No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JCA is a maritime strike requirement, for which the money for a GR4 replacement was sacrificed. My point being that this unpalatable fact somehow got lost in the chaff of SDSR and reference to a GR4 replacement has been made ever since.
I honestly believe that there is still a general supposition that GR4 is to be replaced - even if not by DPOC which (I stand to be corrected - my sources are those openly available from parliament) is now no more.
It is also my belief that the dawning realisation of where this will leave the RAF (which you are totally correct about) is a mainstay in the 'revert to STOVL' thinking. i.e. we get DPOC back. Do you think we really will though?
So your point is entirely accurate - if JCA falls over there is a chance that it's Typhoon alone. Horrendous.
I think we do disagree on one thing. We are a small island nation - so the fact that others make do with dedicated land based air might have no direct read across to us. An extension of this argument might be that we should not worry about our current lack of MPA (in my opinion the single biggest error of our time) as Switzerland seems to have managed without one for years.
I honestly believe that there is still a general supposition that GR4 is to be replaced - even if not by DPOC which (I stand to be corrected - my sources are those openly available from parliament) is now no more.
It is also my belief that the dawning realisation of where this will leave the RAF (which you are totally correct about) is a mainstay in the 'revert to STOVL' thinking. i.e. we get DPOC back. Do you think we really will though?
So your point is entirely accurate - if JCA falls over there is a chance that it's Typhoon alone. Horrendous.
I think we do disagree on one thing. We are a small island nation - so the fact that others make do with dedicated land based air might have no direct read across to us. An extension of this argument might be that we should not worry about our current lack of MPA (in my opinion the single biggest error of our time) as Switzerland seems to have managed without one for years.
And one thing well worth remembering. JCA is not JUST strike. The original FCBA requirement (which JCA emerged from as a joint effort with FOAS) included and still includes a requirement to provide a DCA capability for maritime AD, that's the Fleet (ie amphibs, strategic lift etc).
All the leaking of performance/OA data is doing nothing. Everyone accepts C is a more capable option than B. Orca's point 3 has it all - question the £2Bn conversion cost. It has to be "made up".
All the leaking of performance/OA data is doing nothing. Everyone accepts C is a more capable option than B. Orca's point 3 has it all - question the £2Bn conversion cost. It has to be "made up".
New warplanes 'less capable', secret paper shows - Telegraph
This article states the obvious somewhat, but what puzzles, is just why did the last Labour Government go for B in the first place? Also, the claim here is that a total of either 136 or 97 airframes are to be ordered, depending onwhether it is B or C?
FB
This article states the obvious somewhat, but what puzzles, is just why did the last Labour Government go for B in the first place? Also, the claim here is that a total of either 136 or 97 airframes are to be ordered, depending onwhether it is B or C?
FB
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignore the pros and cons of each variant for the moment, all very well covered again and again in this thread. As soon as one type appears to be gaining the ascendency, confidential sources start to spin for the other type. So what is going on?
1. There is complete confusion in the government about which is really the best military or economic version. They do not trust the information they are being given by their advisers (military or financial), as their advice seemingly conflicts.
2. This indecision means that when one type looks to be nosing ahead, it's detractors immediately start to spin against it, as they can see the opportunity to reverse the decision yet again.
3. Inter-service rivalry may well be part of the above mix - many on here are better judges than I as to how much this is the case.
4. It seems the choice is close run thing. If it was a no-brainer, then a choice should already have been made.
And the way out?
The root problem is that the government is being weak. It needs to determine what is it's absolute priority: military or financial. If it is financial then it makes it's choice on that basis - go the lower cost route. If it is military then go the route that gives the best military capability. At the moment the government is trying to mix and match both and that is causing the indecision. In normal times this is the normal situation. But these are very very abnormal times for the country's finances and it may be the unpalatable truth that money must hold complete sway over some military decisions, for the next few years at least.
