Royal Navy to Buy F18F
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the Army, raised fears over the funding of the 80 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft due to be ordered to fly from the carriers.
He told BBC News: "The big but is what's going to fly off them - because the Joint Strike Fighter programme is about £10bn, and that's what really frightens us."
BBC News - Figures reveal cost of new aircraft carriers decision
USN say F35 B and C will be 40% more expensive to operate than F18 or Harrier.
CHART: F-35B/C operating costs versus Hornets, Harriers - The DEW Line
He told BBC News: "The big but is what's going to fly off them - because the Joint Strike Fighter programme is about £10bn, and that's what really frightens us."
BBC News - Figures reveal cost of new aircraft carriers decision
USN say F35 B and C will be 40% more expensive to operate than F18 or Harrier.
CHART: F-35B/C operating costs versus Hornets, Harriers - The DEW Line
I remember the fun and games during JMCs
He seemed to feature in every JMC I remember....
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
I fear you may have misread my post as a p@@@@@g contest it is not. As a ex RAF FC, I was merely standing up for the Freddies!
Back in the old days, RN guys would come over and few would go back. I suspect that Mrs Freddie drove the issue on most accounts having become accustomed to Mr Freddie coming home every night for a few years!
Some top ex fish heads wearing blues these days.
I fear you may have misread my post as a p@@@@@g contest it is not. As a ex RAF FC, I was merely standing up for the Freddies!
Back in the old days, RN guys would come over and few would go back. I suspect that Mrs Freddie drove the issue on most accounts having become accustomed to Mr Freddie coming home every night for a few years!
Some top ex fish heads wearing blues these days.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 was meant to be bespoke, and for F16 prices.
Now it is anything but.
1. Sealed off sub-systems.
2. The main production line bestowed upon Italy. Why? What the **** have they contributed?
3. Whatever was agreed behind closed doors in 2006, there is still no official black-and-white ITAR for the source code / operational sovereignty.
4. RAM coating - purrlease. USAF mechs have to wear padded cotton shoes and gloves when crawling over the B2s. With no ITAR, it's back to factory every time that precious RAM paint gets chipped by FOD. What was that about operational sovereignty?
In other words, **** em. ****em up the arse and then in their faces.
Granted, F/A-18 won't come with the source-code either, and it will also have sealed off sub-systems - but then it never was still isn't touted as bespoke and as such I can accept it's shortcomings. It's very transience gives hope for an indigenous JSF (pace Taranis).
We just do this sort of thing far, far better alone.
Boeing will gleefully kick Lockheed Martin in the teeth. Fag packet figures for 50 X SHornet - £2bn.
Now it is anything but.
1. Sealed off sub-systems.
2. The main production line bestowed upon Italy. Why? What the **** have they contributed?
3. Whatever was agreed behind closed doors in 2006, there is still no official black-and-white ITAR for the source code / operational sovereignty.
4. RAM coating - purrlease. USAF mechs have to wear padded cotton shoes and gloves when crawling over the B2s. With no ITAR, it's back to factory every time that precious RAM paint gets chipped by FOD. What was that about operational sovereignty?
In other words, **** em. ****em up the arse and then in their faces.
Granted, F/A-18 won't come with the source-code either, and it will also have sealed off sub-systems - but then it never was still isn't touted as bespoke and as such I can accept it's shortcomings. It's very transience gives hope for an indigenous JSF (pace Taranis).
We just do this sort of thing far, far better alone.
Boeing will gleefully kick Lockheed Martin in the teeth. Fag packet figures for 50 X SHornet - £2bn.
Last edited by Hedgeporker; 13th Sep 2010 at 23:00.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catapult system among plans to cut cost of aircraft carriers
Cheaper planes also being considered as part of defence review, but MPs argue against ripping up building contracts
"Cost-cutting measures being considered for the carriers include slashing the number of strike aircraft to go on them and buying cheaper planes, which would be launched by catapult. This would have the added advantage of what officials call "interoperability" with France, whose navy aircraft all use catapults."
Catapult system among plans to cut cost of aircraft carriers | UK news | The Guardian
Cheaper planes also being considered as part of defence review, but MPs argue against ripping up building contracts
"Cost-cutting measures being considered for the carriers include slashing the number of strike aircraft to go on them and buying cheaper planes, which would be launched by catapult. This would have the added advantage of what officials call "interoperability" with France, whose navy aircraft all use catapults."
