No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a trivia question which I hope can be answered without diverting the discusion. Of course I know that the 'J' in JSF stands for 'Committee', always a bad letter in US program parlance, but where the heck does 'Dave' come from? I've tried googling but everyone points back to pprune and says it originated here.
It was first suggested by Just This Once (along with Colin) and it stuck in the absence of a real name at the time.
Didn't think I would get the blame although reading the 2006 thread shows that Zoom won first prize with Lightning, but overreached himself by showing that he could also count to 3.
I don't work in the programme anymore.
I don't work in the programme anymore.
If this happens, then the chances are that (after massive intake of breath at MoD, much sniggering elsewhere in Whitehall, and huge "I told you so" here on PPRuNe) the money will be found to convert PoW to CTOL and, if the RN are lucky, convert QE II at her first major refit.
Its already been shown that we cannot afford the conversion. If the B is canceled, the carriers will be sold off, cheap, and the fantasy requirement for them forgotten. If we can survive with helicopters for years, then the argument to spend billions we don't have, on a dubious capability will be lost.
The general publics reaction to losing the carriers will be .. meh.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As would be the response to the cancellation of any MoD procurement project. Because on top of not really understanding what the systems or capabilities actually do; most if not all only make the press when they are being lampooned for being late, over budget and mapped against a threat that either no longer exists or has itself upgraded in the three decades available.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just this Once, think my Boss (an RAF Sqn Ldr) when I worked in the Pegasus EA, may have beat you to it by about 5 minutes. ;-) Amazed that it stuck! It came from a comment about how everyone knows a Dave...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Defense News: British Navy May Face 4-Year Gap in Airborne Early Warning Capability
LONDON — The Royal Navy could be facing as much as a four-year gap in its airborne early warning capability after the current fleet of Sea King Mk7 helicopters is taken out of service in 2016, said sources familiar with the plan. It could be 2020 before the Merlin helicopters earmarked to take over the airborne surveillance and control role in a project known as Crowsnest are operational, the sources said.
The move leaves the Royal Navy with a yawning gap in its maritime surveillance capabilities during the second half of this decade following the axing of the Nimrod MRA4 patrol aircraft as part of the cost-cutting strategic defense review of 2010.
The radar-equipped Merlins will have a key role providing organic protection for the Royal Navy’s new F-35-equipped aircraft carrier force, scheduled to be operational around 2020.
Concerns over a capability gap developing between introduction of the airborne early warning radar-equipped Merlins and the demise of the Sea Kings were voiced in a parliamentary defense committee report Sept. 19, looking at the future of U.K. maritime surveillance. “There is the potential for other capability gaps to occur, such as when the Sea King airborne surveillance and control helicopter is withdrawn in 2016 to be replaced by the Project Crowsnest operating from the Merlin Mk2,” the report said.
A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman declined to comment on the in-service date.
In a statement released with the report, James Arbuthnot, the committee chairman, said the “risk is likely to worsen in the medium term as further maritime surveillance capabilities are withdrawn or not yet filled.”
For some time now, Sea King airborne surveillance and control helicopters have been successfully deployed in Afghanistan supporting NATO ground forces.
Crowsnest has been in limbo for months while the MoD sorted out wider funding shortfalls. The program could start to move ahead by the end of the year, with the MoD possibly announcing the start of what is expected to be a lengthy project assessment phase.
The MoD spokeswoman said Crowsnest is “approved as part of the core equipment program, with an assessment phase to start in due course.” She said a contractor for Crowsnest has not been selected.
LONDON — The Royal Navy could be facing as much as a four-year gap in its airborne early warning capability after the current fleet of Sea King Mk7 helicopters is taken out of service in 2016, said sources familiar with the plan. It could be 2020 before the Merlin helicopters earmarked to take over the airborne surveillance and control role in a project known as Crowsnest are operational, the sources said.
The move leaves the Royal Navy with a yawning gap in its maritime surveillance capabilities during the second half of this decade following the axing of the Nimrod MRA4 patrol aircraft as part of the cost-cutting strategic defense review of 2010.
The radar-equipped Merlins will have a key role providing organic protection for the Royal Navy’s new F-35-equipped aircraft carrier force, scheduled to be operational around 2020.
