oldnotbold,

Considering the age of the type 42s, the fact that most now don't carry sea dart missiles any more, and the fact they are about to be replaced (at a ratio of 12:6 :() by the type 45, I don't see how getting rid of more type 42s now would save anything much in the medium to long term.......

Especially as there are only 5 left as we speak.

oldnotbold
 

JSF or F18?

The Janes report is correct. The first of 12 'straight through' RN FAA pilots starts with VFA-14 on the F18E this month.

A compressed USN training /tactical weapons course on the T-45A and then the F18E/F Super Hornet OCU, included carrier qualification on a flat deck conventional carrier 'fixed wing' CATOBAR.
(The first student RN FAA pilot to do so since the 70's)

The pilots are intended to serve a full USN operational tour, as opposed to an exchange posting, and apparently is paid for by the RN directly.

'Embedds' for an embryo FAA air group for the new RN carriers?

Doesnt that sort of thing go on in NATO all the time? It *could* be a coincidence...

Where any studies/figures ever produced comparing costing/advantages of nuclear propulsion for the cv's - interesting possible conflict there with the French already using it for CdG, the EU greens and labour/lib dem 'no nuclear at any price anywhere'.

Incidentally, what is the current tally of serious surface RN warships, i.e. not including river launches, RIB's, survey, RFA etc., but units with a GUN that they can (or are allowed to) fire. When labour came to power I made it approx 52 out of a total of about 110 (plus the upholders up for sale - nice & shiny) - I recently estimated 15, (the type 45's can't last much longer, even if we had the oil available).

p.s. The river Fal fleet does not qualify. :E

Rule Britannia
 

Well, this is the American take on the situation. Seems we may need to borrow US aircraft and crews to keep the 'British Empire' going!!
UK May Borrow F-18s for Carriers

I think the term "British Empire" tells you all you need to know about that article.

Hmmm...just brushed aside a few little facts for the sake of the article. That's as far as I got sorry.

Entaxei,

The Royal Navy ORBAT is currently

2 x Invincible Class CVS (with 1 further at [very] extended readiness)
1 x LPH
2 x LPD
5 x Type 42 DD
4 x Type 22B3 FF
13 x Type 23 FF
1 x T45 (with 5 to follow)

That makes a total of 28 FF/DD and above sized assets, with a further 4 OPV/OPV(H) and 16 MCMVs, exluding the Survey, Submarine and RFA elements.

You don't think the sailors of yore spent all that captured Spanish gold on wine, women and song do you? Being the wise salty seadogs there were they put a portion of the money into a high interest bond for a rainy day and its just about to come to fruitition.

Certain in the know members of the senior service are currently pawing over the military version of the Argos catalogue, little pens at the ready whilst others, of a more traditional bent, are phoning around various museums trying to work out how much they'd want for a slightly used Gannet or Sea Vixen.

Why else would there be a pipedream thead about the RN buying F18Fs (circumventing the MoD who usually purchase kit for the various constituent parts of the military) or the rash of "remember when we flew these" type threads?

Just read between the lines, it where the real meat is....;)

"Since, most people seem to agree that you are only looking at a buy of about 50 aircraft now, you are only going to have about 24 jets, in peacetime, on the one operational Aircraft Carrier, no matter what aircraft UK buys. Except if they buy F35B the jets will, almost certainly be, RAF, not FAA, and you really will see an empty Carrier much of the time.

STOVL F35B may or may not work as advertised and may or may not get cancelled and may or may not be affordable, by UK. It is impossible to know these things now.

The fact is UK could go for about 50 Super Hornet and, UK would know, for a fact, A) they will actually do what its says on the tin. B) they will be delivered when UK wants them. C) they will cost more or less exactly what UK is told they will cost.

None of that is true of STOVL F35B.

Super Hornet is, relatively low cost and very low operational risk. F35B is high risk and might very well be very high cost. One is a certainty and the other a gamble."

Responses
 

Proudfishead

Thank you very much for that breakdown. I had omitted the CV, T42's and the oncoming T45's, which is not quite fair, but at least its a bit better than I had envisaged, although no thanks to either the previous government (who liked to posture on a strategically placed warship) or the MOD, whose ambition appears to be, to become superior in total numbers to that of the entire armed forces!. (memo to self - don't get political - don't get political ......)

