I remember the fun and games during JMC's:E

But General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the Army, raised fears over the funding of the 80 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft due to be ordered to fly from the carriers.

He told BBC News: "The big but is what's going to fly off them - because the Joint Strike Fighter programme is about £10bn, and that's what really frightens us."

BBC News - Figures reveal cost of new aircraft carriers decision

USN say F35 B and C will be 40% more expensive to operate than F18 or Harrier.

CHART: F-35B/C operating costs versus Hornets, Harriers - The DEW Line

Is that infamous FC Roger Waitout still serving on one of HM's little grey war canoes?

He seemed to feature in every JMC I remember....:rolleyes:

Widger,

I fear you may have misread my post as a p@@@@@g contest it is not. As a ex RAF FC, I was merely standing up for the Freddies!

Back in the old days, RN guys would come over and few would go back. I suspect that Mrs Freddie drove the issue on most accounts having become accustomed to Mr Freddie coming home every night for a few years!

Some top ex fish heads wearing blues these days.

F35 was meant to be bespoke, and for F16 prices.

Now it is anything but.

1. Sealed off sub-systems.

2. The main production line bestowed upon Italy. Why? What the **** have they contributed?

3. Whatever was agreed behind closed doors in 2006, there is still no official black-and-white ITAR for the source code / operational sovereignty.

4. RAM coating - purrlease. USAF mechs have to wear padded cotton shoes and gloves when crawling over the B2s. With no ITAR, it's back to factory every time that precious RAM paint gets chipped by FOD. What was that about operational sovereignty?

In other words, **** em. ****em up the arse and then in their faces.

Granted, F/A-18 won't come with the source-code either, and it will also have sealed off sub-systems - but then it never was still isn't touted as bespoke and as such I can accept it's shortcomings. It's very transience gives hope for an indigenous JSF (pace Taranis).

We just do this sort of thing far, far better alone.

Boeing will gleefully kick Lockheed Martin in the teeth. Fag packet figures for 50 X SHornet - £2bn.

Catapult system among plans to cut cost of aircraft carriers
Cheaper planes also being considered as part of defence review, but MPs argue against ripping up building contracts

"Cost-cutting measures being considered for the carriers include slashing the number of strike aircraft to go on them and buying cheaper planes, which would be launched by catapult. This would have the added advantage of what officials call "interoperability" with France, whose navy aircraft all use catapults."

Catapult system among plans to cut cost of aircraft carriers | UK news | The Guardian

Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends'
At the heart of rows over the defence review is the cost of equipment – but a balanced Navy, led by new aircraft carriers, could help preserve Britain's standing in the world

"Critics of the new carriers are quick to point at the cost. However, to get out of the contract will cost £2.3 billion which, as these ships will only cost £44 million a year to operate, is more than will be spent on them in their entire working lives. It has been suggested that money could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft or making them less capable. Having fewer aircraft actually wastes the investment in the carriers – it's like buying a tank but never buying shells for the gun. As to having less capable aircraft, that is already happening. The version of the Joint Strike Fighter we are buying, the F35B vertical/short take-off and landing model which is slated for the carriers, has less range and a smaller payload than the conventional naval "C" variant the Americans are buying; the "C" variant is also about £25 million cheaper per aircraft.

If Britain wants to save money in the carrier programme, fit them with catapults, arrester gear and buy the F35C, not vertical/short take-off version. These carriers represent excellent value for money – probably more so than many other British or European defence projects in the past 20 years. The commitment Britain shows to its maritime position through the carriers and the concept of having a balanced Navy is valuable. In an age where Britain will need the support of allies to further its foreign and security policy, it makes sense to contribute to such alliances as Nato or the EU in the most effective manner to ensure our voice is heard."

Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends' - Telegraph

UK offers CVF to India

..........
I/C

Well, it was perfectly obvious that the much-vaunted Prime Ministerial visit was all about flogging off a CVF or two, as well as anything else that Cameron, Osbourne, Hague and Fox could get away with. I strongly suspect that the Indians uttered a polite 'no thank you', although I stand to be corrected. In any case, it seems that HMS Ocean will almost certainly be sold to the Brazillians in short order, along with some escorts (Type 22/23 anyone?).:rolleyes:

"It’s impossible to imagine a better fit to the Secretary of State’s vision than the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike and Amphibious Task Groups. But cancellation of the new Queen Elizabeth-class future aircraft carriers (CVF) has for a decade been offered as the 'silver bullet' solution to the MoD’s funding crisis, and it is yet again being promoted with amazing success (at least in terms of column inches) by a segment of the media and defence establishment who seem to have a pathological hatred of any large grey warships that are able to carry aircraft. In practice – with over £1.2 billion in contracts already placed and the UK shipbuilding industry now totally dependent on the project - construction of the new carriers has almost certainly passed the point at which cancellation is viable under any rational criteria, however significant changes to the CVF programme are still quite possible.