Catapult system among plans to cut cost of aircraft carriers | UK news | The Guardian
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends'
At the heart of rows over the defence review is the cost of equipment – but a balanced Navy, led by new aircraft carriers, could help preserve Britain's standing in the world
"Critics of the new carriers are quick to point at the cost. However, to get out of the contract will cost £2.3 billion which, as these ships will only cost £44 million a year to operate, is more than will be spent on them in their entire working lives. It has been suggested that money could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft or making them less capable. Having fewer aircraft actually wastes the investment in the carriers – it's like buying a tank but never buying shells for the gun. As to having less capable aircraft, that is already happening. The version of the Joint Strike Fighter we are buying, the F35B vertical/short take-off and landing model which is slated for the carriers, has less range and a smaller payload than the conventional naval "C" variant the Americans are buying; the "C" variant is also about £25 million cheaper per aircraft.
If Britain wants to save money in the carrier programme, fit them with catapults, arrester gear and buy the F35C, not vertical/short take-off version. These carriers represent excellent value for money – probably more so than many other British or European defence projects in the past 20 years. The commitment Britain shows to its maritime position through the carriers and the concept of having a balanced Navy is valuable. In an age where Britain will need the support of allies to further its foreign and security policy, it makes sense to contribute to such alliances as Nato or the EU in the most effective manner to ensure our voice is heard."
Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends' - Telegraph
At the heart of rows over the defence review is the cost of equipment – but a balanced Navy, led by new aircraft carriers, could help preserve Britain's standing in the world
"Critics of the new carriers are quick to point at the cost. However, to get out of the contract will cost £2.3 billion which, as these ships will only cost £44 million a year to operate, is more than will be spent on them in their entire working lives. It has been suggested that money could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft or making them less capable. Having fewer aircraft actually wastes the investment in the carriers – it's like buying a tank but never buying shells for the gun. As to having less capable aircraft, that is already happening. The version of the Joint Strike Fighter we are buying, the F35B vertical/short take-off and landing model which is slated for the carriers, has less range and a smaller payload than the conventional naval "C" variant the Americans are buying; the "C" variant is also about £25 million cheaper per aircraft.
If Britain wants to save money in the carrier programme, fit them with catapults, arrester gear and buy the F35C, not vertical/short take-off version. These carriers represent excellent value for money – probably more so than many other British or European defence projects in the past 20 years. The commitment Britain shows to its maritime position through the carriers and the concept of having a balanced Navy is valuable. In an age where Britain will need the support of allies to further its foreign and security policy, it makes sense to contribute to such alliances as Nato or the EU in the most effective manner to ensure our voice is heard."
Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends' - Telegraph
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
UK offers CVF to India
..........
I/C
I was taken aback last week to receive an invitation from BAE Systems, the world’s third-richest arms corporation, for a four-day media tour to the UK. What was remarkable in the BAE invitation was the company’s proposal to fly us to Glasgow for the launch of a new Royal Navy destroyer and a tour of other warships. Why, I wondered, was British shipbuilding being showcased to India in the absence of a plan to buy a warship from the UK?
A few phone calls later I had my answer! A cash-strapped UK defence ministry, unable to pay for the two aircraft carriers on order with BAE Systems, had offered one of them to New Delhi. In the circumstances, a few news reports in India on “high-quality British shipbuilding” could only be useful.
Given that the Indian Navy already has four aircraft carriers in the pipeline — the lame but functional INS Viraat; the infamous Gorshkov (renamed INS Vikramaditya), being constructed in Russia; a third (so far unnamed) carrier being built in Cochin Shipyard; and another to follow that — Britain’s offer of yet another carrier might be considered wildly optimistic. But desperate times demand desperate measures and the UK is conducting its greatest strategic downsizing since the 1968 retreat from the Suez. David Cameron’s new government has initiated a strategic defence and security review (SDSR), which involves defence spending cuts of 20-30 per cent to bring down military expenditure to below 2 per cent of GDP.
Amongst the several multi-billion pound programmes that seem certain to be pared is the Carrier Vessels Future (CVF) programme: the £5 billion ($8 billion) construction, mainly in British shipyards, of two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers called the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales. These were ordered before the global economic downturn; the Labour government thought they were essential for the Royal Navy to retain its centuries-old capability to project power across the globe. Even amidst today’s cost-cutting, current defence secretary Liam Fox had hoped to build both carriers, operating only one with the other kept in reserve. But just days ago, BAE boss Ian King revealed that the government had asked BAE Systems to evaluate the cost of cancelling the CVF programme entirely.
