines of code) created the fire control and aircraft management systems needed for the first F-35 flight from Fort Worth. The Block 0.5 software upgrade equipped the STOVL JSF with the code for electronic warfare and radar systems. This will be followed by Block 1.0, which will provide an integrated capability so that the location and nature of targets can be shown on a single display screen. Engineers will also start integrating various sensors into the aircraft in Block 1.0. Blocks 2 and 3 will add software functions that allow the aircraft to monitor itself for maintenance work and allow for the integration of more sensor and weapon capabilities. The USMC is confident that the F-35B will be ready for an initial operational capability (IOC) in 2012 with Block 2B software, which will allow the use of two AIM-120D air-to-air missiles and two 1,000lb Joint Direct Attack Munitions or two 500lb laser-guided bombs – all carried internally to stay stealthy. With this software, the aircraft will be able to fly at 7g with a 50 degree angle of attack. The first USMC unit is not slated to deploy until 2012 and the UK could receive its F-35Bs thereafter. The USAF and USN have slipped their IOC until 2016. The F-35 production rate is expected to reach its peak at one aircraft a day in 2015 (about 250 aircraft a year): this is a far more dynamic rate than that of Lockheed Martin's stealthy F-22 Raptor, which is currently produced at a rate of 20 a year.
The F-35 is undoubtedly having development problems, but this is not surprising given that the technology is F-22 plus 15 years. The F-35 may be a single-seat fighter but it is not designed for a single-seat war. The Lockheed Martin chief test pilot has pronounced the F-35 as very easy to fly because in-between the pressures of take-off and landing, the pilot is given time to think about what he or she brings to the battle.
The F-35's sensor suite is the most powerful and comprehensive of any fighter in history, and will combine with an unprecedented networking capability to give unparalleled situational awareness. The jewel in the crown of the F-35 JSF is the Electro-Optical Sensor System (EOSS), which consists of a Distributed Aperture System (DAS) to provide 360-degree situational awareness, and the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). The DAS is so potent that it enables a pilot to see through the aircraft floor. There are over 120 entries in Specification which enable JSF to datalink, communicate and interact with other warfighters. The F-35 will display information rather than data and bring unprecedented capabilities to the US and its allies. This in turn means that the RAF and RN will need to train people to deal with a broad strategic picture, rather than their bit of sky. With a JSF wing-man 20 miles away, close formation tactics will no longer apply. Rather than just flyers, F-35 pilots will be masters of the battlespace and go places they have not been to before. The F-35 battlespace manager will identify threats and provide answers via data fusion from others' off-board sensors right down to individual soldiers on the ground. Flying the F-35 will demand a whole new mindset.
I wonder how this will influence the decisions that need to be taken regarding MASC?
After considerable expenditure, the F-35 programme is picking up momentum. The UK should keep its nerve because the JSF Lightning II is going to be a winner, both for the military and industry. The UK has engaged in four inter-state conflicts over the past three decades and when the next one pitches up, the counter-insurgency kit procured under UOR for Afghanistan may have very limited utility. When that day arrives, the UK will need JSF.
A bottom line that it is hard to disagree with.
The other week, the local paper was carry job advertisements for people to work on CVF related stuff. If, as some propose, CVF and JSF/JCA/F35 get canned, it will not only cripple our expeditionary warfighting capability, and reduce the influence our politicians and diplomats have on international matters, but also pretty much destroy our shipbuilding and aerospace industries.
Why the UK needs the Joint Strike Fighter
As the most powerful single-engine fighter ever made, it has been assessed that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements, eight times more effective in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets, and three times more effective in new age Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defences and Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD/DEAD) missions. It will require a significantly smaller basing footprint.
I do wonder how these assesments were made? However, hopefully this will make the "F35 is not a fighter" brigade pipe down a bit.
To satisfy the cost cutters, the choice for the UK is not between JSF and something comparable at half the price but between having a meaningful fast jet to serve alongside Typhoon or nothing at all.
If the UK is to remain a major league player, it needs the F-35. The $300bn F-35 JSF programme is potentially the largest weapons procurement programme in history. There are currently 115 US-UK defence information exchange agreements, with a further 20 in the pipeline. The fighter will increase interoperability among allied air forces and create new training and maintenance requirements that will foster stronger military-to-military and industry ties. F-35 production techniques will revolutionise stealth aircraft manufacturing. If the UK opts out of the JSF programme, there is a serious risk that the UK's position in world aerospace, as well as the transatlantic defence technology relationship, could go with it.
Yesterday, our politicians seemed to grasp that industry and technology are important. Supporting our technological base goes hand in hand with supporting and equipping our armed forces. F35/JSF is worth at least £30 Billion to UK industry, much of it exported. There are off course other spin offs. Hundreds of UK companies, of all sizes, are involved.
