More delays for the F-35
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afternoon all,
Glojo. Correct - first one to have no cat and trap. (As it stands with the current wind direction)
F18E would offer a greater capability than the GR4 but if we pass up the chance to buy the last manned fighter (F-35) the implications are large.
Can we save/ lose money by taking the Joint out of JCA? Not vast sums. I think that with the post SDSR figure of 12 deployable to start with we are now possibly in the realms of single service manning. Therefore the desirability of a single service force really boils down to what it offers defence. I can't see how this would significantly effect the cost.
We are buying a carrier borne aircraft, to embark, for maritime strike. If it were to be solely manned by the RAF you deny all levels of the RN experience in operating the product. If it were to be solely manned by the RN, the ACC (who - let's be realistic - will always be RAF) might not know what his 'other box of tricks' is capable of. Both can be mitigated to some degree by LOs. I think Joint is the way forward. If I had to choose between two single service options - gun to head - given the existence of Typhoon and GR4 replacement, that the lesser of the two evils is for the ACC to be broadly, if not intimately, familiar with the capability. i.e. JCA becomes dark blue and the boys spend their entire lives at sea, singing shanties and searching relentlessly for the golden rivet and we send a fishy type to the CAOC to answer the tricky questions.
As to the debate about what JCA is, well it would be brilliant if it were F-35 but everyone will have a line in the sand as to when it becomes 'something else' (or F-18E, or Rafale). As the programme slips and the jets get more expensive we start tripping over those lines and at some point we'll get to Mr Cameron's.
Glojo. Correct - first one to have no cat and trap. (As it stands with the current wind direction)
F18E would offer a greater capability than the GR4 but if we pass up the chance to buy the last manned fighter (F-35) the implications are large.
Can we save/ lose money by taking the Joint out of JCA? Not vast sums. I think that with the post SDSR figure of 12 deployable to start with we are now possibly in the realms of single service manning. Therefore the desirability of a single service force really boils down to what it offers defence. I can't see how this would significantly effect the cost.
We are buying a carrier borne aircraft, to embark, for maritime strike. If it were to be solely manned by the RAF you deny all levels of the RN experience in operating the product. If it were to be solely manned by the RN, the ACC (who - let's be realistic - will always be RAF) might not know what his 'other box of tricks' is capable of. Both can be mitigated to some degree by LOs. I think Joint is the way forward. If I had to choose between two single service options - gun to head - given the existence of Typhoon and GR4 replacement, that the lesser of the two evils is for the ACC to be broadly, if not intimately, familiar with the capability. i.e. JCA becomes dark blue and the boys spend their entire lives at sea, singing shanties and searching relentlessly for the golden rivet and we send a fishy type to the CAOC to answer the tricky questions.
As to the debate about what JCA is, well it would be brilliant if it were F-35 but everyone will have a line in the sand as to when it becomes 'something else' (or F-18E, or Rafale). As the programme slips and the jets get more expensive we start tripping over those lines and at some point we'll get to Mr Cameron's.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent reply that should hopefully stimulate discussions from all corners of the debate. My big concern is that are we playing games with the thought of being a nation that possesses a carrier with full fixed wing capability and if the answer is 'Yes' then is ONE carrier enough?
Can we afford two carriers and all the other issues that go with these types of ships?
Can we afford two carriers and all the other issues that go with these types of ships?
gents.
with regards to 'what should we do if JSF becomes too expensive', could you give your views on the possibility that instead of a F/A-18F/G / Rafale buy we went for a carrier capable UCAV?
UCAV's on the horizon include the USN's X-47B, and GA's 'Sea Avenger' - do any ppruners think that with a bit of cash shoved their way, any of the possibles could replace Tornado GR4 and take the place of F-35C?
with regards to 'what should we do if JSF becomes too expensive', could you give your views on the possibility that instead of a F/A-18F/G / Rafale buy we went for a carrier capable UCAV?