The most obvious problem is finding aircraft and helicopters to form air groups for the new carriers. The UK has theoretically committed to buying up 138 of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement; indeed it has already ordered three of the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) JSF variant (designated F-35B). However there seems to be little chance that more than 50 JCA's (costing nearly £100 million each) will be affordable. One of the surprises of SDSR might be a decision to abandon the F-35B version for the F-35C which can carry a higher payload over a longer range. The F-35C is also slightly cheaper, but this will be negated by the cost of fitting at least one of the new carriers with two catapults and arresting gear. Adoption of the F-35C will avoid the dangerous looking 'rolling landing' technique that the UK has been studying for the F-35B in order to overcome its payload 'bring back' weight restrictions. Another potential advantage with the F-35C is that the Royal Navy would be able to cross deck aircraft with United States and French Navy aircraft carriers for the first time since 1978.

If SDSR did decide to go for the F-35C over the F-35B, it’s the second CVF - HMS Prince of Wales - that would be adopted to the operate the aircraft. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be completed largely as planned, including a bow ski-jump. She would initially operate Harrier's (assuming that they stay in service as currently planned until 2019). Thereafter she would operate as a super-sized helicopter carrier (LPH), effectively replacing HMS Ocean, with the possibility that funding priorities might eventually permit her to be upgraded to the same standard as Prince of Wales."

Navy Matters | Home Page

The F-35 backers might actually like to see the RN go F-35C as it would help cement the USN program in place.

Despite high-level sounds of approval, F-35C is at risk because:

- The Marines want 420 of the planned Navy Dept JSFs to be STOVL, leaving the Navy with a minimal (for the US) 260 Cs
- The C is at the tail-end of a flight test program that may not be doable on the current schedule, so might be the one that they decide to slip, which would leave the Navy needing more F-18s
- With the upgraded Hornet promoted by Boeing, the Navy has a potential JSF alternative
- The Super Hornet as it stands today will do anything better than the F-35C until 2020+ except a deep strike mission against double-digit SAMs.

LO

All very pertinent points, but the ConOps for the F-35B still seem ridiculous.

Given your proximity to the programme, a genuine question.

When will the USMC need the capability to go after double digit SAMs from LPDs or rough strips without a CVN turning up? It seems so improbable that I just can't see how (politics aside) the USMC can justify F-35B instead of bashing out some new Harrier II+ or flying F-35Cs off the CVNs.

S41

Oldnot bold.

A very insightful post!

When will the USMC need the capability to go after double digit SAMs from LPDs or rough strips without a CVN turning up? It seems so improbable that I just can't see how (politics aside) the USMC can justify F-35B instead of bashing out some new Harrier II+ or flying F-35Cs off the CVNs.

The ultimate reason for the US Navy's F-35B's is to operate a smaller class of aircraft carrier -- new generation escort carriers, one might say.

The USS America currently being built is the first ship in this class.

The USMC remains a subset of the USN.

ME,

All understood, but what is the mission set that sees US interests sufficiently engaged against a double-digit SAM threat (else why F-35?) but insufficiently interested to drive one of 11 CVNs near it?

I just don't see the combination of MEU/MAGTAF vs double-digit minus CVN.

S41

S41 -

Exactly. I'm not saying that 420 makes sense as the number of Bs, but that's the default because of the Marines' political influence and because they want to replace all their aircraft with STOVL F-35Bs - even though, at any given time, most will be on land bases or complicating life for a CVN.

No President or Joint Chiefs will ever send an MEU against a serious threat without a CVN in the area. In the Cold War, given an ASTOVL-like fighter, you might have done it in a diversionary operation, but not in the foreseeable future.

Modern Elmo

Smaller escort carriers? I would remind you that a CVN is 1000 feet long and keel-hauling would be unpleasant. And as the entire Brit process has shown, the idea is impractical. If the goal is to provide FJ support to a littoral operation, against a low-grade threat (for instance, a couple-squadron, not-well-equipped AF) then you need to support CAP and offensive ops at the same time, which drives sortie rate X, which drives number of jets Y. The UK went through this and CVF grew from under 40000 tons to 65000 tons.

The America is not an escort carrier. How many F-35Bs do you get on a 50000 ton ship that also carries troops, equipment, vehicles and the helicopters they need to get ashore? Even if you eliminate the well deck?

The answer is double digits if you're lucky - particularly because your medium "helicopter" is now a 13000 shp 30-ton monster - so if you have two America-class amphibs in the task force you maybe have added 15-20 per cent more fast jets, with less range and weapon load than the CV-based aircraft.

Sure, you can get 20-some JSFs on America if you eliminate the transport helicopters, but then you've got no way at all to get your troops ashore. I will be surprised if LHA-8 does not have a well deck.