Critics often overlook the fact that the F-35 is an awesome intelligence gathering tool underpinned by around 20 million lines of software code. This software controls the fire control and weapon systems, as well as the radar and sensors, but most importantly, the code allows all the systems to recognise each other and work together. Block 0.1 software (about two million lines of code) created the fire control and aircraft management systems needed for the first F-35 flight from Fort Worth. The Block 0.5 software upgrade equipped the STOVL JSF with the code for electronic warfare and radar systems. This will be followed by Block 1.0, which will provide an integrated capability so that the location and nature of targets can be shown on a single display screen. Engineers will also start integrating various sensors into the aircraft in Block 1.0. Blocks 2 and 3 will add software functions that allow the aircraft to monitor itself for maintenance work and allow for the integration of more sensor and weapon capabilities. The USMC is confident that the F-35B will be ready for an initial operational capability (IOC) in 2012 with Block 2B software, which will allow the use of two AIM-120D air-to-air missiles and two 1,000lb Joint Direct Attack Munitions or two 500lb laser-guided bombs – all carried internally to stay stealthy. With this software, the aircraft will be able to fly at 7g with a 50 degree angle of attack. The first USMC unit is not slated to deploy until 2012 and the UK could receive its F-35Bs thereafter. The USAF and USN have slipped their IOC until 2016. The F-35 production rate is expected to reach its peak at one aircraft a day in 2015 (about 250 aircraft a year): this is a far more dynamic rate than that of Lockheed Martin's stealthy F-22 Raptor, which is currently produced at a rate of 20 a year.
The F-35 is undoubtedly having development problems, but this is not surprising given that the technology is F-22 plus 15 years. The F-35 may be a single-seat fighter but it is not designed for a single-seat war. The Lockheed Martin chief test pilot has pronounced the F-35 as very easy to fly because in-between the pressures of take-off and landing, the pilot is given time to think about what he or she brings to the battle.
The F-35's sensor suite is the most powerful and comprehensive of any fighter in history, and will combine with an unprecedented networking capability to give unparalleled situational awareness. The jewel in the crown of the F-35 JSF is the Electro-Optical Sensor System (EOSS), which consists of a Distributed Aperture System (DAS) to provide 360-degree situational awareness, and the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). The DAS is so potent that it enables a pilot to see through the aircraft floor. There are over 120 entries in Specification which enable JSF to datalink, communicate and interact with other warfighters. The F-35 will display information rather than data and bring unprecedented capabilities to the US and its allies. This in turn means that the RAF and RN will need to train people to deal with a broad strategic picture, rather than their bit of sky. With a JSF wing-man 20 miles away, close formation tactics will no longer apply. Rather than just flyers, F-35 pilots will be masters of the battlespace and go places they have not been to before. The F-35 battlespace manager will identify threats and provide answers via data fusion from others' off-board sensors right down to individual soldiers on the ground. Flying the F-35 will demand a whole new mindset.
I wonder how this will influence the decisions that need to be taken regarding MASC?
After considerable expenditure, the F-35 programme is picking up momentum. The UK should keep its nerve because the JSF Lightning II is going to be a winner, both for the military and industry. The UK has engaged in four inter-state conflicts over the past three decades and when the next one pitches up, the counter-insurgency kit procured under UOR for Afghanistan may have very limited utility. When that day arrives, the UK will need JSF.
A bottom line that it is hard to disagree with.
The other week, the local paper was carry job advertisements for people to work on CVF related stuff. If, as some propose, CVF and JSF/JCA/F35 get canned, it will not only cripple our expeditionary warfighting capability, and reduce the influence our politicians and diplomats have on international matters, but also pretty much destroy our shipbuilding and aerospace industries.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pity that you're going to have to sell it all again to the "coalition", we just cannot afford such an expensive aircraft.
On the day that they cut the financial support to an industry that was earmarked to lead the British nuclear manufacturing revival it does not bode well you would think........
On the day that they cut the financial support to an industry that was earmarked to lead the British nuclear manufacturing revival it does not bode well you would think........
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
I don't doubt for a second that the future of manned FJ combat aircraft for the UK is Typhoon and Dave; the issue is all about which variant and timing.
However you want to look at it, Dave-B is compromised by the STOVL kit and requirements. Do we need STOVL? Only if we build CVF as currently designed (ie, as a STOVL carrier). Whilst STOVL is doubtless impressive and Dave-B a major technical achievement, it is a million miles from being operational, and it is still (i) more expensive (ii) shorter ranged and (iii) carries a smaller warload than its CTOL cousin, Dave-C.
So my 0.02 for SDSR is to opt for Dave-C tranche 2 starting in roughly 2018/20 to match ISD with OSD of GR4. This gets us the right jet - and retains basing options (ie, land + hotel, or ship thing + rum, bum, lash), and divorces the decision on CVF from the air wing. After all, one of the few things that there seems to be consensus on around here is that *IF* CVF is to be purchased, we may as well do it properly with CTOL and organic C2 with E-2D.