It then has the problem of getting factual, unbiased advice as to the true military capabilities and the true financial comparisons. It seems that it cannot get either from within it's own military or financial experts so it should call on independent external sources if necessary (howls of protest expected, but if your own specialists won't stop fighting each other how else do you get impartial advice? If external advice is abhorrent, then make it redundant by stopping squabbling like children).
Above all the government must decide on it's objectives and then make the selection accordingly. And then you just have to get on with it, protests, objections, criticisms and everything else just comes with the territory. The government is being pushed and pulled around by every vested interest going at present and this weakness is causing harm on all fronts. The executive has the job of making the hard call. Make it and then go flat out to make it happen.
DC, you need to grow a couple.
1. There is complete confusion in the government about which is really the best military or economic version. They do not trust the information they are being given by their advisers (military or financial), as their advice seemingly conflicts.
2. This indecision means that when one type looks to be nosing ahead, it's detractors immediately start to spin against it, as they can see the opportunity to reverse the decision yet again.
3. Inter-service rivalry may well be part of the above mix - many on here are better judges than I as to how much this is the case.
4. It seems the choice is close run thing. If it was a no-brainer, then a choice should already have been made.
And the way out?
The root problem is that the government is being weak. It needs to determine what is it's absolute priority: military or financial. If it is financial then it makes it's choice on that basis - go the lower cost route. If it is military then go the route that gives the best military capability. At the moment the government is trying to mix and match both and that is causing the indecision. In normal times this is the normal situation. But these are very very abnormal times for the country's finances and it may be the unpalatable truth that money must hold complete sway over some military decisions, for the next few years at least.
It then has the problem of getting factual, unbiased advice as to the true military capabilities and the true financial comparisons. It seems that it cannot get either from within it's own military or financial experts so it should call on independent external sources if necessary (howls of protest expected, but if your own specialists won't stop fighting each other how else do you get impartial advice? If external advice is abhorrent, then make it redundant by stopping squabbling like children).
Above all the government must decide on it's objectives and then make the selection accordingly. And then you just have to get on with it, protests, objections, criticisms and everything else just comes with the territory. The government is being pushed and pulled around by every vested interest going at present and this weakness is causing harm on all fronts. The executive has the job of making the hard call. Make it and then go flat out to make it happen.
DC, you need to grow a couple.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole story and the Telegraph article featured quite prominently on the midday BBC 1 news today. The 'narrative' of the story is that the government is clueless and doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow.
I agree with LF's assessment above ^^^
It will be interesting to see this spun positively by the Whitehall PR bunnies.
I agree with LF's assessment above ^^^
It will be interesting to see this spun positively by the Whitehall PR bunnies.
Last edited by Finnpog; 21st Apr 2012 at 11:29.
Thread Starter
This latest leak of OA info is worrying - but not because there is anything new or particularly worrying contained - but because the way it is being spun and presented is quite dangerous.
At the end of the day both B and C are pretty capable, but there is a risk that the "we can't afford cats/C" and "B is no good" soundbites may end up giving the current loonies the excuse they need to buy neither!
Those knocking the B now are playing with fire - and may leave the UK with nothing and selling the carriers.
At the end of the day both B and C are pretty capable, but there is a risk that the "we can't afford cats/C" and "B is no good" soundbites may end up giving the current loonies the excuse they need to buy neither!
Those knocking the B now are playing with fire - and may leave the UK with nothing and selling the carriers.
Those who assume the carriers can be sold need to have a think as to who will buy them.
If no cats / traps, then likely customer base is zero. Sp & It have just bought new (small) STOVL ships.
India? Needs STOBAR and has two ships arriving before QE & PoW.
Fr? Needs cat n trap.
China? (see India, but ships slightly further away)
Argentina? Oh, hang on.....
If no cats / traps, then likely customer base is zero. Sp & It have just bought new (small) STOVL ships.
India? Needs STOBAR and has two ships arriving before QE & PoW.
Fr? Needs cat n trap.
