More delays for the F-35

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by The Guardian

"cats and flaps"

Oh, bless. They're thinking about their little pussies and their cat flaps. Apart from that, some interesting speculation perhaps. Going back can't be an option, surely?

[JFZ90]

nice find Finnpog

[LowObservable]

I don't think that going back is the option. "Re-assessing" doesn't mean that, but I suspect that the Grauniad hack assumed that it did.

The B is still going to cost a bomb, in acquisition and support, because it is the love-child of Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg. And if the UK commits to B and the US scraps it, the UK loses both carriers and looks like the biggest prat since the year dot, while the US loses 60-some out of nearly 600 full-time ship-deployed FJ slots.

Remember the story of the pig and the hen, forming a JV to produce bacon and eggs? The hen is involved, but the pig is committed...

The fallback for F-35C is "whatever jet we know will be flying with the USN until 2035" and we all know what that is.

[orca]

Dear David,

You know we had the 'whole SDSR thing' which attracted a little bit of interest, mainly centred around Ark Royal and Harrier?

If you recall you had to be a little defensive about axing the capability and we explained it away because 1) a carrier would never come in handy and 2) we were going to buy a proper aeroplane to go on the new boats, not one of the uppy-downy rubbish ones.

You may also recall wishing that you had a carrier when the 'whole Libya thing' blew up, and you announced to the house that no-one else was sending a carrier - but then (on the same day) the French sent theirs, and then the Italians put Garibaldi out there, and then the US weighed in with Bataan and Kearsage. Three of which are Harrier carriers. Awkward, I know but, well we can actually still justify the Harrier decision on cost grounds, but, well it does get a little awkward from here on in.

What we'd like, if it's not too much to ask, is for you to announce that we're not buying the proper aeroplane anymore, but the uppy-downy one again. Yes the worst one. Yes the one that would have made Harrier a sensible aircraft to grow the capability from. Yes the one that can't go as far...yep, you got it.

You see it turns out that the 'easily convertible ships' are, well not easily convertible. Which you probably guessed because we told you the opposite - and we then just guessed the price to upgrade them.

You will of course, being a clever chap,realise that someone will point out that all this could lead to the conclusion that SDSR was indeed rushed, ill considered and not thought out end-to-end. This is all true so if you would admit as much it would help to clear the air.

So, if you wouldn't mind toddling off to the house and doing an amazing, never seen before about face on F-35 that would be great.

Cheers,

Yours Phil.

[Finningley Boy]

I have to disagree Phil, the stark option to losing the Harrier and therefore Carrier, was to lose the Tornado. This would have far further cut the Ground Attack Force by a significantly greater degree.

The best option may well have been not to give as much aid to India and retain what measly (let's be honest) few combat aircraft we have left.

FB

[glojo]

When the decision was made to change type to the 'B' I queried the amount of work that the the carriers would need to have the catapults and arrestor wires fitted. I was assured that between deck spacing was available and the work was just slightly more complex than sliding in pre built containers that just needed connecting to the relevant systems. I had to accept those statements but quite clearly things do not appear so black and white.

Will the RAF welcome the F-35B aircraft with open arms and scrap one of their own types or we will see 'Take two' of the hatchet job that saw the demise of the harrier?

Talking of the harrier we had the government sell off this excellent aircraft for less than £1.7m per aircraft and that price included huge, huge quantities of spare parts for these operational aircraft. Was that value for money? How much did we pay for these aircraft? Would £20m plus per aircraft be a VERY conservative estimate?

Sell off this asset, scrap the carriers, convert the one remaining carrier into a helicopter transporter and loose all fixed wing carrier aircraft handling skills and then......... Pay other countries to train our sailors, train our pilots to operate an aircraft that Great Britain was responsible for actually inventing, bringing into service, operating, being the World's leading operator and also using it in combat to great effect! Brilliant decisions and to think we are led by a so called conservative party. My wife tells me my vote is wasted when I always vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party but I maintain that at least they know they are crazy and honesty is an unheard of word in our corridors of power.

The 'B ' is not the aircraft we should have and if we cannot afford to play the game then do not bring the wrong ball onto the pitch, it aint wanted!

The instant we go back to a through deck type cruiser beast we loose the ability to have a decent AEW aircraft, a tanking type aircraft plus all the other types that would be so beneficial.