If the Pentagon are under pressure to drive costs down, and with a Hornet guy about to take over as Commandant, USMC, perhaps we'll be able to finally consign Dave-B to the record books, as well as EFV.
S41
PS, WEBF, if you actually believe
Then may I respectfully suggest that you don't have the full picture.
I don't doubt for a second that the future of manned FJ combat aircraft for the UK is Typhoon and Dave; the issue is all about which variant and timing.
However you want to look at it, Dave-B is compromised by the STOVL kit and requirements. Do we need STOVL? Only if we build CVF as currently designed (ie, as a STOVL carrier). Whilst STOVL is doubtless impressive and Dave-B a major technical achievement, it is a million miles from being operational, and it is still (i) more expensive (ii) shorter ranged and (iii) carries a smaller warload than its CTOL cousin, Dave-C.
So my 0.02 for SDSR is to opt for Dave-C tranche 2 starting in roughly 2018/20 to match ISD with OSD of GR4. This gets us the right jet - and retains basing options (ie, land + hotel, or ship thing + rum, bum, lash), and divorces the decision on CVF from the air wing. After all, one of the few things that there seems to be consensus on around here is that *IF* CVF is to be purchased, we may as well do it properly with CTOL and organic C2 with E-2D.
If the Pentagon are under pressure to drive costs down, and with a Hornet guy about to take over as Commandant, USMC, perhaps we'll be able to finally consign Dave-B to the record books, as well as EFV.
S41
PS, WEBF, if you actually believe
If, as some propose, CVF and JSF/JCA/F35 get canned, it will not only cripple our expeditionary warfighting capability, and reduce the influence our politicians and diplomats have on international matters, but also pretty much destroy our shipbuilding and aerospace industries.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad Rag - I was told during my last brief on the system, that for every pound we spend on the JSF / UK JCA, the UK actually gets about two pounds in orders for industry etc. I think, with this in mind the government might not agree that the UK cannot afford it. Are you sure that we 'can't' afford it or are you just surmising?
s that *IF* CVF is to be purchased
Queen Elizabeth will be built as STOVL, POW may be either STOVL or CTOL but will be built. The main questions are, will the ships be sold once built? What aircraft will fly off them? Dave/Rafale/F18/Marinated Typhoon? In the cold stark wind of SDSR, who knows what is going to happen but Dave of any variant is under threat IMHO. Lovely toy and a magnificent concept for all the reasons WEBF points out but...it is very expensive and there are far cheaper platforms that can do what is required at the moment, which is not Air Superiority but dropping bombs! Before anyone talks about the wonderful other capabilities of Dave...yes I know but there are once again cheaper ways of achieving such effect.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
I don't doubt that there have been contracts signed. But all contracts have a break clause and as you say, those 10,000 jobs aren't free. And, as much as one hates to say it, it would be cheaper to have these people on the dole than to pay them professional rates.
More importantly, however, is the Terms of Business Agreement that sets up the amount of work that BAES are guaranteed - and I suspect that this and the contractual position will drive the decisions on CVF. As I've said on numerous posts before, I am not anti-CVF per se, and I'd welcome the chance to serve aboard either one, but I just don't see that they are the right choice with the cuts coming: for my Dark Blue friends, I'd much rather have a larger SSN / FF / DD force than the carriers. IMHO, you only buy the carriers when they're affordable - and right now, they're not.
S41
I don't doubt that there have been contracts signed. But all contracts have a break clause and as you say, those 10,000 jobs aren't free. And, as much as one hates to say it, it would be cheaper to have these people on the dole than to pay them professional rates.
More importantly, however, is the Terms of Business Agreement that sets up the amount of work that BAES are guaranteed - and I suspect that this and the contractual position will drive the decisions on CVF. As I've said on numerous posts before, I am not anti-CVF per se, and I'd welcome the chance to serve aboard either one, but I just don't see that they are the right choice with the cuts coming: for my Dark Blue friends, I'd much rather have a larger SSN / FF / DD force than the carriers. IMHO, you only buy the carriers when they're affordable - and right now, they're not.
S41
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News : HMS Ark Royal : Aircraft Carriers : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy
Interoperability between the United States Navy and the Royal Navy has been the “buzz word” of the deployment.* HMS Ark Royal embarked 12 MAG -14 AV8B harriers from the USMC and, the Royal Navy will be sending twelve fixed wing pilots to the United States to be trained to fly the USN F-18 jets in preparation for the Joint Strike Fighter F35Bs, which will be embarked in the UK’s new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.