China? (see India, but ships slightly further away)
Argentina? Oh, hang on.....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
65 000 tons of steel is worth quite lot. You don't have to sell them to someone who will use them as carriers! (I don't advocate this COA)
Orca - I don't understand your GR4 point. JSF is, at least in part, going to replace GR4 so yes, it is a maritime strike capability, but it is also going to be a land based capability hence the main reason why the entire thing is joint RAF/RN. As a hard up UK plc we will need to be flexible with where we operate from, we don't have the luxury that the USA has of a dedicated carrier force and a dedicated land based force. If the next 20 years are like the last 20 then JSF could spend the vast majority of its time flying from land on operations not fom a carrier. If we spend the next 20 years trying to recapture the Falklands then the basing will be a carrier.
Last, I do find it amusing that some spun the change to F35C as an RAF plot to somehow do over the RN and now the change to F35B is being spun (by a few) as another RAF plot! More tinfoil hats needed, me thinks.
Orca - I don't understand your GR4 point. JSF is, at least in part, going to replace GR4 so yes, it is a maritime strike capability, but it is also going to be a land based capability hence the main reason why the entire thing is joint RAF/RN. As a hard up UK plc we will need to be flexible with where we operate from, we don't have the luxury that the USA has of a dedicated carrier force and a dedicated land based force. If the next 20 years are like the last 20 then JSF could spend the vast majority of its time flying from land on operations not fom a carrier. If we spend the next 20 years trying to recapture the Falklands then the basing will be a carrier.
Last, I do find it amusing that some spun the change to F35C as an RAF plot to somehow do over the RN and now the change to F35B is being spun (by a few) as another RAF plot! More tinfoil hats needed, me thinks.
There is another level to the problem, which is the executability of the JSF program as a whole, given the following facts:
The SDD program is farther from completion than it was (according to official plans) three years ago.
The estimated program cost (R&D + acquisition) has increased by $36+ million dollars per day in then-year dollars since the contract was awarded. (Source: 2011 SAR.)
The program of record calls for US-only JSF procurement funding to reach $13 billion-plus (in 2012 dollars) at full rate, which is much more than all TacAir funding today, at a time when the USAF is expecting to be developing a new bomber and acquiring tankers.
This peak level will be sustained throughout the 2020s. If the operating cost estimates in the SAR are correct, there will be a parallel surge in TacAir O&S as the growing JSF force coexists with older aircraft with aging issue.
(Note: it can be posited that in 2030 we approach the sunlit uplands of a force dominated by mature, but still relatively new F-35s. The question is whether the fiscal pig represented in the above two paragraphs can fit through the budgetary python.)
The US government, Congress and Administration, are committed to further budget cuts, whether as a result of sequestration or as part of a deal to avoid sequestration. If neither happens, the risk to US credit is extreme. Defense cannot be exempt from Federal spending cuts and F-35 cannot be ring-fenced within defense, because it is too large relative to other programs.
Any UK decision must take into account the risk that these factors pose to the JSF program, in terms of cost, schedule and the pursuit of all three variants.
The SDD program is farther from completion than it was (according to official plans) three years ago.
The estimated program cost (R&D + acquisition) has increased by $36+ million dollars per day in then-year dollars since the contract was awarded. (Source: 2011 SAR.)
The program of record calls for US-only JSF procurement funding to reach $13 billion-plus (in 2012 dollars) at full rate, which is much more than all TacAir funding today, at a time when the USAF is expecting to be developing a new bomber and acquiring tankers.
This peak level will be sustained throughout the 2020s. If the operating cost estimates in the SAR are correct, there will be a parallel surge in TacAir O&S as the growing JSF force coexists with older aircraft with aging issue.
(Note: it can be posited that in 2030 we approach the sunlit uplands of a force dominated by mature, but still relatively new F-35s. The question is whether the fiscal pig represented in the above two paragraphs can fit through the budgetary python.)
