RonO,

No doubt the UK system buys things better than the USA....no cockups over there at all. Not that I am suggesting ours is anything but a disaster itself.

Obviously never been a Navigator of one of HM Ships, then?

Actually, he didn't, that is part of the problem. When they tried to pin him down, he dodged the question....

The Hill:

A Senate panel’s decision to cut significant funds from the Pentagon’s most expensive program to date, the Joint Strike Fighter, could create a maelstrom in the Pentagon and potentially during conference deliberations with the House over the 2007 defense authorization act.

The Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), slashed $1.2 billion from the Pentagon’s request for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a multiservice, multinational program....... McCain’s panel recommended cutting $870 million from the procurement funds for five of the Air Force’s JSF aircraft in fiscal 2007. The panel also recommended cutting $245 million, which makes up the entire so-called advance procurement funding for eight of the Marine Corps’s short-takeoff and vertical-landing version of the aircraft, slated for 2008, as well $85 million of the Air Force’s advance procurement request of $145 million for eight aircraft in 2008.......

Advance procurement ensures that some necessary components, parts and material are made available before the Pentagon makes the request to buy a certain number of aircraft in a specific budget year.

If the Airland decision passes muster with the entire Armed Service’s Committee, chaired by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), and on the Senate floor, it will complicate matters when the defense authorization bill goes to conference with the House Armed Services Committee. The full Senate panel is expected to consider the bill today.

The House panel, which has marked up its version of the 2007 defense authorization bill, has been more generous with the Joint Strike Fighter. The House panel cut $241 million from the advance procurement of 16 aircraft in 2008 because of concerns over the fact that the research and development for the fighter jet was too concurrent with the actual buying plan for the aircraft.....

While the House funded the advance procurement of five aircraft in 2008, the Senate funded no aircraft.

CVF will have two deck edge lifts on the starboard side near the two islands where they are clear of flight deck ops. An angled flight deck can be supported by sponsons without major hull changes as was the case in the last Ark Royal which was orginally built as an axial deck carrier.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfi...-desi-2005.JPG

Courtesy of RichardB's excellent site on the subject

Re LO and export JSFs:
The UK will get US-standard aircraft because they're designed to the same Joint Op Req Document (JORD). This defines signatures as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP).
All other export aircraft are designed to individual ORDs negotiated bilaterally and forming an appendix to the big PSFD MoU. Clearly, these may contain KPPs that are not the same as those in the US-UK JORD. Indeed, there's not a lot of point having them if they don't. Notably, these bilateral ORDs are described as being compatible with "national disclosure policy." Which means that it's more than the Norwegians wanting a brake parachute.
So while the good Col. Richard Harris (does he occasionally break into "MacArthur Park" in classified meetings? We do not know. But I think we should be told.) tells the Norwegians that there will be no differences in signatures, that issue is still technically subject to negotiations.

Not only does CVF have deck-edge lifts, the Delta (current) design has provision for an integral angled deck at start of life (not retrofitted like our old carriers). The ship also has space and weight reserved for Mk 13-3 catapults and Mk 7 Mod 4 arrester gear - the current USN standards. However, there is some debate as to whether to contract a certain UK company to revisit their 1960s design for cats and arresters.

More importantly, the deck has been designed with both STOVL and CV-type operations in mind (ie launch and recovery parking positions for the two different modes of operation).

GTP I first became aware of JSF (think it was called JAST at first) back in 1995 from Flight International in a local libary. Even back then the STOVL version was linked to the RN as well as the USMC.

I think manpower considerations do need to be taken into account in selecting equipment.

In the June 2005 edition of Air Forces Monthly had an article on UK Future Maritime Airpower by James S Bosbotinos. He claims that Lockheed Martin are/were studying a possible two seat version of the F35B for electronic attack.

ORAC, I googled this line from the committee report - seems they bought Burbage's story on LO. Attention span couldn't handle reading the whole thing so I guess they may have qualified it later.

"We have been assured that the STOVL variant of the JSF aircraft being procured by the UK and US are identical and are being designed to the same set of requirements, though, once delivered, the aircraft will be fitted with different weapons. "

Don't disagree that Burbage can get a bit weaselly wordy at times. He was recently asked what the plan was if the UK left the program, his reply was he doesn't think about that. Right. Like he's running a $300b program and no fallback if UK waves bye bye.

For those interested, the relevant bit of the evidence in the Select Cttee report can be found at

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/554/554.pdf

with Mr Burbage's evidence at Q109 and following .