Concerns over a capability gap developing between introduction of the airborne early warning radar-equipped Merlins and the demise of the Sea Kings were voiced in a parliamentary defense committee report Sept. 19, looking at the future of U.K. maritime surveillance. “There is the potential for other capability gaps to occur, such as when the Sea King airborne surveillance and control helicopter is withdrawn in 2016 to be replaced by the Project Crowsnest operating from the Merlin Mk2,” the report said.
A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman declined to comment on the in-service date.
In a statement released with the report, James Arbuthnot, the committee chairman, said the “risk is likely to worsen in the medium term as further maritime surveillance capabilities are withdrawn or not yet filled.”
For some time now, Sea King airborne surveillance and control helicopters have been successfully deployed in Afghanistan supporting NATO ground forces.
Crowsnest has been in limbo for months while the MoD sorted out wider funding shortfalls. The program could start to move ahead by the end of the year, with the MoD possibly announcing the start of what is expected to be a lengthy project assessment phase.
The MoD spokeswoman said Crowsnest is “approved as part of the core equipment program, with an assessment phase to start in due course.” She said a contractor for Crowsnest has not been selected.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to say I am surprised regarding the AEW delay but I have been like an old fashioned record that has become stuck on one particular track... How many times do we read of a predicted capability being introduced into service by a particular date and more to the point, how often does this happen? As soon as the conventional carrier option was binned I stated we only have this helicopter for our AEW capability and the replacement was still at the development stage.
I am in the corner that is not holding its breath regarding any of the programs regarding our Fleet Air Arm and a fast fixed wing capability.
Will we get a replacement for the Sea King by 2016?
Will we get the F-35B?
Will both new carriers ever join the fleet and become operational ships that will operate fast jets?
One out of three is a possibility, but what odds on a full house?
Most days I receive updates predicting doom and gloom for the 'B' variant but I note that the aircraft is still being developed and faults being rectified. We are where we regarding this aircraft and surely we NEED this thing to be successful?
I am in the corner that is not holding its breath regarding any of the programs regarding our Fleet Air Arm and a fast fixed wing capability.
Will we get a replacement for the Sea King by 2016?
Will we get the F-35B?
Will both new carriers ever join the fleet and become operational ships that will operate fast jets?
One out of three is a possibility, but what odds on a full house?
Most days I receive updates predicting doom and gloom for the 'B' variant but I note that the aircraft is still being developed and faults being rectified. We are where we regarding this aircraft and surely we NEED this thing to be successful?
Last edited by glojo; 24th Sep 2012 at 10:39.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a very minimum we should get five or six Hornets flying this year to train aircrew and ground crew. Simulated landings, wave-offs and arrestor wire misses could be simulated on a suitably marked runway. Take-off disorientation would need some easy way of applying the required acceleration. There are several possible methods and I would suggest JATO (RATO) as the simplest.
Then we would have a nucleus of trained personnel with serviceable aircraft that can fly missions either from land or from friendly carriers.
Yes, of course this is CTOL. Nobody seriously expects Dave-B to appear in any usable quantities, do they?
Then we would have a nucleus of trained personnel with serviceable aircraft that can fly missions either from land or from friendly carriers.
Yes, of course this is CTOL. Nobody seriously expects Dave-B to appear in any usable quantities, do they?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A nice image that depict the use of a former RAF HC2
More Here
Teams Vie To Provide C2 Helos for UK Carrier – DefenseNews.com - Breaking Defense News
Interesting Point
he two potential bidders for the project, known as Crow’s Nest, are proposing radically different solutions.
The Thales/AgustaWestland team is offering to use the existing Searchwater 2000 radar and Cerberus mission control system from the Sea King in what it calls a “low-cost, low-risk” solution to provide the airborne surveillance and control capability for the new Queen Elizabeth carriers when the first of two warships enter service in 2016.
The Sea Kings were recently upgraded with improved radar and other capabilities and the system is now being used overland as part of the surveillance operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The Thales-supplied Searchwater would be palletized, allowing rapid role-on roll-off to increase the role flexibility of the machine. The radar is deployed through the rear ramp of the Merlin.