With £1.2 billion ($1.8 billion) already spent on the CVF, and 4,000 skilled workers busy fabricating the Queen Elizabeth, London knows that an outright cancellation would ruin Britain’s shipbuilding industry. And so, one of the aircraft carriers hopes to wash up on India’s shores.
A few phone calls later I had my answer! A cash-strapped UK defence ministry, unable to pay for the two aircraft carriers on order with BAE Systems, had offered one of them to New Delhi. In the circumstances, a few news reports in India on “high-quality British shipbuilding” could only be useful.
Given that the Indian Navy already has four aircraft carriers in the pipeline — the lame but functional INS Viraat; the infamous Gorshkov (renamed INS Vikramaditya), being constructed in Russia; a third (so far unnamed) carrier being built in Cochin Shipyard; and another to follow that — Britain’s offer of yet another carrier might be considered wildly optimistic. But desperate times demand desperate measures and the UK is conducting its greatest strategic downsizing since the 1968 retreat from the Suez. David Cameron’s new government has initiated a strategic defence and security review (SDSR), which involves defence spending cuts of 20-30 per cent to bring down military expenditure to below 2 per cent of GDP.
Amongst the several multi-billion pound programmes that seem certain to be pared is the Carrier Vessels Future (CVF) programme: the £5 billion ($8 billion) construction, mainly in British shipyards, of two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers called the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales. These were ordered before the global economic downturn; the Labour government thought they were essential for the Royal Navy to retain its centuries-old capability to project power across the globe. Even amidst today’s cost-cutting, current defence secretary Liam Fox had hoped to build both carriers, operating only one with the other kept in reserve. But just days ago, BAE boss Ian King revealed that the government had asked BAE Systems to evaluate the cost of cancelling the CVF programme entirely.
With £1.2 billion ($1.8 billion) already spent on the CVF, and 4,000 skilled workers busy fabricating the Queen Elizabeth, London knows that an outright cancellation would ruin Britain’s shipbuilding industry. And so, one of the aircraft carriers hopes to wash up on India’s shores.
I/C
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it was perfectly obvious that the much-vaunted Prime Ministerial visit was all about flogging off a CVF or two, as well as anything else that Cameron, Osbourne, Hague and Fox could get away with. I strongly suspect that the Indians uttered a polite 'no thank you', although I stand to be corrected. In any case, it seems that HMS Ocean will almost certainly be sold to the Brazillians in short order, along with some escorts (Type 22/23 anyone?).
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It’s impossible to imagine a better fit to the Secretary of State’s vision than the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike and Amphibious Task Groups. But cancellation of the new Queen Elizabeth-class future aircraft carriers (CVF) has for a decade been offered as the 'silver bullet' solution to the MoD’s funding crisis, and it is yet again being promoted with amazing success (at least in terms of column inches) by a segment of the media and defence establishment who seem to have a pathological hatred of any large grey warships that are able to carry aircraft. In practice – with over £1.2 billion in contracts already placed and the UK shipbuilding industry now totally dependent on the project - construction of the new carriers has almost certainly passed the point at which cancellation is viable under any rational criteria, however significant changes to the CVF programme are still quite possible.
The most obvious problem is finding aircraft and helicopters to form air groups for the new carriers. The UK has theoretically committed to buying up 138 of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement; indeed it has already ordered three of the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) JSF variant (designated F-35B). However there seems to be little chance that more than 50 JCA's (costing nearly £100 million each) will be affordable. One of the surprises of SDSR might be a decision to abandon the F-35B version for the F-35C which can carry a higher payload over a longer range. The F-35C is also slightly cheaper, but this will be negated by the cost of fitting at least one of the new carriers with two catapults and arresting gear. Adoption of the F-35C will avoid the dangerous looking 'rolling landing' technique that the UK has been studying for the F-35B in order to overcome its payload 'bring back' weight restrictions. Another potential advantage with the F-35C is that the Royal Navy would be able to cross deck aircraft with United States and French Navy aircraft carriers for the first time since 1978.
If SDSR did decide to go for the F-35C over the F-35B, it’s the second CVF - HMS Prince of Wales - that would be adopted to the operate the aircraft. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be completed largely as planned, including a bow ski-jump. She would initially operate Harrier's (assuming that they stay in service as currently planned until 2019). Thereafter she would operate as a super-sized helicopter carrier (LPH), effectively replacing HMS Ocean, with the possibility that funding priorities might eventually permit her to be upgraded to the same standard as Prince of Wales."