The weaselly bit is in the last question to him, Q118, where they finally try to pin it down. Look at his answer. He basically retreats to saying they both meet the common basic requirement - which isn't the question he was asked, and isn't the same as saying they are identical - one can meet meet it, the other can exceed it by x amount.

Q118:Mr Hancock: They have a different capability because they are going to do different things. The United States Marine Corps will not fly the plane in the same operational states as the Royal Navy fill fly it. So there are different capabilities. We are asking whether the plane itself, the product, is identical when it leaves the factory before it is customised to suit the use?

Mr Burbage: I would argue they are not being built to different capabilities. There was a common requirement constructed by the UK and US together. That common requirement is what we measure the airplane against and deliver the airplane against. There are some difference in UK weapons and US weapons.

He would argue? About what, on what grounds? Look also as Cdre Henley's reply to Q113.

Q113: Chairman: Okay. With many apologies I will repeat one question just for final confirmation. The US and UK STOVL versions will be identical in all respects, particularly in their Stealth characteristics. Is that correct?

Commodore Henley: Could I say I think we can only answer that by saying they share the same requirements.

That's what I mean by dodging the question.........

I may be alone....but it is simply beyond me why the UK is pursuing ASTOVL. If you carry a lift-fan you give away miles and bombs, simple, end of story. I have heard arguments that ASTOVL is cheaper - i personally don't make planes but if i did i think i'd charge more for every bit that moved - makes me think ASTOVL will be more expensive to buy and maintain. Then the ASTOVL camp blahs on about the boat costing less, whilst at the same time patting themselves on the back that the boat could take a CV aircraft, so where's the saving there?!!

If the UK buy ASTOVL JSF/JCA they will have condemned yet another generation of UK aviators to the fate that the rest have suffered. Aircraft that don't go as far or carry as much as everyone else's.

I write it down again : buy the Rafale M (54 M € p.u.):ok:

Modern day need for STOVL?
 

Back in the days when the Harrier was coming into service and throughout the Cold War - the Harrier was useful to the RAF because it could be very effectively dispersed. In the event of hostilities with the Soviet Bloc, the Harrier force could be operated from very simple concrete strips and forest clearings in Germany and at home - due to the fact that it can do VTOL & STOVL. That was fine - our jets would survive for longer than they would have at one of the main bases (hopefully!), therefore being able to do thier job of dropping BL755 (cluster bombs) and the like on Ivan and his pals. Handy in giving the navy some air defence from the baby carriers too. That, my dear chaps, is why STOVL came about - and what a good British idea it was too!(Not trying to give a history lesson!:8 )

The Harrier is still great at its job - it proved useful in Telic and is busy in Afghanistan by all acounts. How important is STOVL in modern day ops though?? Granted in Afghanistan it is just what is needed, but now that we don't need to conduct dispersed ops in Germany and the navy have the chance of acquiring these 'bigger than everything except Nimitz' CVFs, isn't purchasing CTOL a good idea? As has been very sensibly said just above - more miles and bombs must be better than having a couple of choices of approach back at base?!

Do the RAF need STOVL badly enough today to forego the chance to acquire a jet with increased capability? The CVFs will be big enough for CTOL so the navy don't have to have STOVL. Just why is it that STOVL is the 1st choice for UK MOD?? I'm not saying it shouldn't be and I am eager to hear reasons why we still need it over jets that are simply, well - better?!:ok:

Brits do you have anything against the Rafale ? :*

Why STOVL?

Because it's easier and safer to stop, then land, than to land and then try to stop.

Orac, I guess I have to fall back on the Norsemen, they've gotten their Pentagon stooge (I keep thinking Harry Potter, wasn't he the bearded one?) to categorically state that their F-35's will be as sneaky as ours. Maybe we can ask him about the RAF ones.

Seems an obliging feller - in return for the usual eenfidel yankee pig go home, he thanks them for their comments. Better man than me, I'd tell the miserable ingrates where to go and what to do with the parrots they rode in on.

Careful Jacko. John Farley lurks here :eek:

RonO,

May I also point out that in November 2003 a supplemental contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, valued at US$603 million, covering the development of an "international partner version" for the JSF, including "a version of the JSF... that is as common as possible to the US air system within the National Disclosure Policy". And the wording used by JSF programme officials when questioned about it at the time finds a worrying echo in Burbage´s answer.....

