CVF, JSF & MRA4 Problems
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
CVF, JSF & MRA4 Problems
Financial Times: Navy’s new carriers to deploy old aircraft
The most powerful ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy will be forced to fly ageing Harrier jets because the replacement F35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) will not be ready in time.
The first of two new aircraft carriers is due to enter service in 2014 and the government had planned to operate Britain’s next generation combat plane, the JSF, from the ships. However, it emerged on Tuesday that the Navy will instead initially have to operate the latest version of the Harrier jump jet, an aircraft first designed several decades ago.
Giving evidence to the Commons’ defence select committee, David Gould, the MoD chief operating officer for equipment and support, said: “We actually do plan to use the [Harrier] GR9 on the first of the carriers. The idea that we will have a carrier’s worth of fully ... equipped JSFs in 2014 is not going to happen.”
The $276bn (£140bn) JSF programme is the most expensive armaments programme ever and Britain is the biggest partner to the US. The UK had originally intended to acquire 150 JSFs but at Tuesday’s hearing General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, the chief of defence material, admitted that the eventual number would depend on the final price – which has yet to be decided.
Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said: “They are admitting there is no cost control from this end of the pond. There is a slight degree of unreality here. JSF costs are going up something like 4 per cent a year. By the time we start laying out money for production, the aircraft will be 30 per cent more expensive than we first budgeted.”
General O’Donoghue also acknowledged that there were likely to be cutbacks or delays to major equipment procurement programmes. “I suspect we will have to [delay or cut some],” he said. Asked when spending was last so tight, he said: “In the late 1970s, we had some challenging times then.”
Separately, Mr Gould identified the Nimrod coastal surveillance aircraft programme as the one where the department is seeing the greatest “cost growth”. The reasons for the continuing cost overruns were due to a problem with pitch on the aircraft, only discovered during the flight trials. It emerged, however, that a similar problem was first identified on an earlier version of aircraft.
Responding to a question on why the government had not yet signed a manufacturing contract with the industry alliance building the two aircraft carriers, Mr Gould said he would be disappointed if a contract had not been signed before the end of March. “The fact that we are going through a review of the [defence procurement] programme of the nature we talked about early on ... it is as serious as you have known it in recent years, yes ... that is not an atmosphere when it is easy to take decisions on big commitments,” he said.
The most powerful ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy will be forced to fly ageing Harrier jets because the replacement F35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) will not be ready in time.
The first of two new aircraft carriers is due to enter service in 2014 and the government had planned to operate Britain’s next generation combat plane, the JSF, from the ships. However, it emerged on Tuesday that the Navy will instead initially have to operate the latest version of the Harrier jump jet, an aircraft first designed several decades ago.
Giving evidence to the Commons’ defence select committee, David Gould, the MoD chief operating officer for equipment and support, said: “We actually do plan to use the [Harrier] GR9 on the first of the carriers. The idea that we will have a carrier’s worth of fully ... equipped JSFs in 2014 is not going to happen.”
The $276bn (£140bn) JSF programme is the most expensive armaments programme ever and Britain is the biggest partner to the US. The UK had originally intended to acquire 150 JSFs but at Tuesday’s hearing General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, the chief of defence material, admitted that the eventual number would depend on the final price – which has yet to be decided.
Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said: “They are admitting there is no cost control from this end of the pond. There is a slight degree of unreality here. JSF costs are going up something like 4 per cent a year. By the time we start laying out money for production, the aircraft will be 30 per cent more expensive than we first budgeted.”
General O’Donoghue also acknowledged that there were likely to be cutbacks or delays to major equipment procurement programmes. “I suspect we will have to [delay or cut some],” he said. Asked when spending was last so tight, he said: “In the late 1970s, we had some challenging times then.”
Separately, Mr Gould identified the Nimrod coastal surveillance aircraft programme as the one where the department is seeing the greatest “cost growth”. The reasons for the continuing cost overruns were due to a problem with pitch on the aircraft, only discovered during the flight trials. It emerged, however, that a similar problem was first identified on an earlier version of aircraft.