If we have decided the 'C' is indeed too expensive then PLEASE let's think F-18 and to answer the question regarding the Tornado, then YES scrap the thing and have two carriers. Libya highlighted in spades just how far down the pecking order we have gone. Flying operations from Norfolk in a Tornado must have been a real joy... I bet the aircrew enjoyed the motorway service facilities for any 'hygiene breaks' and it must have been so comforting to be able to stretch the legs midway through those long flights!!!!! Crazy and how long before those aircraft were back on line, ready for the next mission to that far away land?? What about Squadron Leader Sore Anus and his observer Flt Lt PainIn theButt? were they fully refreshed and capable of flying extended missions like that day in, day out??

We were told the US did not take an active role over Libya but we now know different and how would we have coped without their tanker aircraft? But to go back to scrapping the Tornado, then yes if we had fully equipped carriers with squadrons of F-18's then why not?

I am NOT interested in any urethra waving contest and if that means being like Canada, then so be it, let the Royal Air Force fly ALL aircraft. BUT.... they go away on FULL deployments aboard aircraft carriers, and the same frigates or destroyers although attachments will have to be for two years per ship. Who here cares about colour of uniform? We serve the Crown not the uniform.

Sits back to now catch the incoming.

Gone but not forgotten (Not political as this man has sadly gone to that big hangar in the sky)

[Courtney Mil]

Dear Phil,

Thank you so much for contacting me with your views about our plans for the new Maritime Patrol Aircraft going forward. I find it useful to pause and hold a listening excercise on these matters wherever appropriate; we should always do the right thing.

I have asked the Minister to re-examine the facts, although this may take a few days as he has yet to return from RAF Waddingham, where, you will be aware, he has been overseeing the latest in a series of training events to ensure we deliver the very best capability, the excellence that Britain deserves.

I was not aware that the replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft is available in more than one version; I shall set up a committee immediately to examine internal communications so that we can all learn the lessons and take things forward in an effecient and cost-effective fashion.

You may have misunderstood our future plans, although I am not surprised as you will not have had visibility on our new Future Defence Policy Framework. Following further, in-depth studies by the Defense Appraisal Committee, I am advised that your suggestion of having both new aircraft and a new carrier would be counter productive. Once we have our new Maritime Patrol Aircraft, we will be in a position to make further efficiencies in the Royal Navy as the aircraft will be able to take all the roles currently undertaken by that branch of our excellent Armed Forces. This will also mean that we can find further, large-scale reductions in manpower across the board, allowing us to further support our fighting men and women. Announcements will be made shortly.

Thank you again for your useful suggestions.

Yours,

David

[Finningley Boy]

glojo - re post 410,

Simply, this is about air power, that is the reposibility of the "Air Force" that said, of course far more realistic aircraft carriers, indeed, operated by the Royal Navy would be a sensible attribute. But constantly making the case for naval air power in place of air power per say, smacks of one thing; Get rid of the R.A.F! If you want to see this country cut a poor figure, with limited ability compared with other comparable and supposedly lesser countries, on the world stage then carry on by all means.

FB

[Courtney Mil]

Morning, FB.

I don't think Glojo's intent (please correct me if I'm wrong) was to suggest getting rid of the RAF. I think he's looking at overall capability and the correct types to replace what's there already. There is a lot to be said for considering both RN and RAF operating a common type, which would be the case with F35 anyway - whatever model. I have to agree that the B is probably not the girl for us and Glojo's points about through deck cruisers vs proper carriers hold a lot of water (no pun intended). If we can't afford the F35, we have to look at something else. Super Hornet might be the one (of a choice of a few). Switching away from F35 doesn't mean we still don't consider a common type between the services.

I think.

[alfred_the_great]

This is a problem that is not of the RN's making or choosing. The USN are having more than a few problems, and this is being reflected back in our programme.

I think it might be time to properly look at FA-18s and their ilk to have capability on day 1, even though it might not be Day One capability.

[glojo]

Hi FB,
Please understand I most certainly DO NOT want to get rid of the RAF and as I said in my previous post... Let the RAF be the service that operates EVERYTHING that takes to the skies. I have NO PROBLEM with that. I served Queen and country and during that period my uniform was blue, light blue, and sometimes green!! I do not give a flying fig what the colour of the cloth is... let us all unite and accept it is now the time to think about what is best for the country and not what might be best for one specific service.

Is it easier to have an airfield fifty miles off the coast of Libya or a base in the UK?

is it easier to have an airfield off the coast of the Falklands or one at Ascension Island.

A floating air base is 'slightly' more than just an airbase, and apart from the excellent Command and Control capabilities for land air and sea operations, you also have an airfield that has a very mobile detachment of lean, mean fighting machines.. Better known World wide as the excellent Royal Marines. You also have an asset that projects a nations power or influence and there is nothing more influencing than a well equipped carrier. You will also have an EXCELLENT ability to offer aid for the regular natural disasters that we hear about every year. The carrier can supply copious amounts of not just fresh water, electricity, but engineering skills, medical aid and of course policing. The list is endless and has always been part and parcel of a carrier's duty.

