No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
NaB - Not only are most of the C/Ds pretty well used, but you'll need a crowbar to prise the best frames from the grip of the Marines, who want every Classic they can get in order to keep squadrons flying while they wait for real numbers of JSF.
Because that's where the "off probation" thing was a joke: the biggest material bit of probation was the holding-down of production rates, and that hasn't changed.
Maybe the UK should buy some low-time, no-carrier-landing C/Ds from the Finns or Malaysians, who could then use the cash as down payment on some Supers...
Because that's where the "off probation" thing was a joke: the biggest material bit of probation was the holding-down of production rates, and that hasn't changed.
Maybe the UK should buy some low-time, no-carrier-landing C/Ds from the Finns or Malaysians, who could then use the cash as down payment on some Supers...
Last edited by LowObservable; 13th Mar 2012 at 22:33.
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
Sorry all , didn't read the whole thread in dept therefor this question might sound a bit silly or already answered before but some of all this makes no sense.
Even if the Carrier costs 1.2billion£ more to convert to CATOBAR, doesn't that
still make the whole package more attractive nontheless?
50 F35B vs 50 F35C's would still mean a price difference of about 2 billion $ in
favor of the C version, let alone the undoubtedly higher maintenance costs for the B and the more limited growth potential of the B (weightmargins already paperthin as quoted).
Besides the better commonanlity with both the USNAVY and MN for the C version, a CATOBAR can take Hawkeyes and Greyhounds while the Skijump just doen't allow for such aircraft, let alone all the other good reasons to take the C over the B (lower wingloading, more range, less complexity,... )
Maybe (undoubtedly) I'm not seeing the whole picture clearly but the whole
extra EMALS costs seem like a mooth point
Even if the Carrier costs 1.2billion£ more to convert to CATOBAR, doesn't that
still make the whole package more attractive nontheless?
50 F35B vs 50 F35C's would still mean a price difference of about 2 billion $ in
favor of the C version, let alone the undoubtedly higher maintenance costs for the B and the more limited growth potential of the B (weightmargins already paperthin as quoted).
Besides the better commonanlity with both the USNAVY and MN for the C version, a CATOBAR can take Hawkeyes and Greyhounds while the Skijump just doen't allow for such aircraft, let alone all the other good reasons to take the C over the B (lower wingloading, more range, less complexity,... )
Maybe (undoubtedly) I'm not seeing the whole picture clearly but the whole
extra EMALS costs seem like a mooth point
Supposedly the decision is due in a week....
Liam Fox jet fighter error costs UK millions - Home News - UK - The Independent
David Cameron will rubber stamp an embarrassing U-turn over the Government's £5.2bn super aircraft carrier programme this week to avoid "a floating white elephant"...
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been warned by officials that his predecessor, Liam Fox, made a massive mistake when he decided to change the jets that should be used on the new carriers.
Mr Fox switched from Lockheed Martin's F35 B class to its supposedly cheaper C variant, a move that was criticised because the planes were not going to be ready until a few years after the ships were launched. The new planes also required changes to the carrier design, costing up to £2bn – with the first ship too far developed to make the changes possible.
Mr Hammond will advise that the Government must switch back to the more conventional B-class jets, which are still expected to cost around $10bn, and has pencilled in an announcement for one week tomorrow.
More conventional? Does anyone have a
ing clue here?
Liam Fox jet fighter error costs UK millions - Home News - UK - The Independent
David Cameron will rubber stamp an embarrassing U-turn over the Government's £5.2bn super aircraft carrier programme this week to avoid "a floating white elephant"...
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been warned by officials that his predecessor, Liam Fox, made a massive mistake when he decided to change the jets that should be used on the new carriers.
Mr Fox switched from Lockheed Martin's F35 B class to its supposedly cheaper C variant, a move that was criticised because the planes were not going to be ready until a few years after the ships were launched. The new planes also required changes to the carrier design, costing up to £2bn – with the first ship too far developed to make the changes possible.
Mr Hammond will advise that the Government must switch back to the more conventional B-class jets, which are still expected to cost around $10bn, and has pencilled in an announcement for one week tomorrow.
More conventional? Does anyone have a
ing clue here?
Thread Starter
If I were to guess maybe it is a case of the c solution being cheaper long term, but perhaps the cat/trap conversion puts a nasty lump of cash in inconvenient years which is no longer acceptable. Plus maybe rr have being lobbying since the decision to secure all their lift fan work share.
Now we'll get marge hodge saying 'told you so' when in reality she doesnt have a clue about any of it.