The US government, Congress and Administration, are committed to further budget cuts, whether as a result of sequestration or as part of a deal to avoid sequestration. If neither happens, the risk to US credit is extreme. Defense cannot be exempt from Federal spending cuts and F-35 cannot be ring-fenced within defense, because it is too large relative to other programs.
Any UK decision must take into account the risk that these factors pose to the JSF program, in terms of cost, schedule and the pursuit of all three variants.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
potential customers
Maybe the Australian navy can start dreaming again like they did 4 years ago,
Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list | News.com.au
This made me think back of an editorial I read also 5-ish years ago on how a Carrier could work for Australia.
It basically envisioned a medium sized carrier with a couple of Harrier type squadrons to be based mainly on the West,North and South coast of Australia
functionning as a feeder/support/command base for several small landbases all around Australia and its islands.
There would be no need for anything other than fighters and some support helo's and the cost would be not much more than 1 big landbase but could cover a lot more area without using too much personnnel.
This 65000T carrier was probably bigger than what they had in mind but it could work ok ,I guess.
Anyway, sounded much like a pipedream ,back then,and it probably still is but seeing how things evolve in that area in the world combined with the commitment they already made towards the JSF and the fact that they are doing quite well economy-wise always could revive 'the dream'.
Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list | News.com.au
THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier
Read more:
Read more:
It basically envisioned a medium sized carrier with a couple of Harrier type squadrons to be based mainly on the West,North and South coast of Australia
functionning as a feeder/support/command base for several small landbases all around Australia and its islands.
There would be no need for anything other than fighters and some support helo's and the cost would be not much more than 1 big landbase but could cover a lot more area without using too much personnnel.
This 65000T carrier was probably bigger than what they had in mind but it could work ok ,I guess.
Anyway, sounded much like a pipedream ,back then,and it probably still is but seeing how things evolve in that area in the world combined with the commitment they already made towards the JSF and the fact that they are doing quite well economy-wise always could revive 'the dream'.
65 000 tons of steel is worth quite lot. You don't have to sell them to someone who will use them as carriers! (I don't advocate this COA)
There's about 28000 te of DH32 grade steel in each one. Plus a fair bit of copper, cabling etc.
Scrap price for steel atm is about £200/te. Call it £6M per ship, plus the copper & cable. If we got £12m per ship I'd be surprised.
There's about 28000 te of DH32 grade steel in each one. Plus a fair bit of copper, cabling etc.
Scrap price for steel atm is about £200/te. Call it £6M per ship, plus the copper & cable. If we got £12m per ship I'd be surprised.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet."
What submarine fleet ? The one where the majority are in dock being fixed
or we don't have enough crews ?
How about we get what we have, crewed and in the water first !!!
What submarine fleet ? The one where the majority are in dock being fixed
or we don't have enough crews ?
How about we get what we have, crewed and in the water first !!!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who assume the carriers can be sold need to have a think as to who will buy them....
Speculative purchasers for a not-to-be-missed bargain might include Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and Brazil. I'd bet that a Korean shipyard would do the needful on converting to cat and trap, or any other conversion for role, at a price that would still make the whole deal an absolute steal for the buyer.
And, of course, the UK wouldn't be selling them for the the cash it gets back, it would be because of the cash it no longer has to splash out to operate and maintain a full carrier capability. Not what I want to see, but a very real possibility in my opinion, whether sold on or not.
Edit: Forgot the need for Europe to beef up it's capabilities now Uncle Sam is back off to the Pacific, so they could become a European capability. Still cheaper to get any mods done in Korea but that would not be our call once our European allies are calling the shots and get themselves organised. Somewhere around 2050, perhaps.
Last edited by Lowe Flieger; 21st Apr 2012 at 15:12.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backwards PLT.
My point was simply that as it stands there is no longer a GR4 replacement and when that (very loyal, long serving) war horse is put out to grass then nothing is going to back fill it. This is because the money was spent in the 'let's go to the C' decision in SDSR.
So there is no GR4 replacement.
But JCA (not repeat not JSF) can help fill the GR4 replacement criteria if we buy the C. It cannot if we buy the B.