The Helpful Stacker

Presumably by meat, you mean the fillings choice is either corned beef & pickle or mousetrap. ;)

oldnotbold

That is the most succinct summation I have seen to date, amidst all the various postings, which actually takes into account the reality of our current position as a nation, actual facts and costs versus theoretical performance, timing and costings - and ignores the siren call of having the possible latest and greatest regardless of actual need. Thank you.

oldnotbold -

I have long held that Dave-B is a bl**dy silly compromise as a design, mostly because the ConOps are a nonsense: when will the US national interest demand that the USMC go ashore facing an opponent with double-digit SAM & IADS cued evolved Super FLANKERs when the USN can't be arsed to turn up with a CVNBG?

For any of these MEU/MAGTAF only ops, I find it hard to understand what the USMC needs other than a Harrier II+ with SNIPER and Rover IV.

As a result, if UK plc remains in the CVF game, the sooner we move to CATOBAR configuration and Dave-C, the better. If the USN cancels Dave-C, we can always go back to F-18E/F/G, but the timescales for a purchase (2019/20) are such that we have the luxury of a little bit of time. As ever in these things, the UK's lack of finance to meet its ambitions means that we must maximise bang-for-procurement-buck - and that means avoiding buying Mk 1 anything if at all possible.

S41

Latest information, all be it in an aircraft publication (Air forces monthly) F-35B test program schedule likely to slip to the right due to various problems.

Also in Ares by Bill Sweetman: How's All That Validate-y Stuff Working Out For Ya?

Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens expects a "rephasing" of flight testing for the F-35B short take-off, vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter to emerge from a comprehensive review of the program, due to report in November.

(In this context, "rephasing" carries the same kind of meaning as when your cable company "adjusts" its prices - you know which way the change is going.)

Weeks after explaining that the F-35B tests were being delayed by problems with components "that you would not consider major systems" and that work was in-hand to fix the problems and get flight-testing back on track, Stevens said yesterday in a Morgan Stanley investor call (around the 55 minute mark) that although "the early corrective actions ... are showing some beneficial outcomes, my sense is that it is not going to be enough."

One root cause may be that suppliers, squeezed on schedule and cost, have failed to design and deliver components that can withstand the heat, noise and vibration generated by the F-35B powered lift system.

Stevens said that "the quality of parts in the supply chain" has been an issue. Lockheed Martin, he said, is putting pressure on suppliers in terms of "quality, performance and cost, and some of that pressure is manifesting itself in the F-35B program."

"I'm quite sure we'll see a rephasing" of F-35B testing, Stevens said, explaining that it will be part of a comprehensive technical baseline review that has followed the program's Nunn-McCurdy recertification earlier this year.

Today, the F-35B program is only six months away from the scheduled start of at-sea STOVL tests on the USS Wasp (set for March 2011). However, so far the reported progress with STOVL envelope expansion has been slow.

Of course, this may not be the time to remind the JSF program office of some of its earlier statements:
Or even:
Somehow I don't think we're going to hear that line again for a while.

This article is very well worth reading



Challenging the STOVL Myth

defence.professionals | defpro.com

F-35B delays lead to rephased flight-test schedule

F-35B delays lead to rephased flight-test schedule

The Times from tomorrows edition:

"The Ministry of Defence may abandon plans to build new aircraft carriers as part of sweeping budget cuts and a long-awaited defence review, the chief executive of BAE Systems revealed yesterday.
Ian King told an influential committee of MPs that his company remained focused on producing two ships.
However, he added: “We have been asked to look at a number of options, recently asked over the last week or so... I think they range from having one carrier to no carriers but with an equivalent other programme.” He did not elaborate on what such a programme would entail.
The £5.2 billion contract to build two carriers is providing work for 10,000 employees at six construction sites around the country. Clauses within the contract mean that it would be almost as expensive to scrap as to maintain but, in the long term, cancellation would save on maintenance or the cost of fitting them with a new fleet of jets.
Raymond Duguid, a union member at the dockyard in Rosyth, near Edinburgh, where the two carriers are due to be assembled, said that any reduction in the project would be a blow for the workforce. “The carriers are just one job but they do give stability to the yard,” he told The Times.
Critics argue that the carriers are a waste of money at a time when the MoD’s over-spent budget should focus more on soldiers and smaller ships.
The Times revealed last week that Britain and France are preparing to announce a deal to share aircraft carrier capabilities as part of a wider plan to co-operate on defence. Such a move would enable both countries, the largest military powers in Europe, to maximise their strength at a lower cost. Requiring three times more steel than Wembley Stadium, the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will each have a crew of 679, (1,600 if air staff are included) and should last 50 years.
MPs on the Defence Select Committe also heard from the head of ADS Group, a trade organisation representing Britain’s aerospace, defence and security industries.
Rear Admiral Rees Ward said he feared that the Strategic Defence and Security Review, to determine Britain’s military and diplomatic role, could be at odds with the Government’s spending review, putting 300,000 jobs at risk."