Responding to a question on why the government had not yet signed a manufacturing contract with the industry alliance building the two aircraft carriers, Mr Gould said he would be disappointed if a contract had not been signed before the end of March. “The fact that we are going through a review of the [defence procurement] programme of the nature we talked about early on ... it is as serious as you have known it in recent years, yes ... that is not an atmosphere when it is easy to take decisions on big commitments,” he said.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bless Him, It was probably after lunch and he was a little confused. Maybe he was thinking about the Nimrod AEW.
After all most people think the MR2 is a sort of AWACs that had some problems in the late 80's.
After all most people think the MR2 is a sort of AWACs that had some problems in the late 80's.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, is the first CVF still expected to be in commission in 2014, like he says?
I was under the impression that it was looking like 2016 & 2018-2020 now.
I was under the impression that it was looking like 2016 & 2018-2020 now.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF Delayed = CVF Delayed
Surely the CVF should be slipped to meet the JSF in service date and the current CVS extended to compensate. After all that's what we're likely to do with all the other aircraft OSD/ISD gaps. And it seems to make no sense to have a whacking great ship to fly the same air wing that a small ship can manage.
Surely the CVF should be slipped to meet the JSF in service date and the current CVS extended to compensate. After all that's what we're likely to do with all the other aircraft OSD/ISD gaps. And it seems to make no sense to have a whacking great ship to fly the same air wing that a small ship can manage.
Wader
"Oh gawd, did he really say coastal"
Have a heart. Every journey begins with a single step. At least he identified Nimrod as an aircraft. That's what comes with being 2 i/c procurement for over a decade.
"Oh gawd, did he really say coastal"
Have a heart. Every journey begins with a single step. At least he identified Nimrod as an aircraft. That's what comes with being 2 i/c procurement for over a decade.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did he really say that because the quoted bit is different. What I mean is, is the error one that the FT has produced? I can't find the minutes from the web at the moment, anyone got the link to the uncorrected minutes from the Defence Select Committee meeting to which the article pertains?
D.G knows his stuff, so i'd be very surprised if he mucked this up.
D.G knows his stuff, so i'd be very surprised if he mucked this up.
Yes, if the first CVF is in service in 2014 there won't be a deck-full of Dave-Bs by any means. In April 2007 the situation was as described here.
In fact, given the contract dates are two years prior to delivery, the UK will have exactly nine jets by the end of 2014. By the end of 2016 there will be 18 aircraft, enough to start training. There will not be enough aircraft to support training and IOC - eight aircraft - in 2017.
Richard Beedall has this on his site http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-2.htm.
And discussed on PPrune too.
On the other hand, this means that the UK lets the jarheads get the bugs out of the aircraft for five years (nominal Marine IOC 2Q12).
Also, note no aircraft for delivery in 2013 (2011 contract year). What this means is that ALL the UK aircraft, except for three in 2011 and 2012 which will never leave the US, I suspect, are eligible to get the more powerful GE/RR engine.
In fact, given the contract dates are two years prior to delivery, the UK will have exactly nine jets by the end of 2014. By the end of 2016 there will be 18 aircraft, enough to start training. There will not be enough aircraft to support training and IOC - eight aircraft - in 2017.
Richard Beedall has this on his site http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-2.htm.
And discussed on PPrune too.
On the other hand, this means that the UK lets the jarheads get the bugs out of the aircraft for five years (nominal Marine IOC 2Q12).
Also, note no aircraft for delivery in 2013 (2011 contract year). What this means is that ALL the UK aircraft, except for three in 2011 and 2012 which will never leave the US, I suspect, are eligible to get the more powerful GE/RR engine.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nominal IOC for USMC may be 2012 but they have already exteneded the OSD for AV8 out to 2024 - perhaps gives an idea for when they think Dave will be up and running. OSD for GR9 is stated in various places as 2018.
Can't see why it's a problem for Harriers to operate off CVF, you could embark 2 Harrier Sqns at once plus enough Merlin to keep nasty Iranian subs away, plus SK 7s plus a SAR cab or two without the chronic overcrowding currently experienced on CVS.