Navy Matters | Home Page
The most obvious problem is finding aircraft and helicopters to form air groups for the new carriers. The UK has theoretically committed to buying up 138 of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement; indeed it has already ordered three of the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) JSF variant (designated F-35B). However there seems to be little chance that more than 50 JCA's (costing nearly £100 million each) will be affordable. One of the surprises of SDSR might be a decision to abandon the F-35B version for the F-35C which can carry a higher payload over a longer range. The F-35C is also slightly cheaper, but this will be negated by the cost of fitting at least one of the new carriers with two catapults and arresting gear. Adoption of the F-35C will avoid the dangerous looking 'rolling landing' technique that the UK has been studying for the F-35B in order to overcome its payload 'bring back' weight restrictions. Another potential advantage with the F-35C is that the Royal Navy would be able to cross deck aircraft with United States and French Navy aircraft carriers for the first time since 1978.
If SDSR did decide to go for the F-35C over the F-35B, it’s the second CVF - HMS Prince of Wales - that would be adopted to the operate the aircraft. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be completed largely as planned, including a bow ski-jump. She would initially operate Harrier's (assuming that they stay in service as currently planned until 2019). Thereafter she would operate as a super-sized helicopter carrier (LPH), effectively replacing HMS Ocean, with the possibility that funding priorities might eventually permit her to be upgraded to the same standard as Prince of Wales."
Navy Matters | Home Page
The F-35 backers might actually like to see the RN go F-35C as it would help cement the USN program in place.
Despite high-level sounds of approval, F-35C is at risk because:
- The Marines want 420 of the planned Navy Dept JSFs to be STOVL, leaving the Navy with a minimal (for the US) 260 Cs
- The C is at the tail-end of a flight test program that may not be doable on the current schedule, so might be the one that they decide to slip, which would leave the Navy needing more F-18s
- With the upgraded Hornet promoted by Boeing, the Navy has a potential JSF alternative
- The Super Hornet as it stands today will do anything better than the F-35C until 2020+ except a deep strike mission against double-digit SAMs.
Despite high-level sounds of approval, F-35C is at risk because:
- The Marines want 420 of the planned Navy Dept JSFs to be STOVL, leaving the Navy with a minimal (for the US) 260 Cs
- The C is at the tail-end of a flight test program that may not be doable on the current schedule, so might be the one that they decide to slip, which would leave the Navy needing more F-18s
- With the upgraded Hornet promoted by Boeing, the Navy has a potential JSF alternative
- The Super Hornet as it stands today will do anything better than the F-35C until 2020+ except a deep strike mission against double-digit SAMs.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO
All very pertinent points, but the ConOps for the F-35B still seem ridiculous.
Given your proximity to the programme, a genuine question.
When will the USMC need the capability to go after double digit SAMs from LPDs or rough strips without a CVN turning up? It seems so improbable that I just can't see how (politics aside) the USMC can justify F-35B instead of bashing out some new Harrier II+ or flying F-35Cs off the CVNs.
S41
All very pertinent points, but the ConOps for the F-35B still seem ridiculous.
Given your proximity to the programme, a genuine question.
When will the USMC need the capability to go after double digit SAMs from LPDs or rough strips without a CVN turning up? It seems so improbable that I just can't see how (politics aside) the USMC can justify F-35B instead of bashing out some new Harrier II+ or flying F-35Cs off the CVNs.
S41
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When will the USMC need the capability to go after double digit SAMs from LPDs or rough strips without a CVN turning up? It seems so improbable that I just can't see how (politics aside) the USMC can justify F-35B instead of bashing out some new Harrier II+ or flying F-35Cs off the CVNs.
The ultimate reason for the US Navy's F-35B's is to operate a smaller class of aircraft carrier -- new generation escort carriers, one might say.
The USS America currently being built is the first ship in this class.
The USMC remains a subset of the USN.
The ultimate reason for the US Navy's F-35B's is to operate a smaller class of aircraft carrier -- new generation escort carriers, one might say.
The USS America currently being built is the first ship in this class.
The USMC remains a subset of the USN.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ME,
All understood, but what is the mission set that sees US interests sufficiently engaged against a double-digit SAM threat (else why F-35?) but insufficiently interested to drive one of 11 CVNs near it?
I just don't see the combination of MEU/MAGTAF vs double-digit minus CVN.
S41
All understood, but what is the mission set that sees US interests sufficiently engaged against a double-digit SAM threat (else why F-35?) but insufficiently interested to drive one of 11 CVNs near it?