Now we'll get marge hodge saying 'told you so' when in reality she doesnt have a clue about any of it.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been warned by officials
If this is true, I think the public ought to know just who these "officials" are and what the basis for the decision is. The cost values for conversion which appears to be the nub of the argument simply don't stack up.
There are no compelling technical reasons for going back to B (far from it!) and the risk balance short and long-term must surely be in favour of C. JFZ may well be correct that it's a profiling issue, in which case this simply compounds all the errors of the past, which are supposed to have been absorbed and learned from.
If this is true, I think the public ought to know just who these "officials" are and what the basis for the decision is. The cost values for conversion which appears to be the nub of the argument simply don't stack up.
There are no compelling technical reasons for going back to B (far from it!) and the risk balance short and long-term must surely be in favour of C. JFZ may well be correct that it's a profiling issue, in which case this simply compounds all the errors of the past, which are supposed to have been absorbed and learned from.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Cameron will rubber stamp an embarrassing U-turn over the Government's £5.2bn super aircraft carrier programme this week to avoid "a floating white elephant"...
Was David Cameron Wrong on Carrier Cancellation Costs?
So taking into account BAE's estimates, the overall costs of cancellation seem to indicate net savings may only exist only in the case of cancelling both carriers. Meanwhile only cancelling the second, HMS Prince of Wales, seems likely to produce savings, even if it is hard to estimate by exactly how much.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There may be a nasty, dirty underhand plan going on here that no one even thought a UK government would stoop to.
But you know, I think this lot are the type to pull it off.
But you know, I think this lot are the type to pull it off.
Last edited by glad rag; 18th Mar 2012 at 18:20.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Market Research
What a clever way to test the water (pun intended) for the reversion to the B model.
Pop it into The Independent and see what the reaction is over the next few days.
Were this to be the chosen path, I wonder how much money will need to be spent on Queen Elizabeth to bring her back to the standard that will allow her to operate STOVL? One might imagine that a shipbuilder, having been told that CV is the way but only for the second ship Prince of Wales, might just quietly take a few hundred (million) quids worth of savings against QE in the sure and certain knowledge (or maybe hope) that nobody would call their bluff and actually test the theory that she's being launched as a full-up STOVL round.
I'd be a little nervous if I were a UK shipbuilder at the moment; for lots of reasons.
FB11
Pop it into The Independent and see what the reaction is over the next few days.
Were this to be the chosen path, I wonder how much money will need to be spent on Queen Elizabeth to bring her back to the standard that will allow her to operate STOVL? One might imagine that a shipbuilder, having been told that CV is the way but only for the second ship Prince of Wales, might just quietly take a few hundred (million) quids worth of savings against QE in the sure and certain knowledge (or maybe hope) that nobody would call their bluff and actually test the theory that she's being launched as a full-up STOVL round.
I'd be a little nervous if I were a UK shipbuilder at the moment; for lots of reasons.
FB11
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it really is the case that we're going for the B, that is by far the most moronic decision ever undertaken by those f*&@ing plebs at the MoD. Not only are we now sacrificing everything for this wonder jet, but we're also sacrificing a working, carrier deployable AEWACS for a jet that can't take ASRAAM or Meteor...or storm shadow...or bring back any of its weapons...or has much development potential (weight limits)...and is unlikely to have a good serviceability record...and will be eye-watering to operate, even compared to the A and C.
Is it just me?
Is it just me?
B,
no, its not just you - i have a feeling that for many reasons, and not just defence related ones, this government, and this prime minister, will go down as one of the most incompetant in UK history.
there doesn't seem to be a turd they can't tread in - they are so useless that they can't implement even their worst ideas, and the catastrophes that will follow them are less likely to be the result of the plans (?) themselves, but the moronic inability to piss without getting their feet wet.
and yes, i did vote for them.
no, its not just you - i have a feeling that for many reasons, and not just defence related ones, this government, and this prime minister, will go down as one of the most incompetant in UK history.
there doesn't seem to be a turd they can't tread in - they are so useless that they can't implement even their worst ideas, and the catastrophes that will follow them are less likely to be the result of the plans (?) themselves, but the moronic inability to piss without getting their feet wet.
and yes, i did vote for them.
Thread Starter
Looks increasingly like this really will get messy.
Government plans U-turn on aircraft carriers as catapult costs spiral | Politics | The Guardian
Didn't everyone say SDSR was rushed? Ironic that the very thing the tories / bernard grey bang on about - poor mod forecasting and short term cash profile driven decision making - seems to be featuring here on their watch.