UCAV's on the horizon include the USN's X-47B, and GA's 'Sea Avenger' - do any ppruners think that with a bit of cash shoved their way, any of the possibles could replace Tornado GR4 and take the place of F-35C?
Glojo, Coke, good points all round. As for UCAVs, it's the long argued choice between manned and unmanned. Perhaps once we could absolutely guarantee that they're completely immune to EMP, jamming, deception, etc, they could become a possibility for more mainstream ops.
Of course, no real pilot would ever (should ever) openly support UCAVs. We'll always think up more reasons why they "just wouldn't work".
Of course, no real pilot would ever (should ever) openly support UCAVs. We'll always think up more reasons why they "just wouldn't work".
FA18F is probably more capable than GR4, but that is irrelevant in terms of acquiring the aircraft, as the requirement being procured against is JCA, which requires significantly more capability in certain areas. No-one, I say again, no-one, is going to get a new-buy aircraft past the EAC and the Treasury unless it meets the future requirement.
For all Boeing's current strapline ("Affordable. Capable. Available Now" - wonder what they're thinking??!!) you are talking about an aircraft for which the first production model was delivered 14 years ago (yes, really) and was developed from an aircraft first delivered in the early 80s.
So - new buy of SuperBug unlikely to get past MoD hurdles. In any case, the line is now ramping down with only 67 E/F and some Growlers on the plot between now and FY2014 when production ends. This also makes the idea of "loaning" a squadron or two of 18E/F and deferring F35C much harder, particularly if F35 is delayed.
The only loan option that might be feasible now would be to consolidate all those on "exchange" into a single squadron (would have to build up with a high US content to start with) and operating FA18C if we're lucky, although there are only a couple of dozen C models at AMARC atm. Kind of a reverse of the Eagle squadrons. Depending on the conditions of the exchange, the UK gets a coherent CV-capable unit in the Orbat maintaining skillsets and the USN (or even the Foul & Most Foreign) get an additional squadron of manpower, although fitting in with the deployemnt and training schedules for a CVW will be very tricky.
UCAVs are nowhere near being ready for operational deployments as part of a CVW yet. There's a reason it's called the X47....
For all Boeing's current strapline ("Affordable. Capable. Available Now" - wonder what they're thinking??!!) you are talking about an aircraft for which the first production model was delivered 14 years ago (yes, really) and was developed from an aircraft first delivered in the early 80s.
So - new buy of SuperBug unlikely to get past MoD hurdles. In any case, the line is now ramping down with only 67 E/F and some Growlers on the plot between now and FY2014 when production ends. This also makes the idea of "loaning" a squadron or two of 18E/F and deferring F35C much harder, particularly if F35 is delayed.
The only loan option that might be feasible now would be to consolidate all those on "exchange" into a single squadron (would have to build up with a high US content to start with) and operating FA18C if we're lucky, although there are only a couple of dozen C models at AMARC atm. Kind of a reverse of the Eagle squadrons. Depending on the conditions of the exchange, the UK gets a coherent CV-capable unit in the Orbat maintaining skillsets and the USN (or even the Foul & Most Foreign) get an additional squadron of manpower, although fitting in with the deployemnt and training schedules for a CVW will be very tricky.
UCAVs are nowhere near being ready for operational deployments as part of a CVW yet. There's a reason it's called the X47....
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a UCAV operator could enlighten me. I can see how a well found capability, operating from a carrier would work. But if their lordships gave a "Right, we're jumping forward, how long until we're all in Al Udeid ready to fight?" I would guess that the F-35 could be off the deck in an hour and en route...how long would a drone-det (don't call them drones...err - no I shall) take to get off the boat with operator consoles etc..
..or is the answer that the drones could be controlled from somewhere(Waddington?) and the flying bit of the drone system could be anywhere worldwide?
PS They're drones. And Courtney's right. They make sense, they can stay up for hours, they persist, the operator can have a coffee or nip to the head. But we all deep down know it ain't right!
..or is the answer that the drones could be controlled from somewhere(Waddington?) and the flying bit of the drone system could be anywhere worldwide?