They have to come up with a , short term less expensive, way of putting an air group on the QE, or risk having the Carrier cancelled. If that happens RAF will certainly not get STOVL F35B either...

ONB,

What the BAE bloke was probably referring to was the Terms Of Business Agreement (TOBA) that covers the CVF ships: a certain amount of work for the design teams and the yards. AFAIK, it declines over time, and it leaves BAE with a big hole to fill if the Govt only meets the letter - which is presumably what this bloke is concerned about.

One credible plan seemed to be to bin carrier, and use the TOBA to build the MARS Fleet Tankers in UK (vice South Korea or Italy) and then follow it with T26 frigates (nee Future Surface Combatant-C / FSC-C), which would result in more ships the RN needs and two fewer that it cannot protect or put an airwing on.

As hard as it is for Fishead types, the RN could be better served over the medium term by getting more FF/DD than CVF. Not ideal, but then this is a Defence Review....

S41

Do not agree at all with that.
If they bin the Carriers it will destroy morale in the RN totally.
And remember if they bin the Carriers there is no way RAF will get F35, no chance at all.

ONB

I'm not in the RN, so don't have a view on this. But an enhanced FF/DD force is presumably more useful for SLOCs, presence and information ops?

Why? F35 / Dave-C would replace GR4 from 2020 quite nicely.

S41

F-35A surely....?

If the carriers are binned why would the RAF want the carrier spec USN version of the F-35...??

Bigger wing, longer range, tougher structure?

S41

On the other hand, it has the same max AUW as the A, but the structure is5000lb heavier.

So, yes, it has a longer theoretical range, but with a fuel/weapon payload deficit - and and more if a gun is required, as it's not internal and takes up the centreline station with the associated drag/stealth handicap.

Right Orac - If you want a long-range F-35, spec an A with no internal gun, a probe and the Israeli 600 gal external option.

ORAC / LO

Thanks, I'd not appreciated that. With the Israeli tanks, what sort of range does Dave-A produce?

S41

S41

I'd hazard a guess at Israel - Iran - Israel, following whichever route they care to! :E

I could not disagree more. Not only is rapidly deployable maritime air power key to the UK's desired expeditionary capability, the CVF has been the core of the RN's development of a Versatile Maritime Force. From the procurement of the T45, design of the Astute SSN, future tanker and logistics requirements, painful cuts in other areas of the RN and changes in infrastructure; the procurement of two CVF has been key.

However, despite being a Naval Aviator, I feel that we have been somewhat tribal in our vehement protection of the FAA's fixed wing capability. With the standard caveat that our fixed wing chaps do a fantastic job in an organisation fraught with politics. Had the RN gone to the RAF at the original design stage of the CVF and agreed that the RN would do what they are best at, driving and operating warships, and allowed the RAF to provide the tailored air group (FW) for deployments, along with rotational positions in key posts such as Wings, SATCO, DSATCO, Eng Officers etc, then their may have been more support for the project.

Instead, we return to being forced to adopt the "I need this, so he can't have that" form of inter-service procurement debate. UK PLC requires both CVF if it is to achieve it's current Foreign Policy aims. This does not mean that the RAF do not need new aircraft nor that the Army need updated armoured vehicles. However, the disproprtional force multiplication that is provided by a fully independent CVF which is able to deploy worldwide at short notice, self-sustaining and self-protecting, able to deliver air, land and maritime power without host nation support is invaluable.

I really think that cancelling or reducing the CVF project will be a decision that we regret for decades. The RN has given up too much over the last 15 years in order to procure these assets. The phrase for years has been "short term loss for long term gain". It would be dreadful to think that it has been "short term loss for long term decimation".

Jumping rapidly back to the thread subject. If the procurement of a COTS updated F18 saves £Billions compared to F35(any variant), then perhaps it's all the effect we can afford to purchase.

For proudfishead: I thought fisheads were ship drivers, not avaitors. :confused::confused:

Oh well, I tip my cap, one naval aviator (retired) to another. :ok:

In re the CV, it takes two to have one, and your industrial base (maritime) gets a few economies of scale benefit from having two versus one ... if one can afford it. <--- As you are well aware, that's the real beast of the issue.