Iinternational Defence Review, May 2004: "a JSF program official said that the export versions "would look the same" - implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that "all JSFs will have stealth features" but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance."

It would be interesting to do a comparison of accidents per embarked flight hour for CV vs STOVL ops today. Not entirely convinced that the difference is as great as JackoNicko implies.

The other thing about CV recoveries is that if something does go wrong, bolters are possible. In STOVL, you're entirely reliant on your thrust column(s). (Yes, I know you can only bolter if you have enough fuel for subsequent recoveries - which is also applicable to land ops).

The really disturbing thing with the current STOVL "bring-back" limitations is the proposal lurking around the bazaars to try Rolling Vertical Landings aboard ship. On finals at ~ 50kts relative, touchdown at 40 and then stand on the brakes. Sounds like just about the worst place imaginable, thrust winding down, limited braking area (with a splash at the end of it) and no way of getting airborne again. Shows how deperate the STOVL mafia are to try and stay in the game.

Who cares which is 'easier'? Neither will be 'easier' if the machine's doing it for you. My guess is that with a lift fan to engage, and a few doors to open, and a jet pipe to swivel through ninety degrees then there's alot more to go wrong with the purportedly 'easier' VL.

What is the point in doing an 'easy' landing when the rest of the package is still out creating havoc because they took more petrol and thunder crackers?

Well thank goodness for that! Is that why we send the best pilots to the Harrier force - to do those landings that are easier than performing a 'normal' one?!

Now I cannot recall exactly where it was, but I have read that exact phrase in a publication somewhere before..... so are you going to credit your quote to the person who actually said it 1st Jacko?!:}

STOVL was what we needed back in the days of massed Soviet tank columns, dispersed ops etc etc. I honestly cannot fathom why STOVL JSF offers us the best option as opposed to CTOL today:confused: The reason for the STOVL variant existing in the 1st place is for the USMC to operate from their amphib carriers. Those platforms just wouldn't be fitted with cats and arrestor gear - that kit would be wasted on a platform that exists to deploy and support Marines. AV-8B and F35B is just what they need. For ourselves, if we have big ass, purpose built strike carriers, why put jets with shorter legs and less bomb carrying capability on them?! Its a little silly! A huge big platform to land on and our jets will be hopping onto a spot at the back!! If we had CTOL we could get E-2 for MASC and operate better with the Yanks.

As everything else in defence procurement is based on money, I would hazzard a guess at that being the reason to procure a STOVL fleet. Then again, isn't F35B more expensive than the C model (Please correct me if I'm wrong)?! It will save money on arrestor and catapult equipment but won't these savings be lost in buying the more expensive jets? Answers on a postcard please!:D

Navy Matters - CVFI believe a further factor was the ease of qualifying STOVL pilots on carrier ops and maintaining their currency as opposed to qualifying and maintaining for CTOL carrier ops. That will allow the whole of the F-35 joint force to be available for carrier operations when required.

'Sense'

I expect you've seen the phrase "Bug.ger off" before, but I'm not going to attribute that, either.

The 'better to stop then land....' is almost certainly John Farley's but it's been so widely quoted that it's hardly necessary to quote names.

It's a real factor when it comes to landing on a ship or on a very short strip, however. It will become even more of a factor with the VAAC Harrier derived control system on JSF, which will allow VLs to be undertaken even more easily, and even more safely.

And you really should check your facts before posting bol.locks (I'm a journo, I'm allowed to). Your 'hazzard'ing a guess was completely awry. The F-35C is more expensive than the A or the C model (so I hope you're pleased that I'm willing to correct you, cos you are wrong). And then you need arrester gear and catapaults, a much heavier training burden, and a reduced ability to deploy normally land based units.

If we need carriers at all, STOVL makes better sense than either CTOL or STOBAR, though it does mean that we then have to buy JSF. If we did go STOBAR or CTOL, at least we could get a marinised Typhoon, Super Hornet or Rafale, and avoid the cluster that is JSF tech transfer.

Interesting thread- full of half truths and some real wisdom too.

with respect to U.S. GAO reports- In 30 years in the business I have never seen them get itr eally right, they are accountants and get that part right but don't understand the rest. Quoting SAR reports. Well. Have you ever written them? I have. ahemmm.

Unless you have a lot of time on your hands going through the announcements of contracts awarded (and modifications) and totaling up the dollars and what will be bought is not going to tell you the cost of anything. the people on the USG side barely know how much has been put on the contract and under what modification or contract line item it goes and they have all the information.