PS They're drones. And Courtney's right. They make sense, they can stay up for hours, they persist, the operator can have a coffee or nip to the head. But we all deep down know it ain't right!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the IOC of the F35 slipping further away as I read things and the price going up and up, as was stated above some countries will have their lines in the sand regarding the F35 crossed, be this due to its late arrival or its unaffordable cost.
What confuses me is why the default alternative is the F18 not the Rafale, when the Indians and others have selected the Rafale above the F18 in their competitions.
Personally I would have thought that with the co operation that is meant to be happening with the French a purchace of Rafale Ns, the two seat carrier version would fit the bill for the UK. I do know that at the moment none have ever been built, two seats seem a better solution in complex situations.
I look forward to comments on the above...
What confuses me is why the default alternative is the F18 not the Rafale, when the Indians and others have selected the Rafale above the F18 in their competitions.
Personally I would have thought that with the co operation that is meant to be happening with the French a purchace of Rafale Ns, the two seat carrier version would fit the bill for the UK. I do know that at the moment none have ever been built, two seats seem a better solution in complex situations.
I look forward to comments on the above...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAB,
Whilst you are absolutely correct about the requirement I think we might be under estimating what an EASA equipped aircraft brings to the party. And we could argue all day about weapon fits. The F-18E is IMHO more of a F-35 'minus' than a GR4 'plus'.
Not sure any allied power would like the idea of an embedded mercenary squadron. Far more palatable to disperse the same amount of people through out the fleet, after all with no deck to fly from the UK has no requirement for a formed Naval Air Squadron (for now).
I'm personally in the 'buy F-35C' camp, but can see how valid the 'look at F-18E' argument is.
Whilst you are absolutely correct about the requirement I think we might be under estimating what an EASA equipped aircraft brings to the party. And we could argue all day about weapon fits. The F-18E is IMHO more of a F-35 'minus' than a GR4 'plus'.
Not sure any allied power would like the idea of an embedded mercenary squadron. Far more palatable to disperse the same amount of people through out the fleet, after all with no deck to fly from the UK has no requirement for a formed Naval Air Squadron (for now).
I'm personally in the 'buy F-35C' camp, but can see how valid the 'look at F-18E' argument is.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the concept of the programme being "joint" not a bit irrelevant now? I'm under the impression that it came about from the idea that "look, we fly the same aircraft, why don't we operate under a joint force and replace the aircraft in a corresponding manner". But if the navy went F18/Rafale, would that not negate the necessity for a joint force until (or if) the F35 comes in?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my opinion that JCA could well be manned by a single service. But there is no requirement for JCA and follow-on JCA. If the JCA requirement is met by F-18E then F-35C is finished as far as the Uk is concerned.
So the RN could man F-18 (assuming they didn't make everyone redundant (
)), as could the RAF but it would not be as a stop gap.
So the RN could man F-18 (assuming they didn't make everyone redundant (
)), as could the RAF but it would not be as a stop gap.
is there any real chance that cabinet would accept a 3 type fleet?
if we had F/A-18F/Rafale for the RN, and F-35 and Typhoon for the RAF, would that not be a msassive duplication for diddly squat result?
are not F/A-18F, Rafale and Typhoon roughly at the same level of capability - except that SuperHornet is a bit less of a dogfighter than the other two, but has a much better radar and is cleared for pretty much every A2G munition in NATO?
the ideal result might well be a single, seemless RAF/RN fleet of F-35, but who here would be appalled at a single, seamless RAF/RN fleet of F/A-18 F/G with JSF cancelled, the Typhoons flogged to the Arabs and Tornado GR4 being put to bed? one single type,and huge savings on training and maintainence that can be put twoards the AWACS, ELINT, LR MPA and tankers that we desperately need...
if we had F/A-18F/Rafale for the RN, and F-35 and Typhoon for the RAF, would that not be a msassive duplication for diddly squat result?
are not F/A-18F, Rafale and Typhoon roughly at the same level of capability - except that SuperHornet is a bit less of a dogfighter than the other two, but has a much better radar and is cleared for pretty much every A2G munition in NATO?
the ideal result might well be a single, seemless RAF/RN fleet of F-35, but who here would be appalled at a single, seamless RAF/RN fleet of F/A-18 F/G with JSF cancelled, the Typhoons flogged to the Arabs and Tornado GR4 being put to bed? one single type,and huge savings on training and maintainence that can be put twoards the AWACS, ELINT, LR MPA and tankers that we desperately need...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The advantage of a joint force are the reduced cost of joint training and logistic support - 1 type instead of 2.