BUT.... MY BOTTOM LINE is I do not care if the aircraft are flown by the Navy or the RAF just as long as they are flown and they are not treating it as a six week holiday\detachment. We all get posted to a ship for two years, but whilst in harbour the Air Wing can detach to the nearest air base.

As Courtney correctly suggest we MUST get the right aircraft.

[Just This Once...]

Courtney, I think both of us are old and wise enough to get pulled into the inter-service stuff, especially from the carrier club. The capability arguments vs money are powerful enough and whilst I remain concerned about the how many years the LO capabilities of the F-35 will remain valid vs emerging technology, the RAF has a great deal of 'hope' for the F35.

Wandering around in a permissive air environment is all well and good for a SuperBug or similar, but an RAF with no ability to operate in an IADS will look pretty irrelevant in a few years time. We are fast running out of places on the planet to conduct a war before the opposing IADS becomes a significant problem. The days of dodging the odd SA5, 2 & 6 are behind us (even now these old systems still have to be honoured and addressed). The FAA is equally aware that pitching up with a boat-load of F-18s in 2025+ in the hope that either an IADS does not exist or having to wait for someone else to deal with it may not justify the level of investment.

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, the LO argument is a strong one, JTO. But it is one of the biggest cost drivers and may, as you say, have limited effectiveness. I'm certainly not saying that F-18 is a better option, I'm really musing about what happens if F-35 becomes unafordable.

[Red Line Entry]

Glojo,

Re your post 410, the GR4s flew from Marham because they were firing Storm Shadow. Storm Shadow was never integrated onto Harrier and thus this capability could never have been offered by retaining the carrier.

[Finningley Boy]

Ok, Courtney and especially glojo,

My apologies for reacting at post 412, I think a lot of what the current problems are arise from the continued habit of successive governments to place the forces on a war footing, which has demanded operational involvement of the armed forces to a considerable degree, which demands a much greater military expansion, in order to take these matters seriously. Instead what we have are continued cuts in assets not necessarily being used at the time i.e. Jaguar! to pay for operations which capital spending is meant to cover. This is an example of the never ending whittling away of everything, and while I fully accept glojo's point about carriers, it has led to other serving and former military people making calls for the end of the junior service. I'm thinking of all people of Tim Collins and elsewhere, Max Hastings (not ex-military but you wouldn't know it!) calling openly for the R.A.F. to go. This has come about despairingly, I think, because people think we simply can't afford the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan etal, so the logical next step is dismantle everything else, rather than accept that if we are to admit that we need to prosecute the campaign in Afghanistan, for example, then we need to commit to it. But the government will not, previous or current, because truth be known, they are still trying to cling to the post-cold war expectations of a peace dividend and minimal defence spending. By the way, both of you, I've long believed in buying a shed load of Super Hornets, Grioen NGs and or Rafales for both RAF and FAA, much better idea than a tiny handful of F35s

FB

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, pretty much with you all the way there, FB. The salami slicing and short-sighted equipment cuts have done untold damage to our capability - not to mention terms of service, morale, flying hours, etc.

[Finnpog]

Even though Storm Shadow was not assimilated to Harrier, it is a system for Rafale M - so the weapon system itself could go to sea just with in (hung from) a different delivery aircraft

[glojo]

Hi Red Line,
I understand what you are saying but as long as we have suitable ordinance then who cares where it is from my point is the huge distances. Show me an aircrew that would be fit to fly that sortie day in day out and I will show you an accident awaiting to happen. Plus what is the down time of the aircraft flying that specific mission... Fly one mission from a HUGE distance solely because of what it carries and then what happens the next day or for the following SEVEN days!!

Would aircraft have been able to operate over Libya without surface launched tomahawks clearing a path with a follow-up of F-18 Growlers?

I AM NOT in the corner that demands F-18's as my thoughts are still that an operational, serviceable F-35C is the way forward. It is a 21st century fifth generation aircraft that will become operational.

My fear is that the USA might wake up and realise they are bankrupt and then ask why they need the F-35B?? What does that aircraft bring to the table? The Americans have an abundance of conventional aircraft carriers. The US Marines can and indeed do embark their pilots on any of these assets and all aircraft operating from this vessels already carry out CAS support missions in support of both US Marines and their Army. Why have the 'B', it has already been suggested that this aircraft is never going to operate from a muddy filed or the B3195 Ipplepen to Totnes road. It will only ever operate from locations where it has the full technical support a complex aircraft demands. What will we do if the plug gets pulled?