Navalizing the Typhoon- No modern land based front line combat aircraft has ever been successfully "navalized". The last aircraft to have that done was the T-45 from the Hawk, which is a good honest jet trainer aircraft, but is not a first team front line combat aircraft in 2006. This doesn't mean it is impossible but it does mean that it is difficult to retrofit all the considerations for carrier operation. the structural strength, LG and hook are the easy parts. Flying qualities and handling are a lot harder, as is T/W and momentum.
Also, the notion that normally land based STOVL aircraft can be operated successfully from ships is bravo sierra. Don't try it without lots of spare aircraft and pilots.

Raphiele, Typhoon , JSF- The situation you have here is comparing aircraft at different stages in their life cycle and technological maturity. JSF being the least far along is less well developed and has much more uncertainty. Raphialle (or however they spell it in frog) is the most mature so you pretty much see what you get.

To be a world power that is listened to the UK should have a power projection capability including an air component from the sea. Go for it with the CV and you will not regret it.

Rant Over

Hmmm, GR3s, Falklands War and Joint Force Harrier ever since. Mods needed for INAS etc and one jet lost in the Med, otherwise successful. Maybe we're just better at it......

Orac, you're a tad behind the times. Burbage has just made it crystal clear - get April IDR for da scoop. Yep crystal clear. Guessing Jacko has gone quiet on the subject trying to get his head round it. Know my brain urts.

Think repeat think TB says just one version trucks off the line - no international version - but delivered aircraft will meet country specific ORD's. If you're not on the a-list, you don't get an ORD that needs the secret sauce. All spelled out upfront so you know what you're getting (guess you dont get to know what you're not getting) before handing over the loot. Suppose that means not all the girls at the party get the same lipstick & itunes.

One country gets to share ORDs with the home team. no prizes for guessing who. Same line as feed to your committee.

Classic was response to brit requests for all the juicy bits so you good folks can hang whizz bangs of choice, "we don't do things that way, you need to buy them first then ask for the goodies". I paraphrase. Gotta admire his sphericals.

BTW, surely the exception to golden rule on converting land aircraft to carriers is.... Harrier. Does anybody really deny Sea Harrier has done pretty good job for the brits all in all?

Iron City:

Well said.....

But can we trust anyone whose finger is on the pulse enough to spell

"Raphiele" and "Raphialle"

to tell the difference between "half truths" and "some real wisdom"?

Let alone to have the faintest clue as to the issues surrounding the proposed marinisation of Typhoon.

yeah what do those dumb yanks know about flying off carriers.

BTW how's that Bae notion re-blowing air to slow approaching tiffs working out for y'all?

Navaleye / Not a Boffin - thanks for gen on CVF. Nice ship. :ok:

WEBF / Jackonicko - of course STOVL JSF was the 'preferred' option that was why we bought it. But who preferred it and why. I can tell you for a fact that the equipment capability desk officers in MOD were gutted/felt betrayed/were infuriated by the decision to buy STOVL, which certainly was not the 'best' option, nor even the 'preferred' option in their view. There is no point in arguing over detailed stats and costings produced after the event and derived using assumptions about an equipment's performance, reliability and serviceability 20 years hence, especially when nothing of the like has ever been built before. By tweaking the number of accidents, incidents or failures per ten thousand flying hours, or how many hours pilots need to fly per month in order to stay current at air-defence as opposed to multi-role, or how many deck hands you need to work in so many shifts per day in order to run CV as opposed to STOVL ops etc. etc. etc. you can retrospectively justify any decision to procure any equipment, so think twice before meekly accepting the necessarily convincing arguments loyally trotted out in the wake of the decision to procure STOVL by the poor sods who had argued that we shouldn't. Yes, SMART procurement is all about trading perfomance against time and cost, but don't expect too much candour from the value for money merchants when it comes to explaining why they had to buy the slightly crappy version.

Was STOVL best vfm? Assuming that CV was more expensive than STOVL (don't assume that it was - lies, damn lies and stats etc.) the SMART question is: was the increased performance (range, payload, manouverability, survivability etc.) worth the increased cost and if so, could we/should we have afforded it. If the answer to both questions is yes (Customer 1 thought so) - then why didn't HMG buy it? Workshare/ industrial lobbying? Maybe a smatter of inter-service politicking? Maybe we thought that we'd have more influence in the programme if we bought STOVL rather than CV: the theory being that the USN were always going to get JSF, but that there was some doubt about the USMC, who were very keen for the UK to buy STOVL because they knew that in any budgetry pinch, the USAF/DOD would agressively protect F-22 and that the principle savings would come from the F-35, in which they were the junior partner . . . and the only one buying a limited edition, reduced range/payload weapons system, whose relatively poor performance didn't significantly detract from its suitability for use in the littoral, and which would justify the continued existence of an independent fleet of USMC aircraft carriers. Maybe the US preferred that we buy STOVL - UK expertise, longer production runs of that variant, economies of scale etc. and offered us more tech exchange or a sweeter deal.