The second advantage which was offered by the F-35B was the ability to surge by reinforcing the Carrier force with RAF crews/aircraft as the SHAR force was reinforced by the GR3s in 82. The proposition being that carrier STOVL required limited additional training for a land based pilot. Purportedly the skills required for conventional cat & trap require continuous practice and the second advantage is no longer available.
The question therefore being does buying the F-35C as a part replacement for the GR4 force (the rest being UAV) still make commercial sense in view of the price or is there an alternate option available such as additional Tranche 3 Typhoon?
The second advantage which was offered by the F-35B was the ability to surge by reinforcing the Carrier force with RAF crews/aircraft as the SHAR force was reinforced by the GR3s in 82. The proposition being that carrier STOVL required limited additional training for a land based pilot. Purportedly the skills required for conventional cat & trap require continuous practice and the second advantage is no longer available.
The question therefore being does buying the F-35C as a part replacement for the GR4 force (the rest being UAV) still make commercial sense in view of the price or is there an alternate option available such as additional Tranche 3 Typhoon?
Last edited by ORAC; 26th Jan 2012 at 15:14.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, if the JCA requirement does eventually follow through with one aircraft type, then I agree about it being jointly manned (a highly logical argument). But if the navy went F18s for a few years, my point is that I would imagine they would be manned exclusively by the navy, while the air force find their own solution to the capability gap (probably more typhoons). I was speaking to a guy that's just left the MoD, who said talk of this as an alternative plan is rife, with a view to re-visiting the F35 in 10 years time... as demonstrated by the commander in chief fleet's comments.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Americans are now ordering a few more F/18's:
U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Contract
No. 054-12 January 25, 2012
CONTRACTS
NAVY
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $687,484,033 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year procurement contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for 14 additional fiscal 2012, Lot 36, F/A- 18E aircraft and one additional fiscal 2012, Lot 36, F/A-18F aircraft contained in the F/A-18 multi-year III production contract. Pursuant to the variation in quantity clause, this procurement will bring the number of F/A-18E aircraft on this contract from 55 to 69, and the F/A-18F from 20 to 21.
No. 054-12 January 25, 2012
CONTRACTS
NAVY
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $687,484,033 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year procurement contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for 14 additional fiscal 2012, Lot 36, F/A- 18E aircraft and one additional fiscal 2012, Lot 36, F/A-18F aircraft contained in the F/A-18 multi-year III production contract. Pursuant to the variation in quantity clause, this procurement will bring the number of F/A-18E aircraft on this contract from 55 to 69, and the F/A-18F from 20 to 21.
Orca
I too am firmly in the "buy F35C" camp, but potentially with a bit more flexibility on the when. If the "when" slips into the twenties, then an intermediate solution is required (at least for the FCBA bit of JCA) for which a loan is the only sensible option.
Phillip - I don't believe the Indians have announced their selection yet. However, as it's due this week, I bet the phones in both BAES and Dassault executive offices are managing about one ring before pick-up.