I take onboard what this newspaper article is saying but during a meeting between the National Audit Office and the Ministry of Defence the following statement was made:

'The MoD does not know what the cost of converting a carrier with cat-and-trap is likely to be. The estimate is somewhere between £00m and £1.2bn. However the MoD will not have a complete understanding on these figures for some 18 months'

My thoughts on this are that whoever made this decision did so without any understanding whatsover of carrier capabilities and the advantages of the conventional compared to the huge short comings of the pretend version.

How ironic is it that the Russians this year will put their aircraft carrier into a major refit period to convert it a a cat-and-trap carrier!!! Show me any footage of Russian carrier operations where there aircraft take off with a decent payload! I have seen figures of what aircraft can carry when operating from the current carrier but the reality is probably whole lot different.

If we have the 'B' version will it need the whole deck to take off with a decent payload, if indeed it can actually take off in that condition! Will we see a further modification of that butt ugly ski-slope being fitted?

What a lash-up and what an indictment of those who are paid to make the big decisions. Give them copious amounts of money to organise a party at the local pub and we would all come away stone cold sober, miserable, confused and asking where all the money went.

[Not_a_boffin]

Gentlemen please, can we all just calm down.

AIUI, the situation is this.

1. The US is proceeding with both the F35B and F35C, although concerns are being raised about the flyaway prices of both and their availability "off-the-line". F35C is also currently having some developmental issues with its tailhook, for which design modifications are being developed, but their effectiveness will not be known until trialled. We don't know whether it works or not at this point in time.

2. The US is currently developing the EMALS (and EARS system for recovery). The demonstrator system is installed at Navy Lakehurst and has successfully shot a number of US aircraft, including the F35C. So far all appears to be well in terms of fitting the first production set (of 4) to USS Ford. The second production set (of 2) is coming to the UK. EMALS appears to work well at this point in time.

3. The £1Bn being bandied about for a UK EMALS is not to "redesign" the ship, it is a budgetary estimate produced quickly when the decision to go from B to C was made during SDSR. Specifically, the activities required are to integrate the EMALS system into the ships structure (an alignment / local strength issue) and into the ships electrical distribution grid (principally a power management, software control issue) and also supply the shipset(s), which will not be cheap. However, the actual costing work is (as far as I'm aware), not yet complete, so the £1Bn may be about right, too high or too low. Simply put, we don't know at this point in time.

4. Were F35B to fall victim to US cuts, there is no fallback. The UK (and Spain, Italy) would be permanently out of FW maritime air. In order to meet the UK requirement, the F35B also has to engage in some pretty unwholesome practices on recovery. If the F35C were to fall victim to cancellation, there are at least two fallback options. That makes going back to B a non-starter I'm afraid, when we know the risk appears to be primarily in the aircraft, rather than the ship.

5. The first ship with EMALS fit is unlikely to be available for ops until 2019-ish, so we have seven years before we have to rock up at the ship with an aircraft. In other words, it doesn't have to be sorted right this second! In the next year, no more than two, definitely. However, we do not have to make a decision (F35C or FA18/Rafale) at this point in time.

I don't think there's a man alive who thinks that the QEC/JCA saga is how one should go about procuring a carrier and its aircraft. However, one of the main sources of delay and cost escalation has been the endless speculation (often ill-informed) in MoD, industry, the Navy and the press. "It's too big (for which read expensive)/training burden/shipbuilding capacity/unsafe recoveries" have become a mantra over the years, constantly deflecting / deferring progress.

QEC build appears to be going very well (largely because folk have been left to get on with it) - there may be a lesson in that.......

[glojo]

Originally Posted by Very Much a Boffin

I don't think there's a man alive who thinks that the QEC/JCA saga is how one should go about procuring a carrier and its aircraft. However, one of the main sources of delay and cost escalation has been the endless speculation (often ill-informed) in MoD, industry, the Navy and the press. "It's too big (for which read expensive)/training burden/shipbuilding capacity/unsafe recoveries" have become a mantra over the years, constantly deflecting / deferring progress.

QEC build appears to be going very well (largely because folk have been left to get on with it) - there may be a lesson in that.......

As usual very wise words and have we signed contracts for the second production set of the EMALS system? I would be very surprised if we had not.

We have negotiated to exchange our last F-35B for an early F-35C, are we seriously suggesting we would go back and ask that this be cancelled and please may we have our 35B back?