Interoperability between the United States Navy and the Royal Navy has been the “buzz word” of the deployment.* HMS Ark Royal embarked 12 MAG -14 AV8B harriers from the USMC and, the Royal Navy will be sending twelve fixed wing pilots to the United States to be trained to fly the USN F-18 jets in preparation for the Joint Strike Fighter F35Bs, which will be embarked in the UK’s new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN is also populating AV-8B posts as 4(R) - and 20(R) before it - can only work to maximum of siro 4 RN IPS per year, and I'm not sure if that's ever been achieved. RN FA-18 'one way exchanges' are full-up, deck time, 6 monthers, the lot.
glad rag - completely buy your point, but no-one has ever told me what we can afford, plenty of people have ventured what we can't. But who actually knows? i'd love to meet them, but i guess they're paid a fair bit and don't hang out on pprune!
It seems that we are all in agreement over one thing. Maritime done cheap isn't worth bothering with, maritime with constraints (VSTOL?) is questionable. Either fund it, or cancel it.
glad rag - completely buy your point, but no-one has ever told me what we can afford, plenty of people have ventured what we can't. But who actually knows? i'd love to meet them, but i guess they're paid a fair bit and don't hang out on pprune!
It seems that we are all in agreement over one thing. Maritime done cheap isn't worth bothering with, maritime with constraints (VSTOL?) is questionable. Either fund it, or cancel it.
Last edited by orca; 18th Jun 2010 at 18:27. Reason: spolling mistak
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Varyag was launched in 1988, but was never completed.
"Varyag", was never commissioned and was sold to China.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the new govt' ( no less cynical than the last one, except they cancel hospitals as their punters can afford to go private ) will have 2 new carriers on their hands, which 'just happen' to be relatively easily convertible to 'cat n trap', ie easily sold off.
I'm a VSTOL / STOVL fan, ( pardon the pun ) but reports of the F-35B only being able to land on special concrete spots, and carrier deck crews shuffling heat pads underneath, don't sound like a versatile, Harrier type machine.
However I'm well aware of the possibility of this just being CTOL or even F-18 etc propaganda...
With the costs involved, I'd be pretty amazed if the RN ever see the carriers except going past on delivery, and astounded if they get F-35 of any type.
Yes, of course we need them, but the people making decisions will be out of their shiny seats in a few years and on mega-pensions, after that if we get a REAL need for such kit it's SEP; Someone Elses' Problem, no real loss of sleep losing pleb's - for them - abroad as long as the UK doesn't actually get invaded.
I'm a VSTOL / STOVL fan, ( pardon the pun ) but reports of the F-35B only being able to land on special concrete spots, and carrier deck crews shuffling heat pads underneath, don't sound like a versatile, Harrier type machine.
However I'm well aware of the possibility of this just being CTOL or even F-18 etc propaganda...
With the costs involved, I'd be pretty amazed if the RN ever see the carriers except going past on delivery, and astounded if they get F-35 of any type.
Yes, of course we need them, but the people making decisions will be out of their shiny seats in a few years and on mega-pensions, after that if we get a REAL need for such kit it's SEP; Someone Elses' Problem, no real loss of sleep losing pleb's - for them - abroad as long as the UK doesn't actually get invaded.
Last edited by Double Zero; 19th Jun 2010 at 05:23.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On names
Originally Posted by Albert Driver
In an era where the appearance of aggression is frowned upon, why not reintroduce the Flower Class as CVFs.
How about HMS Primrose and HMS Buttercup?
How about HMS Primrose and HMS Buttercup?
Originally Posted by ORAC
Originally Posted by Double Zero
Originally Posted by ORAC
"It's a very big IF, but IF this project is managed well and comes in on budget the UK will have done very well thank you very much."
ORAC: "Indeed, especially if we can get Thor and the other aliens from Stargate SG1 to help run the programme."
hulahoop7: "Now you're being bloody ridiculous!!"
ORAC: "Indeed, especially if we can get Thor and the other aliens from Stargate SG1 to help run the programme."
hulahoop7: "Now you're being bloody ridiculous!!"
Last edited by Hedgeporker; 10th Jul 2010 at 16:30. Reason: Had something else to add
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navy carrier costs 'could school Africans’ - Telegraph
Liam Fox that he will seek to withdraw from the order for the “Cold War era” aircraft carriers in an attempt to plug a defence budget black hole. The cost of the project so far is £4.9 billion.
Is this the end of the Carriers?
Liam Fox that he will seek to withdraw from the order for the “Cold War era” aircraft carriers in an attempt to plug a defence budget black hole. The cost of the project so far is £4.9 billion.
Is this the end of the Carriers?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just the end of the carriers Vec, but also bye bye to the old concept of force projection.
Sounds like Foxy trying to second guess the outcome of the SDR before its happened.... the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ho hum.
Sounds like Foxy trying to second guess the outcome of the SDR before its happened.... the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ho hum.