Royal Navy to Buy F18F
oldnotbold
JSF or F18?
The Janes report is correct. The first of 12 'straight through' RN FAA pilots starts with VFA-14 on the F18E this month.
A compressed USN training /tactical weapons course on the T-45A and then the F18E/F Super Hornet OCU, included carrier qualification on a flat deck conventional carrier 'fixed wing' CATOBAR.
(The first student RN FAA pilot to do so since the 70's)
The pilots are intended to serve a full USN operational tour, as opposed to an exchange posting, and apparently is paid for by the RN directly.
'Embedds' for an embryo FAA air group for the new RN carriers?
The Janes report is correct. The first of 12 'straight through' RN FAA pilots starts with VFA-14 on the F18E this month.
A compressed USN training /tactical weapons course on the T-45A and then the F18E/F Super Hornet OCU, included carrier qualification on a flat deck conventional carrier 'fixed wing' CATOBAR.
(The first student RN FAA pilot to do so since the 70's)
The pilots are intended to serve a full USN operational tour, as opposed to an exchange posting, and apparently is paid for by the RN directly.
'Embedds' for an embryo FAA air group for the new RN carriers?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where any studies/figures ever produced comparing costing/advantages of nuclear propulsion for the cv's - interesting possible conflict there with the French already using it for CdG, the EU greens and labour/lib dem 'no nuclear at any price anywhere'.
Incidentally, what is the current tally of serious surface RN warships, i.e. not including river launches, RIB's, survey, RFA etc., but units with a GUN that they can (or are allowed to) fire. When labour came to power I made it approx 52 out of a total of about 110 (plus the upholders up for sale - nice & shiny) - I recently estimated 15, (the type 45's can't last much longer, even if we had the oil available).
p.s. The river Fal fleet does not qualify.
Incidentally, what is the current tally of serious surface RN warships, i.e. not including river launches, RIB's, survey, RFA etc., but units with a GUN that they can (or are allowed to) fire. When labour came to power I made it approx 52 out of a total of about 110 (plus the upholders up for sale - nice & shiny) - I recently estimated 15, (the type 45's can't last much longer, even if we had the oil available).
p.s. The river Fal fleet does not qualify.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rule Britannia
Well, this is the American take on the situation. Seems we may need to borrow US aircraft and crews to keep the 'British Empire' going!!
UK May Borrow F-18s for Carriers
UK May Borrow F-18s for Carriers
Evertonian
I recognize the UK will seldom deploy without others, including the US. However, it did just that during the Falkland campaign and likely does so periodically to show the UK flag globally.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entaxei,
The Royal Navy ORBAT is currently
2 x Invincible Class CVS (with 1 further at [very] extended readiness)
1 x LPH
2 x LPD
5 x Type 42 DD
4 x Type 22B3 FF
13 x Type 23 FF
1 x T45 (with 5 to follow)
That makes a total of 28 FF/DD and above sized assets, with a further 4 OPV/OPV(H) and 16 MCMVs, exluding the Survey, Submarine and RFA elements.
Incidentally, what is the current tally of serious surface RN warships, i.e. not including river launches, RIB's, survey, RFA etc., but units with a GUN that they can (or are allowed to) fire
2 x Invincible Class CVS (with 1 further at [very] extended readiness)
1 x LPH
2 x LPD
5 x Type 42 DD
4 x Type 22B3 FF
13 x Type 23 FF
1 x T45 (with 5 to follow)
That makes a total of 28 FF/DD and above sized assets, with a further 4 OPV/OPV(H) and 16 MCMVs, exluding the Survey, Submarine and RFA elements.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
I like the idea that the RN has its own secret stash of money that it can nip-out and buy something without the rest of the MoD being involved.
Certain in the know members of the senior service are currently pawing over the military version of the Argos catalogue, little pens at the ready whilst others, of a more traditional bent, are phoning around various museums trying to work out how much they'd want for a slightly used Gannet or Sea Vixen.
Why else would there be a pipedream thead about the RN buying F18Fs (circumventing the MoD who usually purchase kit for the various constituent parts of the military) or the rash of "remember when we flew these" type threads?
Just read between the lines, it where the real meat is....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Since, most people seem to agree that you are only looking at a buy of about 50 aircraft now, you are only going to have about 24 jets, in peacetime, on the one operational Aircraft Carrier, no matter what aircraft UK buys. Except if they buy F35B the jets will, almost certainly be, RAF, not FAA, and you really will see an empty Carrier much of the time.
STOVL F35B may or may not work as advertised and may or may not get cancelled and may or may not be affordable, by UK. It is impossible to know these things now.
The fact is UK could go for about 50 Super Hornet and, UK would know, for a fact, A) they will actually do what its says on the tin. B) they will be delivered when UK wants them. C) they will cost more or less exactly what UK is told they will cost.