I am out of touch with our continental friends, the French, who not only have a CV, but also chose to rejoin the NATO integrated command structure. Would your position be sound if your strat assumed a long term association with the French wherein you traded readiness phases (rotating "on call" so to speak within the European security realm), or is the global interest of the UK deep enough (still) to require the two in case an out of area requirement rears its ugly head ... I have an eye toward the South Atlantic, but hope to hell that doesn't come up again.

Lonewolf, there are a few who are lucky enough to do both, unfortunately at some point we must return to ship driving. Cap duly dothed in return.

ProudFH

Nail, head, bang - this is exactly my point. The budgetary choices - I don't aver from calling them "realities" as doubtless many in Main Building are terming them now, as we could have a £100bn defence budget if we chose to - are such that the RN could indeed find itself in a position in 2020 where the "fleet" looks like this:

- 2 x CVF
- 2 x LPD
- 4 x LSD(A)
- Some tankers (well, at least 2 x Wave Class)
- 6 x T45 / D-Class
- 10ish x T23
- 2 x T26
- 5 x Astute
- 2ish x T-Class
- 4 x SSBN
- Some MCMs
- Some OPVs
- Shedloads of P-2000s
- VICTORY + BELFAST

Which may be extreme, but an FF/DD force of 16 or 18 means maybe a round 12 actually deployable, and if the choice was that vs. an escort fleet of 20 - 25 and no CVF, then I'd have to think very carefully about what the RN's future role is. I simply think that for the budgets being discussed, especially if Trident is to be funded from the core defence budget, that the days of UK independent force projection are essentially over, and that as such CVF is an expensive exercise in gutting the rest of the RN.

For once, Mr. Torpy notwithstanding, it's not an RAF plot, sadly.

S41

These are worth having a gander at

Super Stealth Plane Breaks Through Cost Barrier | Danger Room | Wired.com

Market analysis Joint Strike Fighter- How many JSF?s will be produced?|CEOWORLD Magazine

Ides of March | AVIATION WEEK

Sorry, proud fish'ead, but I have bit..... I could not let this one go unanswered. Whilst I agree with some of your sentiments, you view is, if I may be a little impolite..naive. Your comments forget about the history between the two services since the late 1970s and seem to state that the RAF are the best at flying. The Fleet Air Arm, does what it does best....generating air power from the sea and the long history the UK has, in generating air power from the sea, demonstrates that you CANNOT do it PART TIME. If there were a maritime branch of the RAF, that conducted its operations predominantly from the sea, then your argument could hold water (scuse the pun). I hasten to add that I am NOT an advocate of disbanding the RAF and add that there are areas of RAF capability in which they excel above the other two services.

But as we are talking about air power from the sea, I will confine myself to that. You also mention about the other support areas. This is again difficult and a previous 1SL was keen to point out to good old Glenn, that the RN also has a wide support infrastructure to support maritime operations that the RAF does not. CVF will need "sea-minded" personnel from all areas not just pilots and back seaters of whatever colour. The RAF does not have an Aircraft Handling branch, who are the teams that look after the aircraft on the deck and who the FAA specialist fire-fighters, the RAF does not have a dedicated MET branch, whereas the RN has the HMs who have wide and deep experience of providing Met and Oceanographic support at sea. The RN ATC branch have broad experience of controlling from the sea, in the wide ocean and the Littoral, often without the aid of diversions and with basic equipment. Senior Air Department officers are drawn from squadrons with wide experience of operating at sea who are aware of all the extra challenges that operating from the sea imposes, including storm force winds, deck operating limits, runways that move and bounce about, logistics (ammunition, fuel, food, liquid oxygen etc) There are other supporting branches of the FAA, including engineers, bomb bosuns, photographers, aircraft controllers to name just a few. Whilst I remember, don't forget the fighter controllers, who served with distinction in 1982 and 1991 and in many areas since. They are all part of the wider FAA that support operations from the sea and for the RAF to replicate them would be hugely expensive and take years to build up the level of operational capability the FAA has accumulated over many many decades. Additionally, they are all ship's staff when embarked, with responsibilities beyond their primary duties....that only a career training in the RN will provide.

So, it is very easy to say that it does not matter who pilots the aircraft, but there are a whole host of other factors that underpin generating air power from the sea. IMHO operating air power from the sea is best left to the FAA. Operating from a fixed land base, is best left to the RAF and the Army. Everyone has something to bring to the table. It is unfortunate that when one area appears to be getting a new toy, everyone else gets jealous and want to play with it.