So if you want to 'have DPOC' or 'replace GR4' (same difference) you have to do one of two things. Either accept that there are no extra frames but the new ones will cover up some of what you can no longer have - buy the C. Or you can argue for a reversion to the B to meet the JCA requirement and ask for your money back - buy DPOC.
My point was simply that as it stands there is no longer a GR4 replacement and when that (very loyal, long serving) war horse is put out to grass then nothing is going to back fill it. This is because the money was spent in the 'let's go to the C' decision in SDSR.
So there is no GR4 replacement.
But JCA (not repeat not JSF) can help fill the GR4 replacement criteria if we buy the C. It cannot if we buy the B.
So if you want to 'have DPOC' or 'replace GR4' (same difference) you have to do one of two things. Either accept that there are no extra frames but the new ones will cover up some of what you can no longer have - buy the C. Or you can argue for a reversion to the B to meet the JCA requirement and ask for your money back - buy DPOC.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not_a_boffin,
Steel is currently significantly less than £200 a tonne. Try £155 to £175. The added cost of cutting up and separating what has already been used, plus transportation has to be taken in to account.
What people sometimes forget is that the raw materials are actually a very small part of the costs for a project. It's the cutting, shaping and fabricating that cost, plus man hours, design and BAEs rip off prices. The political decisions by both labour and the Conservatives have added significantly to the overall costs. Building in different yards hasn't helped.
I believe that the costs for emals is at the upper end of the scale. Mind you the costs are probably realistic as something will go wrong, the politicians will change their mind etc.
Steel is currently significantly less than £200 a tonne. Try £155 to £175. The added cost of cutting up and separating what has already been used, plus transportation has to be taken in to account.
What people sometimes forget is that the raw materials are actually a very small part of the costs for a project. It's the cutting, shaping and fabricating that cost, plus man hours, design and BAEs rip off prices. The political decisions by both labour and the Conservatives have added significantly to the overall costs. Building in different yards hasn't helped.
I believe that the costs for emals is at the upper end of the scale. Mind you the costs are probably realistic as something will go wrong, the politicians will change their mind etc.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about why the Aussies need to buy a carrier when they could fly F-35B off the new Canberra class LHD which handily come with a ski jump.
Likewise the Japanese could fly F-35B from the Hyuga class 'Through deck destroyers'.
Both are already in the programme and could add the B to their slated purchase of A's to go down the mixed fleet route like the Italians.
It also fits with the re-focus of US eyes on the Pacific and adds backup to the USMC B purchase.
Just thoughts....
Likewise the Japanese could fly F-35B from the Hyuga class 'Through deck destroyers'.
Both are already in the programme and could add the B to their slated purchase of A's to go down the mixed fleet route like the Italians.
It also fits with the re-focus of US eyes on the Pacific and adds backup to the USMC B purchase.
Just thoughts....
based on every other Mess and ship sold to the Prison Service, they'll need upgraded facilities (TVs etc) before they are fit for rapists, terrorists and similar scum. Better budget for that.
Hval - so you're suggesting that we might get less than £12M per ship? Do you know, I believe you.
You think that EMALS is at the upper end of the scale? Excellent. The hardware costs are known, to a credible degree. The manpower figures to make up the remaining gap to £1.8Bn are simply not credible. Something between 10 and 20 million manhours depending on whether you think BAES charge £50/hr or £100/hr (both higher than reality) is simply not credible.
10 million manhours is 5000 people full bore for a year. A more credible estimate would be one tenth that amount.........
You think that EMALS is at the upper end of the scale? Excellent. The hardware costs are known, to a credible degree. The manpower figures to make up the remaining gap to £1.8Bn are simply not credible. Something between 10 and 20 million manhours depending on whether you think BAES charge £50/hr or £100/hr (both higher than reality) is simply not credible.
10 million manhours is 5000 people full bore for a year. A more credible estimate would be one tenth that amount.........