None of that is true of STOVL F35B.
Super Hornet is, relatively low cost and very low operational risk. F35B is high risk and might very well be very high cost. One is a certainty and the other a gamble."
STOVL F35B may or may not work as advertised and may or may not get cancelled and may or may not be affordable, by UK. It is impossible to know these things now.
The fact is UK could go for about 50 Super Hornet and, UK would know, for a fact, A) they will actually do what its says on the tin. B) they will be delivered when UK wants them. C) they will cost more or less exactly what UK is told they will cost.
None of that is true of STOVL F35B.
Super Hornet is, relatively low cost and very low operational risk. F35B is high risk and might very well be very high cost. One is a certainty and the other a gamble."
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responses
Proudfishead
Thank you very much for that breakdown. I had omitted the CV, T42's and the oncoming T45's, which is not quite fair, but at least its a bit better than I had envisaged, although no thanks to either the previous government (who liked to posture on a strategically placed warship) or the MOD, whose ambition appears to be, to become superior in total numbers to that of the entire armed forces!. (memo to self - don't get political - don't get political ......)
The Helpful Stacker
Presumably by meat, you mean the fillings choice is either corned beef & pickle or mousetrap.
oldnotbold
That is the most succinct summation I have seen to date, amidst all the various postings, which actually takes into account the reality of our current position as a nation, actual facts and costs versus theoretical performance, timing and costings - and ignores the siren call of having the possible latest and greatest regardless of actual need. Thank you.
Thank you very much for that breakdown. I had omitted the CV, T42's and the oncoming T45's, which is not quite fair, but at least its a bit better than I had envisaged, although no thanks to either the previous government (who liked to posture on a strategically placed warship) or the MOD, whose ambition appears to be, to become superior in total numbers to that of the entire armed forces!. (memo to self - don't get political - don't get political ......)
The Helpful Stacker
Presumably by meat, you mean the fillings choice is either corned beef & pickle or mousetrap.
oldnotbold
That is the most succinct summation I have seen to date, amidst all the various postings, which actually takes into account the reality of our current position as a nation, actual facts and costs versus theoretical performance, timing and costings - and ignores the siren call of having the possible latest and greatest regardless of actual need. Thank you.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oldnotbold -
I have long held that Dave-B is a bl**dy silly compromise as a design, mostly because the ConOps are a nonsense: when will the US national interest demand that the USMC go ashore facing an opponent with double-digit SAM & IADS cued evolved Super FLANKERs when the USN can't be arsed to turn up with a CVNBG?
For any of these MEU/MAGTAF only ops, I find it hard to understand what the USMC needs other than a Harrier II+ with SNIPER and Rover IV.
As a result, if UK plc remains in the CVF game, the sooner we move to CATOBAR configuration and Dave-C, the better. If the USN cancels Dave-C, we can always go back to F-18E/F/G, but the timescales for a purchase (2019/20) are such that we have the luxury of a little bit of time. As ever in these things, the UK's lack of finance to meet its ambitions means that we must maximise bang-for-procurement-buck - and that means avoiding buying Mk 1 anything if at all possible.
S41
I have long held that Dave-B is a bl**dy silly compromise as a design, mostly because the ConOps are a nonsense: when will the US national interest demand that the USMC go ashore facing an opponent with double-digit SAM & IADS cued evolved Super FLANKERs when the USN can't be arsed to turn up with a CVNBG?
For any of these MEU/MAGTAF only ops, I find it hard to understand what the USMC needs other than a Harrier II+ with SNIPER and Rover IV.
As a result, if UK plc remains in the CVF game, the sooner we move to CATOBAR configuration and Dave-C, the better. If the USN cancels Dave-C, we can always go back to F-18E/F/G, but the timescales for a purchase (2019/20) are such that we have the luxury of a little bit of time. As ever in these things, the UK's lack of finance to meet its ambitions means that we must maximise bang-for-procurement-buck - and that means avoiding buying Mk 1 anything if at all possible.
S41
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brisbane Queensland
Age: 65
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest information, all be it in an aircraft publication (Air forces monthly) F-35B test program schedule likely to slip to the right due to various problems.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Also in Ares by Bill Sweetman: How's All That Validate-y Stuff Working Out For Ya?
Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens expects a "rephasing" of flight testing for the F-35B short take-off, vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter to emerge from a comprehensive review of the program, due to report in November.
(In this context, "rephasing" carries the same kind of meaning as when your cable company "adjusts" its prices - you know which way the change is going.)