Lockheed declined to discuss the details of its potential proposal.
The Thales/AgustaWestland team is offering to use the existing Searchwater 2000 radar and Cerberus mission control system from the Sea King in what it calls a “low-cost, low-risk” solution to provide the airborne surveillance and control capability for the new Queen Elizabeth carriers when the first of two warships enter service in 2016.
The Sea Kings were recently upgraded with improved radar and other capabilities and the system is now being used overland as part of the surveillance operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The Thales-supplied Searchwater would be palletized, allowing rapid role-on roll-off to increase the role flexibility of the machine. The radar is deployed through the rear ramp of the Merlin.
Lockheed declined to discuss the details of its potential proposal.
Do the MoD
- Take and Existing Airframe which is being handed over to the RN, Decommish a Bagger and hand to AW for Palatisation with a Merlin That would no doubt require some mods and, for a Trifling cost, the RN gets a Platform that is flexible in role and already has a support system in place.
or
- Do they buy into the LM Proposal.
As an ex MoD employee who managed to successfully avoid the required Suppression of free thinking course which is prerequisite before going into management I would hope the AW Solution would win.
...However we are talking about the MoD
Or Maybe
Could this be a way of bringing the Merlin HC transfer (or apparent lack of it) into the public eye without an inter-service bitching sesh?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crowsnest is being strecthed out because they can do it - no -one is really sure whenthe carriers will arrive and when they do when they'll start operating aircraft so why spend cash now? Once you kick the programme off it will just build and build and build
Remember that in 1982 the Sea King version was designed, built and in service in a few months - there really is no need to spend more than a year on it - unless of course you have to keep a lot of people busy setting up "Project gates", Evaluation Sub-committees, trainign schemes and the usual bs
Remember that in 1982 the Sea King version was designed, built and in service in a few months - there really is no need to spend more than a year on it - unless of course you have to keep a lot of people busy setting up "Project gates", Evaluation Sub-committees, trainign schemes and the usual bs
More likely Merlin HM1 frames that are not part of the current CSP. From memory there are something like 40/41 of the original 44 frame buy still on the MAR.
Won't allow "Role-on, roll-off"(???) whatever that is, but I doubt that is as "simple" as being portrayed.
Won't allow "Role-on, roll-off"(???) whatever that is, but I doubt that is as "simple" as being portrayed.
althenick: - do they buy into the LM Proposal.
Having worked with APG81 on the F-35 programme I can assure you that it is incredible bit of kit and given the money other users are throwing at this podded option it is not without wider support.
Should the F-35 grace a UK boat it may be helpful to share a common radar...
Looks neat on the side of an RN Merlin too.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
About the F-22, but relevant for the F-35 and perhaps reflecting the discussions taking place considering sequestration and how to save money.
Time: Adventures in Babbleland: Technological Bloat
AW&ST Editorial: Pentagon Should Investigate Fighter Options Beyond The F-35
Time: Adventures in Babbleland: Technological Bloat
AW&ST Editorial: Pentagon Should Investigate Fighter Options Beyond The F-35
Last edited by ORAC; 3rd Oct 2012 at 08:17.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac,
The AW&ST Editorial article follows a theme I have seen over the past two years from analysts re the F22.
Personally I think that it is good to see that people are actually questioning the validity of aircraft such as the F35, the F22 and the Typhoon.
Whilst admirable in concept, to design, produce and operate the best aircraft it becomes untenable due to a number of reasosn. These reasons being namely: -
Hval
The AW&ST Editorial article follows a theme I have seen over the past two years from analysts re the F22.
Personally I think that it is good to see that people are actually questioning the validity of aircraft such as the F35, the F22 and the Typhoon.