Government plans U-turn on aircraft carriers as catapult costs spiral | Politics | The Guardian
Didn't everyone say SDSR was rushed? Ironic that the very thing the tories / bernard grey bang on about - poor mod forecasting and short term cash profile driven decision making - seems to be featuring here on their watch.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is insane.
You couldn't make it up - and as the CentreForum paper details on page 52, the whole airwing and the conversion cost plus Astutes and Type 26s is less than the cost of Trident. Wake up call, people.
S41
You couldn't make it up - and as the CentreForum paper details on page 52, the whole airwing and the conversion cost plus Astutes and Type 26s is less than the cost of Trident. Wake up call, people.
S41
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an outsiders perspective going back to the B seems like the least-worst long term solution.
Yes, that the C is a better aircraft seems indisputable and, yes, a Cat-n-Trap capable carrier would provide the potential for AWACS, COD, IFR & interoperability with the USN and French.
However, when valuable platforms from all services have been cut-back (less T45s) or cut entirely (Nimrod, Harrier), does anyone really think it's likely we'll ever purchase a carrier AWACs platform? Certainly, the carriers will have a 30+ year lifespan and not having a cat-n-trap capability prevents us from getting AWACs, etc later, but in the last 20-years when have we ever added new capability in similar areas in any of the services?
If we stick with the C I'm guessing we'll have a part-time capability with only one carrier and barely enough money in the pot to keep the crews current. Which will be pretty embarrassing.
Whereas at least with the B we can use both the carriers and have a full-time capability. And we'd have interoperability with the USMC if not the USN (why would the USN care that much about interoperability with us given the number of carrier groups they've got?)
Also, I'd assume that if the USMC are taking the B then they'll put the time and effort in to making it a capable platform. Assuming that any of the F35 family become capable platforms that is.
Just an outsiders view.
Yes, that the C is a better aircraft seems indisputable and, yes, a Cat-n-Trap capable carrier would provide the potential for AWACS, COD, IFR & interoperability with the USN and French.
However, when valuable platforms from all services have been cut-back (less T45s) or cut entirely (Nimrod, Harrier), does anyone really think it's likely we'll ever purchase a carrier AWACs platform? Certainly, the carriers will have a 30+ year lifespan and not having a cat-n-trap capability prevents us from getting AWACs, etc later, but in the last 20-years when have we ever added new capability in similar areas in any of the services?
If we stick with the C I'm guessing we'll have a part-time capability with only one carrier and barely enough money in the pot to keep the crews current. Which will be pretty embarrassing.
Whereas at least with the B we can use both the carriers and have a full-time capability. And we'd have interoperability with the USMC if not the USN (why would the USN care that much about interoperability with us given the number of carrier groups they've got?)
Also, I'd assume that if the USMC are taking the B then they'll put the time and effort in to making it a capable platform. Assuming that any of the F35 family become capable platforms that is.
Just an outsiders view.
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
I happened to catch an episode of Faulty Towers the other day,
the saga posted above reminds me of that, Manuel and Basil
running back and forth not being able to make a decision.
.
the saga posted above reminds me of that, Manuel and Basil
running back and forth not being able to make a decision.
.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would the USN care that much about interoperability with us given the number of carrier groups they've got
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how 'could' this all turn out?
We convert the carrier as planned and MoD procures a limited number of F/A-18E/F (2 squadrons of 8-10 jets) to ensure the Carrier Strike requirement is met in the shorter term and doesn't rely on the F-35 timeline. This also makes good use of the US-based F/A-18 training currently going on between USN and RN. Easy solution.
RAF continues with an F-35 buy however it now decides on F-35A as a compromise between range, internal bay size (for Meteor) and performance. F-35A replaces Tornado GR4 which leaves service later this decade and the MFFO desire to have Typhoon and JCA is met as well.
But there's no money for any of the above to really happen surely
We convert the carrier as planned and MoD procures a limited number of F/A-18E/F (2 squadrons of 8-10 jets) to ensure the Carrier Strike requirement is met in the shorter term and doesn't rely on the F-35 timeline. This also makes good use of the US-based F/A-18 training currently going on between USN and RN. Easy solution.
RAF continues with an F-35 buy however it now decides on F-35A as a compromise between range, internal bay size (for Meteor) and performance. F-35A replaces Tornado GR4 which leaves service later this decade and the MFFO desire to have Typhoon and JCA is met as well.
But there's no money for any of the above to really happen surely
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a mess. I guess all those fine FAA chaps gaining experience on the F/A-18 will be coming home a little earlier than expected.
They are not only gaining experience on an actual 4 generation multi role Strike Fighter (not a Typhoon) as well as maritime operations, all of which will be massively useful to the UK, not to mention the benefit they are bringing to the USN.