Weeks after explaining that the F-35B tests were being delayed by problems with components "that you would not consider major systems" and that work was in-hand to fix the problems and get flight-testing back on track, Stevens said yesterday in a Morgan Stanley investor call (around the 55 minute mark) that although "the early corrective actions ... are showing some beneficial outcomes, my sense is that it is not going to be enough."
One root cause may be that suppliers, squeezed on schedule and cost, have failed to design and deliver components that can withstand the heat, noise and vibration generated by the F-35B powered lift system.
Stevens said that "the quality of parts in the supply chain" has been an issue. Lockheed Martin, he said, is putting pressure on suppliers in terms of "quality, performance and cost, and some of that pressure is manifesting itself in the F-35B program."
"I'm quite sure we'll see a rephasing" of F-35B testing, Stevens said, explaining that it will be part of a comprehensive technical baseline review that has followed the program's Nunn-McCurdy recertification earlier this year.
Today, the F-35B program is only six months away from the scheduled start of at-sea STOVL tests on the USS Wasp (set for March 2011). However, so far the reported progress with STOVL envelope expansion has been slow.
Of course, this may not be the time to remind the JSF program office of some of its earlier statements:
Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens expects a "rephasing" of flight testing for the F-35B short take-off, vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter to emerge from a comprehensive review of the program, due to report in November.
(In this context, "rephasing" carries the same kind of meaning as when your cable company "adjusts" its prices - you know which way the change is going.)
Weeks after explaining that the F-35B tests were being delayed by problems with components "that you would not consider major systems" and that work was in-hand to fix the problems and get flight-testing back on track, Stevens said yesterday in a Morgan Stanley investor call (around the 55 minute mark) that although "the early corrective actions ... are showing some beneficial outcomes, my sense is that it is not going to be enough."
One root cause may be that suppliers, squeezed on schedule and cost, have failed to design and deliver components that can withstand the heat, noise and vibration generated by the F-35B powered lift system.
Stevens said that "the quality of parts in the supply chain" has been an issue. Lockheed Martin, he said, is putting pressure on suppliers in terms of "quality, performance and cost, and some of that pressure is manifesting itself in the F-35B program."
"I'm quite sure we'll see a rephasing" of F-35B testing, Stevens said, explaining that it will be part of a comprehensive technical baseline review that has followed the program's Nunn-McCurdy recertification earlier this year.
Today, the F-35B program is only six months away from the scheduled start of at-sea STOVL tests on the USS Wasp (set for March 2011). However, so far the reported progress with STOVL envelope expansion has been slow.
Of course, this may not be the time to remind the JSF program office of some of its earlier statements:
According to Brig. Gen. C.R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer "early flight test results show we are on a path to largely validate the design and aircraft systems -- we are not entering a period of discovery.
Or even:The test program, [Maj Gen David Heinz] said, is about “validation, not discovery.” (Air Force Magazine Daily Report, June 4 2009)
Somehow I don't think we're going to hear that line again for a while.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article is very well worth reading
Challenging the STOVL Myth
defence.professionals | defpro.com
Challenging the STOVL Myth
defence.professionals | defpro.com
Last edited by oldnotbold; 5th Sep 2010 at 16:38.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35B delays lead to rephased flight-test schedule
F-35B delays lead to rephased flight-test schedule
F-35B delays lead to rephased flight-test schedule
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Times from tomorrows edition:
"The Ministry of Defence may abandon plans to build new aircraft carriers as part of sweeping budget cuts and a long-awaited defence review, the chief executive of BAE Systems revealed yesterday.
Ian King told an influential committee of MPs that his company remained focused on producing two ships.
However, he added: “We have been asked to look at a number of options, recently asked over the last week or so... I think they range from having one carrier to no carriers but with an equivalent other programme.” He did not elaborate on what such a programme would entail.
The £5.2 billion contract to build two carriers is providing work for 10,000 employees at six construction sites around the country. Clauses within the contract mean that it would be almost as expensive to scrap as to maintain but, in the long term, cancellation would save on maintenance or the cost of fitting them with a new fleet of jets.
Raymond Duguid, a union member at the dockyard in Rosyth, near Edinburgh, where the two carriers are due to be assembled, said that any reduction in the project would be a blow for the workforce. “The carriers are just one job but they do give stability to the yard,” he told The Times.
Critics argue that the carriers are a waste of money at a time when the MoD’s over-spent budget should focus more on soldiers and smaller ships.
The Times revealed last week that Britain and France are preparing to announce a deal to share aircraft carrier capabilities as part of a wider plan to co-operate on defence. Such a move would enable both countries, the largest military powers in Europe, to maximise their strength at a lower cost. Requiring three times more steel than Wembley Stadium, the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will each have a crew of 679, (1,600 if air staff are included) and should last 50 years.