:ok::ok:

Widger
 

OK, I was right with you until you arrived at your conclusions about Fighter Controllers. RAF FCs have been going to sea with the Andrew for years, doing their primary job and also becoming watch-keepers. RN controllers who come to the RAF on exchange have, in my experience, struggled to come to terms with the job. :ugh:

Canadian Break,

I am sorry old chap but you are stretching the bounds of credulity there. Since about 1995 the rules for bridge watchkeeping qualifications have changed and whilst some RAF FCs may well have stood a watch occaisionally as OOW 2 or 3, there is no way any of them would have met the stringent IMO rules that are applied now to take charge of a watch at sea or would be allowed to stand a watch on a 65000 ton CVF. Please!!!!

You have successfully turned what was quite an adult conversation into an inter service p**sing match again!

The RN ATC branch have broad experience of controlling from the sea, in the wide ocean and the Littoral, often without the aid of diversions and with basic equipment.


You do understand that, in contrast to Harrier operations at Port Stanley in 1982, F-18's and F-35's can fly well beyond line of sight of the surface task force?


This is again difficult and a previous 1SL was keen to point out to good old Glenn, that the RN also has a wide support infrastructure to support maritime operations that the RAF does not. CVF will need "sea-minded" personnel from all areas not just pilots and back seaters of whatever colour. The RAF does not have an Aircraft Handling branch, who are the teams that look after the aircraft on the deck and who the FAA specialist fire-fighters, the RAF does not have a dedicated MET branch, whereas the RN has the HMs who have wide and deep experience of providing Met and Oceanographic support at sea.

OK, RN aviation --> specialized for operations over water.

You won't complain when others claim that deep penetration over land = RAF business, will you?

Elmo, not "over water", "from water". Where the pilot goes after that, it doesn't really matter, it's all about where (s)he lands afterwards.

Anyway, having seen the RAF pull a political blinder by agreeing to have a RN 2* in charge of maritime ops (including SHAR), and then, suddenly, conducting a re-organisation that chopped his job, including the reduction of the senior Harrier pilot (in role) from 1* to 4 ring (at best), I don't really trust the RAF to commit in a grown-up fashion about a CAG.

( quick ref for the 2* cuts: No. 3 Group RAF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Royal Navy FCs
 

Canadian B,

Your comments about Freddies coming ashore and struggling to handle the job may well have been valid several years ago however, having worked closely with the D School, I am confident that the standard of FC coming out of the RN has improved hugely. They are a professional bunch who have a superb approach to training. I would go as far to say that in some areas, they could show us a thing or two.

In days prior to the MDA system, RAF FCs were maxed out on every sortie dealing with civil traffic. This was the area that caught out the RN chaps who had previously been controlling a pair of SHAR off the west coast! The MDAs have taken the workload away in many areas to the point where the live phase of RAF FC training has reduced from 60-70 hours to 20-30.

Speak for yourself. :cool:

ORAC,

I assumed that the reading audience would fully understand that I was in no way referring to you!

Whilst not wishing to extend this futile p@@@@@@g contest or to further cast assertions on the professional ability of Officer's from any service, can I just say that there are idiots and stars in every branch and every career and trade both within the armed forces and without. Be they bus drivers, trade unionists, doctors or dentists.

The main difference between the RAF ABMs and the RN FCs is that in the RN it is a sub-specialisation. This very fact means that there are few FCs that have more than 2 or 3 tours under their belt and accordingly, very few"career controllers"They are drawn from some of the brightest of the Seaman Officer Cadre and then after FC go on to become Warfare Officer's Executive Officers and Commanding Officers. Many of the 1, 2 3 and 4 stars that have walked the halls of the MOD are ex RN Fighter Controllers. They are, on a par with Submariner's, the RN equivalent of the 2 winged master race. So whilst they may not be specialists in controlling within the UK, they have, on the whole, with some exceptions, broad and relevant experience.

It is worth mentioning some examples, such as the FC that stayed at his post in 1982, whilst HMS Sheffield burned around him and the man next to him was missing parts of his body. This event is quoted is some books and I have heard the story first hand. A bit more stressful than crossing the Manchester TMA I think. Additionally, it is worth mentioning the controllers of Gloucester and Exeter in 1991, that sat in the Northern Gulf supporting Air Operations from destroyers designed in the 1950s. This was before 8 Sqn turned up on the scene.

The new T45s will finally, give the RN FCs the kit they should have had 30 years ago and CVF with F18 or F35, will bring them into a new age of controlling.

So I have no criticism of the RAF ABMs or the crews that fly the E3s........there is plenty of mud I could sling!!!!!!!!! but I won't. Whilst both sides of the fence have similar roles, in practice, their career paths are different and they are there, for different reasons as well.

DIRIGEAMUS