Whilst admirable in concept, to design, produce and operate the best aircraft it becomes untenable due to a number of reasosn. These reasons being namely: -
- when one can not afford to have sufficient aircraft to defend ones self
- When operational costs are prohibitive causing loss in training and effectiveness of pilots
- Over complexity of systems causing huge maintenance costs
- Over complexity of systems causing high rates of down times, and incidents caused that are extremely dificult to analyse
- Leading edge designs that take so long to develop that they are out of date and no longer meet requirements due to changes in doctrine, plus developments by potential agressors
- Over complex designs that just do not work
- Unrealistic expectations raised and requested in tender process
Hval
Last edited by hval; 3rd Oct 2012 at 21:51. Reason: Misplaced full stop
One might counter-argue that it is actually "evolutionary" upgrades and successive designs since the late 60s/early 70s that has contributed to some degree to the length of time and cost to develop the F22/Typhoon/F35 etc.
The 50s to mid-60s could probably be termed revolutionary when you look at the number and range of different airframe / wing / engine technologies that were designed and built over a relatively short period. F106 through F111 to F15 was what, 20 years tops? Last time I looked it's 20+ years since the Strike Eagle entered service.
What changed? McNamara - definitely. Oil crash in 73? Fall of the Wall and disappearance of a near-term threat?
Probably all of the above. But the intriguing thing is "cost"which is what drives the "unaffordable" perception. Every single western aircraft since the F18 has had a contract requirement to try and drive out maintenance manhours. The use of sims has resulted in a dramatic reduction in flying hours, so you'd think that somewhere these savings would accrue. It ain't the military industrial complex keeping it either, because there's a whole lot less of it in employment terms - something else not often recognised.
Cherchez la bunce!
The 50s to mid-60s could probably be termed revolutionary when you look at the number and range of different airframe / wing / engine technologies that were designed and built over a relatively short period. F106 through F111 to F15 was what, 20 years tops? Last time I looked it's 20+ years since the Strike Eagle entered service.
What changed? McNamara - definitely. Oil crash in 73? Fall of the Wall and disappearance of a near-term threat?
Probably all of the above. But the intriguing thing is "cost"which is what drives the "unaffordable" perception. Every single western aircraft since the F18 has had a contract requirement to try and drive out maintenance manhours. The use of sims has resulted in a dramatic reduction in flying hours, so you'd think that somewhere these savings would accrue. It ain't the military industrial complex keeping it either, because there's a whole lot less of it in employment terms - something else not often recognised.
Cherchez la bunce!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not_a_Boffin,
Valid points. What has changed is: -
1/ Cost per unit. In the old days each unit was cheap in comparison to unit costs now.
2/ Less dosh floating around these days. Makes high unit costs more unaffordable
3/ Those revolutionary days of the 40's, 50's & 60's were during times of conflict and cold wars
4/ Those revolutionary days were when big changes could be made relatively cheaply. Now a days a 1% improvement in ability costs millions, if not billions. A bit like six sigma. Trying to get that last 0.00044% of improvement when all the easy issues have been resolved
Until the next totally revolutionary item comes along (like the jet engine, or wings, or computers) development is going to be costly.
Being able to afford one two missile carrying aircraft, a pilot who is allowed to fly five hours a decade is no use when it is so technologically advanced it only works five percent of the time, and the pilot can't fly it due to a lack of training and the pilot is outnumbered 1,000 to 1.
Bit like having carriers we can't properly fit out and an inability to afford the correct aviation fit plus a lack of finances to even run the whole thing.
Valid points. What has changed is: -
1/ Cost per unit. In the old days each unit was cheap in comparison to unit costs now.
2/ Less dosh floating around these days. Makes high unit costs more unaffordable
3/ Those revolutionary days of the 40's, 50's & 60's were during times of conflict and cold wars
4/ Those revolutionary days were when big changes could be made relatively cheaply. Now a days a 1% improvement in ability costs millions, if not billions. A bit like six sigma. Trying to get that last 0.00044% of improvement when all the easy issues have been resolved
Until the next totally revolutionary item comes along (like the jet engine, or wings, or computers) development is going to be costly.
Being able to afford one two missile carrying aircraft, a pilot who is allowed to fly five hours a decade is no use when it is so technologically advanced it only works five percent of the time, and the pilot can't fly it due to a lack of training and the pilot is outnumbered 1,000 to 1.
Bit like having carriers we can't properly fit out and an inability to afford the correct aviation fit plus a lack of finances to even run the whole thing.
Last edited by hval; 3rd Oct 2012 at 21:51. Reason: Missing S