MPs on the Defence Select Committe also heard from the head of ADS Group, a trade organisation representing Britain’s aerospace, defence and security industries.
Rear Admiral Rees Ward said he feared that the Strategic Defence and Security Review, to determine Britain’s military and diplomatic role, could be at odds with the Government’s spending review, putting 300,000 jobs at risk."
They have to come up with a , short term less expensive, way of putting an air group on the QE, or risk having the Carrier cancelled. If that happens RAF will certainly not get STOVL F35B either...
"The Ministry of Defence may abandon plans to build new aircraft carriers as part of sweeping budget cuts and a long-awaited defence review, the chief executive of BAE Systems revealed yesterday.
Ian King told an influential committee of MPs that his company remained focused on producing two ships.
However, he added: “We have been asked to look at a number of options, recently asked over the last week or so... I think they range from having one carrier to no carriers but with an equivalent other programme.” He did not elaborate on what such a programme would entail.
The £5.2 billion contract to build two carriers is providing work for 10,000 employees at six construction sites around the country. Clauses within the contract mean that it would be almost as expensive to scrap as to maintain but, in the long term, cancellation would save on maintenance or the cost of fitting them with a new fleet of jets.
Raymond Duguid, a union member at the dockyard in Rosyth, near Edinburgh, where the two carriers are due to be assembled, said that any reduction in the project would be a blow for the workforce. “The carriers are just one job but they do give stability to the yard,” he told The Times.
Critics argue that the carriers are a waste of money at a time when the MoD’s over-spent budget should focus more on soldiers and smaller ships.
The Times revealed last week that Britain and France are preparing to announce a deal to share aircraft carrier capabilities as part of a wider plan to co-operate on defence. Such a move would enable both countries, the largest military powers in Europe, to maximise their strength at a lower cost. Requiring three times more steel than Wembley Stadium, the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will each have a crew of 679, (1,600 if air staff are included) and should last 50 years.
MPs on the Defence Select Committe also heard from the head of ADS Group, a trade organisation representing Britain’s aerospace, defence and security industries.
Rear Admiral Rees Ward said he feared that the Strategic Defence and Security Review, to determine Britain’s military and diplomatic role, could be at odds with the Government’s spending review, putting 300,000 jobs at risk."
They have to come up with a , short term less expensive, way of putting an air group on the QE, or risk having the Carrier cancelled. If that happens RAF will certainly not get STOVL F35B either...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ONB,
What the BAE bloke was probably referring to was the Terms Of Business Agreement (TOBA) that covers the CVF ships: a certain amount of work for the design teams and the yards. AFAIK, it declines over time, and it leaves BAE with a big hole to fill if the Govt only meets the letter - which is presumably what this bloke is concerned about.
One credible plan seemed to be to bin carrier, and use the TOBA to build the MARS Fleet Tankers in UK (vice South Korea or Italy) and then follow it with T26 frigates (nee Future Surface Combatant-C / FSC-C), which would result in more ships the RN needs and two fewer that it cannot protect or put an airwing on.
As hard as it is for Fishead types, the RN could be better served over the medium term by getting more FF/DD than CVF. Not ideal, but then this is a Defence Review....
S41
What the BAE bloke was probably referring to was the Terms Of Business Agreement (TOBA) that covers the CVF ships: a certain amount of work for the design teams and the yards. AFAIK, it declines over time, and it leaves BAE with a big hole to fill if the Govt only meets the letter - which is presumably what this bloke is concerned about.
One credible plan seemed to be to bin carrier, and use the TOBA to build the MARS Fleet Tankers in UK (vice South Korea or Italy) and then follow it with T26 frigates (nee Future Surface Combatant-C / FSC-C), which would result in more ships the RN needs and two fewer that it cannot protect or put an airwing on.
As hard as it is for Fishead types, the RN could be better served over the medium term by getting more FF/DD than CVF. Not ideal, but then this is a Defence Review....
S41
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not agree at all with that.
If they bin the Carriers it will destroy morale in the RN totally.
And remember if they bin the Carriers there is no way RAF will get F35, no chance at all.
If they bin the Carriers it will destroy morale in the RN totally.
And remember if they bin the Carriers there is no way RAF will get F35, no chance at all.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ONB
I'm not in the RN, so don't have a view on this. But an enhanced FF/DD force is presumably more useful for SLOCs, presence and information ops?
Why? F35 / Dave-C would replace GR4 from 2020 quite nicely.
S41
If they bin the Carriers it will destroy morale in the RN totally.
And remember if they bin the Carriers there is no way RAF will get F35, no chance at all.
S41
Originally Posted by Squirrel 41
Why? F35 / Dave-C would replace GR4 from 2020 quite nicely.
If the carriers are binned why would the RAF want the carrier spec USN version of the F-35...??