Maybe we're getting uneccessarily strung out on trying to understand the decision to procure STOVL from a capability perspective. Maybe capability wasn't a consideratiuon. Some doctrine junkie rather smugly mentioned 'effects' earlier on this thread (its not about platforms it's about effects - yawn). Well, maybe they're right. . . but if you're looking for an effects based argument as to why we bought STOVL rather than C-Variant JSF, then don't waste your time on the military line of operation.

PowerGen

FT - 4 May: Funding for alternative strike fighter engine restored

Rolls-Royce appeared to win a major victory on Thursday after two congressional committees restored money in the 2007 defence budget for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter programme.

The Pentagon earlier this year recommended cancelling the alternate $2.4bn engine, which was being developed by the British company and its US partner General Electric, to cut back costs on the $257bn JSF programme, the most expensive weapons programme in history.

Following the example of the House armed services committee, the Senate armed services committee on Thursday voted to add about $400m back to the Pentagon budget for the F136 engine...... Approval by the House and Senate defence committees does not guarantee that the engine programme will be reinstated, but it sends a strong signal to the appropriations committees, which must approve the measure in the final budget, to restore funding.

“That signals … that the money and the programme are not going away,” said Loren Thompson, defence analyst at the Lexington Institute. “This is an extremely convoluted process and you cant count your dollars until all the players have spoken but it is very unlikely that with both authorizing committees voting similar amounts for the same purpose that the appropriators would say no.”

British defence officials had lobbied Congress to reinstate the alternate engine programme, and not leave the JSF with only one engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney. After the Pentagon budget was proposed, John Warner, the Senate armed services committee chairman, suggested that the decision should be revisited because of the UK contribution to Iraq. “I think we have a responsibility, particularly because the international aspects of this programme and particularly Great Britain, who has been our most steadfast partner in the Iraqi coalition forces – it is deserving of the careful attention by the committee,” Mr Warner told Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, at a hearing in February.

John Boehner, the Republican House majority leader, yesterday welcomed the House armed services decision, saying he was “hopefull” that the move would be approved by the defence appropriations’ committees.

[QUOTE=Jackonicko]
I expect you've seen the phrase "Bug.ger off" before, but I'm not going to attribute that, either.

Heh heh, brilliant! :ok:

The F-35C is more expensive than the A or the C model (so I hope you're pleased that I'm willing to correct you, cos you are wrong).

Mmm - typo?? :ooh: Appears I'm not the only one who needs corrected!

Back to the important stuff though..... The CVF will offer us the best form of power projection available. How else will we be able to put air power into an area to provide CAS/AD/stand off precision strike without having to rely on countries to provide HNS and all the potential political issues surrounding HNS that can hinder our military ops? Procuring a fleet of B1/B2/B52 type long range bombers is unfortunately not an option (and they require permission to transit airspace).

The US navy don't use STOVL aircraft from their carriers which are only slightly bigger than CVF will be. So why are we planning to?! CTOL is superior and those of us in uniform should all support the procurement of the best kit, in this particular context the F35C. Now I know that the wants and needs of the armed forces are probably the last consideration in defence procurement but once in a while we get the best kit (Tomahawk, C17).

"which would justify the continued existence of an independent fleet of USMC aircraft carriers"

One of the few things you can bank on, intense USMC paranoia about its fixed wing operations.

The RAF didn't originally buy the Harrier because it needed to operate off carriers, and it is not buying the F-35B for that sole reason either. There remain good grounds for a STOVL capability, look at present operations in Afghanistan and,at least till Jumper went, the consideration given by the USAF to changing a large piece of their 34A order to 35B to provide the same sort of austere capability. The only aircraft they have capbale of operating in such conditions being the A-10.