Alternatively put a decent force of Marines and Junglies to move them on board with a sqn of Harriers to provide CAS topcover and you have a very useful package. With a deck that size the possibilities open to you regards TAG allow the planners much more flex.
Can't see why it's a problem for Harriers to operate off CVF, you could embark 2 Harrier Sqns at once plus enough Merlin to keep nasty Iranian subs away, plus SK 7s plus a SAR cab or two without the chronic overcrowding currently experienced on CVS.
Alternatively put a decent force of Marines and Junglies to move them on board with a sqn of Harriers to provide CAS topcover and you have a very useful package. With a deck that size the possibilities open to you regards TAG allow the planners much more flex.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger, wouldn't that require a cat and trap fit? If so why mess around with an aircraft which may prove expensive and problematic for various reasons, Just get the same as the USN, either reworked F-18 C/Ds (if there are any available) or go with the E/F and even G. Maybe not the newest design but with the development and capability virtually done by the USN already you have immediately useful aircraft, also gives prospects for exchanges pre UK carriers to get up to speed and great interoperability.
If they went that way some E-2s would be useful too
If they went that way some E-2s would be useful too
The Hornet C/Ds will be well and truly [cormorant, or long-pile carpet]ed by then. There are four carrier jets in the world. One of them is politically unthinkable, and the MiG-29K is only slightly less so 
. That leaves Dave-C, but eventually US Navy air will take the grocery bag off its head, scream, chew off its own arm and run. Rhinos it is then.
When I said IOC, I meant that's what it says in the schedule. Even if that schedule holds [see simians, airborne, fundament] it will only have Block 1 software, which allows you to frighten the enemy by flying over them.
. That leaves Dave-C, but eventually US Navy air will take the grocery bag off its head, scream, chew off its own arm and run. Rhinos it is then. When I said IOC, I meant that's what it says in the schedule. Even if that schedule holds [see simians, airborne, fundament] it will only have Block 1 software, which allows you to frighten the enemy by flying over them.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave-C
LO,
Slightly confused - why would the USN not want Dave-C to work? Surely it is the post-Rhino future of manned USN aviation- unless I've very much missed something.
S41
Slightly confused - why would the USN not want Dave-C to work? Surely it is the post-Rhino future of manned USN aviation- unless I've very much missed something.
S41
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Slightly confused - why would the USN not want Dave-C to work? Surely it is the post-Rhino future of manned USN aviation- unless I've very much missed something.
First off it is going to be more expensive than the F-18 and will therefore be bought in more restrictive numbers. There is support for dropping it and buying more E/F/G F-18s instead in the numbers they want.
Then there are those see the EW aspects of the F-18G as being more important than the stealth features of Dave, with some support from the experts who see stealth as a fading advantage as others learn how to defeat it.
There are also those who see Dave B as a threat to the CVN-21 new carrier. The USMC can operate off of the smaller new LHA-R carriers, they are worried that the new carrier will be seen as too vulnerable to NG Chinese weapons and to expensive for littoral operations and will switch orders to Dave B and smaller CVNs at the expense of the bigger carriers. They think if the Dave C is cancelled, so will the USMC Dave B who will have to operate the F-18G for commonality.
You'll find a similar level of support for the RN to go for the F-18 and Cat/Trap on the CVF from some here - who will point out the impetus for Dave B is being driven by the light blue Harrier mafia and not the dark blue naval aviators.....
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operating site flexibility.
Should be top of any thinking man's military requirements for anything.
Inter-service rivalry.
Totally counterproductive to the national good when it rises above the banter level.
Should be top of any thinking man's military requirements for anything.
Inter-service rivalry.
Totally counterproductive to the national good when it rises above the banter level.
F-35B nozzle test video. 7.74MB
http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/nozzle_check.wmv
The guy observing looks like Professor Denzil Dexter from the Fast Show!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iZo9zV62sbs
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qsPb8e7USqI
'Dave!'
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dToNQD-Aqsg
http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/nozzle_check.wmv
The guy observing looks like Professor Denzil Dexter from the Fast Show!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iZo9zV62sbs
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qsPb8e7USqI
'Dave!'
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dToNQD-Aqsg