I just don't see the combination of MEU/MAGTAF vs double-digit minus CVN.
S41
S41 -
Exactly. I'm not saying that 420 makes sense as the number of Bs, but that's the default because of the Marines' political influence and because they want to replace all their aircraft with STOVL F-35Bs - even though, at any given time, most will be on land bases or complicating life for a CVN.
No President or Joint Chiefs will ever send an MEU against a serious threat without a CVN in the area. In the Cold War, given an ASTOVL-like fighter, you might have done it in a diversionary operation, but not in the foreseeable future.
Modern Elmo
Smaller escort carriers? I would remind you that a CVN is 1000 feet long and keel-hauling would be unpleasant. And as the entire Brit process has shown, the idea is impractical. If the goal is to provide FJ support to a littoral operation, against a low-grade threat (for instance, a couple-squadron, not-well-equipped AF) then you need to support CAP and offensive ops at the same time, which drives sortie rate X, which drives number of jets Y. The UK went through this and CVF grew from under 40000 tons to 65000 tons.
The America is not an escort carrier. How many F-35Bs do you get on a 50000 ton ship that also carries troops, equipment, vehicles and the helicopters they need to get ashore? Even if you eliminate the well deck?
The answer is double digits if you're lucky - particularly because your medium "helicopter" is now a 13000 shp 30-ton monster - so if you have two America-class amphibs in the task force you maybe have added 15-20 per cent more fast jets, with less range and weapon load than the CV-based aircraft.
Sure, you can get 20-some JSFs on America if you eliminate the transport helicopters, but then you've got no way at all to get your troops ashore. I will be surprised if LHA-8 does not have a well deck.
So the CONOPS no longer makes sense, but the Marines won't look at the mess they are in and nobody dares to take them on.
Exactly. I'm not saying that 420 makes sense as the number of Bs, but that's the default because of the Marines' political influence and because they want to replace all their aircraft with STOVL F-35Bs - even though, at any given time, most will be on land bases or complicating life for a CVN.
No President or Joint Chiefs will ever send an MEU against a serious threat without a CVN in the area. In the Cold War, given an ASTOVL-like fighter, you might have done it in a diversionary operation, but not in the foreseeable future.
Modern Elmo
Smaller escort carriers? I would remind you that a CVN is 1000 feet long and keel-hauling would be unpleasant. And as the entire Brit process has shown, the idea is impractical. If the goal is to provide FJ support to a littoral operation, against a low-grade threat (for instance, a couple-squadron, not-well-equipped AF) then you need to support CAP and offensive ops at the same time, which drives sortie rate X, which drives number of jets Y. The UK went through this and CVF grew from under 40000 tons to 65000 tons.
The America is not an escort carrier. How many F-35Bs do you get on a 50000 ton ship that also carries troops, equipment, vehicles and the helicopters they need to get ashore? Even if you eliminate the well deck?
The answer is double digits if you're lucky - particularly because your medium "helicopter" is now a 13000 shp 30-ton monster - so if you have two America-class amphibs in the task force you maybe have added 15-20 per cent more fast jets, with less range and weapon load than the CV-based aircraft.
Sure, you can get 20-some JSFs on America if you eliminate the transport helicopters, but then you've got no way at all to get your troops ashore. I will be surprised if LHA-8 does not have a well deck.
So the CONOPS no longer makes sense, but the Marines won't look at the mess they are in and nobody dares to take them on.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Catapults are Cheaper
Why UK should buy less expensive, yet more capable, F35C
http://grandlogistics.********.com/2...e-cheaper.html
Why UK should buy less expensive, yet more capable, F35C
http://grandlogistics.********.com/2...e-cheaper.html
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
C or B
Why UK should buy less expensive, yet more capable, F35C
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
That might be true John, if the RAF were driving the procurement. However, I don't believe it is or was a RN key requirement for the JSF, rather being driven by the RAF due to the currency needs for cross-training of RAF pilots (and the Harrier mafia).
With the limited numbers now be mentioned for purchase - around 50 to 60 - I can't see there being any pool of non-current pilots around, and the opinion of the RN will undoubtedly prevail.
With the limited numbers now be mentioned for purchase - around 50 to 60 - I can't see there being any pool of non-current pilots around, and the opinion of the RN will undoubtedly prevail.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I believe both the RN and RAF have the same interest at heart as you do John.
They may, however, differ as to how they are best achieved.
They may, however, differ as to how they are best achieved.