ORAC - I don't think the difference between cat n trap and STOVL training demands is as stark as you make out. I'm pretty sure that the various squadrons in US CVW do not spend the time they are not embarked sitting on the ramp at Oceana, North Island or Whidbey Island incapable of operations. Similarly, the USMC squadrons sometimes integrated into big-deck CVW don't spend years working up to it. That is not to suggest it's simple - CarQuals are an intensive and demanding training period as outlined in this ref.
http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf
What it does mean is that an RAF squadron can't hop on for a week and then be certified as "qualified" as per STOVL. However, with a little imagination (a significant number of field landings to be conducted as per carrier landings), you'd be looking at being able to deliver a CV-qualified element of FE@R at a readiness measured in some tens of days. Not impossible, I suggest, but would require more willingness to embark more often, such that it isn't a new experience every time. It almost certainly implies a bigger AE for Joint Force Dave to ensure that a six-ship sustained commitment to a land-theatre doesn't mean you can't deliver a CV-based component as well.
I too am firmly in the "buy F35C" camp, but potentially with a bit more flexibility on the when. If the "when" slips into the twenties, then an intermediate solution is required (at least for the FCBA bit of JCA) for which a loan is the only sensible option.
Phillip - I don't believe the Indians have announced their selection yet. However, as it's due this week, I bet the phones in both BAES and Dassault executive offices are managing about one ring before pick-up.
ORAC - I don't think the difference between cat n trap and STOVL training demands is as stark as you make out. I'm pretty sure that the various squadrons in US CVW do not spend the time they are not embarked sitting on the ramp at Oceana, North Island or Whidbey Island incapable of operations. Similarly, the USMC squadrons sometimes integrated into big-deck CVW don't spend years working up to it. That is not to suggest it's simple - CarQuals are an intensive and demanding training period as outlined in this ref.
http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf
What it does mean is that an RAF squadron can't hop on for a week and then be certified as "qualified" as per STOVL. However, with a little imagination (a significant number of field landings to be conducted as per carrier landings), you'd be looking at being able to deliver a CV-qualified element of FE@R at a readiness measured in some tens of days. Not impossible, I suggest, but would require more willingness to embark more often, such that it isn't a new experience every time. It almost certainly implies a bigger AE for Joint Force Dave to ensure that a six-ship sustained commitment to a land-theatre doesn't mean you can't deliver a CV-based component as well.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Boffin
Phillip - I don't believe the Indians have announced their selection yet. However, as it's due this week, I bet the phones in both BAES and Dassault executive offices are managing about one ring before pick-up.
I was meaning that besides Boeing have offered their best version of the F18 the Indians having done a long and involved comparison decided that the F18 did not make the final short list, whilst the Rafale and Typhoon did. Unless the requirements that the Indians had were very different from those of the UK, which they may be... It surprised me that as a default carrier aircraft the F18 comes to people's mind.
I do agree that the quick of the nails must be nearly gone whilst waiting for the result....
Phillip - I don't believe the Indians have announced their selection yet. However, as it's due this week, I bet the phones in both BAES and Dassault executive offices are managing about one ring before pick-up.
I was meaning that besides Boeing have offered their best version of the F18 the Indians having done a long and involved comparison decided that the F18 did not make the final short list, whilst the Rafale and Typhoon did. Unless the requirements that the Indians had were very different from those of the UK, which they may be... It surprised me that as a default carrier aircraft the F18 comes to people's mind.
I do agree that the quick of the nails must be nearly gone whilst waiting for the result....
I think the Indians are settled on the MiG29K for their carriers, it's not part of the MRCA requirement.
Could be there are elements of the MRCA requirement that suit Typhoon and Rafale airframe performance better than SuperBug.
Could be there are elements of the MRCA requirement that suit Typhoon and Rafale airframe performance better than SuperBug.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we talking about Indian aircraft carriers and the selection of aircraft? I thought the carriers they were operating lacked catapults which would suggest their choice of aircraft is limited!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glojo,
Apparently the Indian's are examining concepts for future carriers...
I suppose it would be as well to investigate the various a/c types that it could carry too.
Are we talking about Indian aircraft carriers and the selection of aircraft? I thought the carriers they were operating lacked catapults which would suggest their choice of aircraft is limited!
Concepts currently being examined by the Directorate of Naval Design for the IAC-2 are for a conventionally powered carrier displacing over 50,000 tons and equipped with steam catapults (rather than the ski-jump on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya and the IAC) to launch fourth generation aircraft.