The F-35C will, by the time it enters service, only better than the Eurofighter in one capability, day 1 stealth. If the decision was made for the RN to go down the F-35C route, it would make even more sense for the RAF to continue down the Eurofighter route and cut another complete aircraft type out of their fleet with all the savings that would imply, leaving the RN to have to provide and support the entire training/logistics tail.

I think it best to leave sleeping dogs lie.

What about STOBAR?

On another point, has anyone else seen this?

DESIGN CONTRACTS announced yesterday for the Royal Navy’s new generation of aircraft carriers have been welcomed by trade unions at Rosyth.

Defence procurement minister Lord Drayson announced contracts to refine and develop the design of the two 65,000-tonne warships, which will be assembled and commissioned at the Fife dockyard.

The Ministry of Defence and its five Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) partners—BAE Systems, KBR, Thales UK, VT Group and Rosyth owner Babcock—have also signed an agreement that will take the £3 billion project through the current demonstration phase.


Later the articles mentions lessons learnt from other recent/current projects like Nimrod MRA4 or Astute.

Good news! Wonder if having a Scot as Sec Def will help?:hmm:

Don't hold your breath. The contracts announced are just the formalisation of the workshare and long-lead procurement "gate" that Reid announced six or seven months ago. In other words, they've spent six months trying to agree a contract structure to continue with the existing design. How much technical progress has been made in that time, I don't know. I do know the carrier alliance has just laid off a bunch of people.

Don't buy the guff about de-risking either - with the exception of a particular system to do with weapons preparation, there is nothing particularly complex or developmental about the ships - they just happen to be much bigger than we're used to is all.

Astute had major cockups because :

a. The original contract went to a non-submarine builder (who subsequently bought that yard to make up for it) and then were subsequently bought out by another company who implemented a completely new CADAM system.

b. During all this, the shipyard (and MoD) expertise in submarine design and build wasted away. That's why there are around 40+ blokes from the US submarine builder (Electric Boat) at Barrow now.

c. The project management structure was being run from Bristol or Farnboro, remote from the guys actually doing the work.

d. As usual no-one was actually in charge!

Nimrod went tits up for some similar reasons, plus the project costing assuming that all the aircraft were exactly the same, when in fact each wing-box / fuselage combo is pretty much bespoke.

WEBF - don't even think about STOBAR. When it was looked at as an option seven years ago we found that from a deck operations (and therefore ship layout and size) perspective it was the worst of both worlds. You still had a large recovery area requirement, but rather than a (relatively) short cat, you needed a 500ft + runway & ski-jump, which dramatically reduced your parking area, thereby increasing the size of ship required for a given sortie rate. Oh and Typhoon would still struggle to recover safely on it as it doesn't address the limitations of the aircraft's glideslope performance.......

Thta said, lets hope they can crack on and do the detailed design work so we can cut steel and get on with the ship. Once it gets going, as I've said before, it's not a particularly complex vessel. Someone (that's you CDP) just needs to take a deep breath and say go. Write a contract such that if the Alliance drops a bollock they pay for it (and equally if MoD changes its requirements or doesn't answer quickly enough, they pay a penalty). Oh b*gger, that means committing to the aircraft.............

LONDON, UK, May 9, 2006 -- Lockheed Martin UK has been awarded a contract by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to study the potential of using Merlin helicopters as a platform for both maritime airborne early warning and command and control. Under the 15-month programme, Lockheed Martin will lead a three-way team which will include Thales UK and AgustaWestland. The overall study, with a total value of £3.4 million, includes two more contracts which will see AgustaWestland and Thales UK each leading similar teams looking at other airframe and mission system options.

All three contracts are part of the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) programme. MASC is the third component of the UK’s future carrier strike capability and will work with the future aircraft carrier (CVF) and the Joint Strike Fighter to provide airborne early warning and command and control capabilities.

Ron Christenson, group managing director for Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems said: “This award is yet another indication of how the strong collaboration between the Royal Navy and Lockheed Martin since the early 1990s has made the Merlin the very best helicopter system of its kind. This joint approach will allow the MoD to access the very best technological knowledge and experience to drive this important programme forward.”

MASC will replace the current Sea King Airborne Surveillance and Control capability, with increased emphasis on command and control functions as the Royal Navy develops its Network Enabled Capability.

Wanna make a guess on the platform they´ll recommend.... :rolleyes:

The wrong one - but we knew that as soon as they chose the Stovie. Just gave the "IPT" (alright half-dozen blokes in the ship project) the excuse to bin the obvious proven, low-risk, fully capable, off the shelf candidate.

At least it isn't being postponed even further....