So the CONOPS no longer makes sense, but the Marines won't look at the mess they are in and nobody dares to take them on.

Why Catapults are Cheaper

Why UK should buy less expensive, yet more capable, F35C

http://grandlogistics.********.com/2...e-cheaper.html

C or B
 

Some might consider that operating site flexibilty matters more to the UK than pure range and as such is worth buying.

That might be true John, if the RAF were driving the procurement. However, I don't believe it is or was a RN key requirement for the JSF, rather being driven by the RAF due to the currency needs for cross-training of RAF pilots (and the Harrier mafia).

With the limited numbers now be mentioned for purchase - around 50 to 60 - I can't see there being any pool of non-current pilots around, and the opinion of the RN will undoubtedly prevail.

I was not considering the RAF or RN interests. Just those of the UK.

I believe both the RN and RAF have the same interest at heart as you do John.

They may, however, differ as to how they are best achieved.

The next question is the feasibility or otherwise of austere-base ops (1) with the F-35B as opposed to the much smaller Harrier and (2) with a changing threat.

Marines and industry say F-35B's ground impact will not cause problems, but the Corps has been seriously wrong in this respect with V-22. USN construction guidance still calls for a 100 x 100 foot VL pad made of heat-resistant, continuously reinforced concrete.

Also, the senior Dept of Navy leadership is worried about the threat to forward arming and refueling points posed by guided rockets and mortars, which they expect to be widely used by the late 2010s.

i'd echo LO's concerns about forward basing and Dave B being the heir to Harrier - nothing whatsoever about any part of the F-35 programme says you'll be able to run this aircraft from a field with a portakabin and a bag of spanners.

my fear is that we'll buy an aircraft that doesn't need the things you can find anywhere or can build easily (great big strips of concrete or pierced steel matting), but does need the things that are like rocking horse **** in these 'austere' locations, namely a surgically clean, sealed environment with enough IT to cater for the porn usage of the entire British Army.

seems a bit 'arse about face' to me...

Pardon......:eek:

Well, if that's true....this is no Harrier replacement, and will be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Pouring concrete to that spec and to the thickness that would be reqd for 100' x 100' cont is a serious undertaking in a benign home base enviroment.... let alone in a FOB 'field' enviroment :ugh:

I believe the whole F35B STOVL concept for austere ops is flawed. F35B could not have gone to Kandahar in 2005 as the Harriers did, as its STOVL ops would have destroyed what little surface was actually usable - not to mention wrecking the airframes' stealth characteristics through FOD impacts. If bespoke reinforced concrete mixes are required for pads, what chance would MEXE or a third-world rough strip have? Even using rolling vertical landings would submit the surfaces to extreme treatment.

IMHO the UK's stance on F35B comes down to the following factors:
1) Choosing the same variant as the USMC, as they're the only US service fanatical about actually getting the F35. This increases our chances of eventually receiving some ourselves. The USAF would probably bin F35A for more F22 if they were pushed, and the USN would be happy with a load more F/A18 instead of being sole customers for the F35C (which has a different airframe to the A and B models).
2) Lots of lovely workshare and technology showcasing in the lift fan
3) Lots of Harrier pilots involved in the project who already know that STOVL is the answer, and offers a perfect chance to get bums-on-seats for their mates (having noticed with envy how the Jag force managed to 'own' the Typhoon stand-up).

Operating site flexibility B versus C
 

Chaps

I did not mean to stir up the whole austere site B/Harrier thing.

I suggested – and I stand by it – that the B has more operating site flexibility than the C. At sea it can be flown from smaller and simpler ships and ashore it needs less space to operate. Given the way the future never works out as the planners would wish I think those are useful characteristics for the UK.

My term ‘operating site flexibility’ should not be taken as code for something else or as jargon implying the flexibility of past Harrier ops.

Thanks, JF - I would not want to be on the other side of a STOVL debate with you.

I believe that it would have been better to focus on a real "Harrier replacement" oriented towards CAS, battlefield interdiction and air defense. (A STOVL equivalent of Gripen.) But back in the early 1990s, Lockheed sold the Marines and the Pentagon on the idea that they could get that, plus stealth, in an F-18C-sized package for less money, by combining it with the AF and Navy programs. Everyone bought into the deal and here we are...

If going down the JSF purchase route, why not split the purchase 50/50 B & C, you then get the best of both worlds and added flexibility for when either V/stol or long leg missions are required.

For all the original talk, commonality of parts between the B and C models is down to 10-20%. With a total buy of around 69 aircraft it's just not logistically or fiscally feasible.

So the compromise is flexibility vs capability.

What's more important?

I doubt that future strike ucavs are going to be v/stol capable, will this influence carrier design and therefore jsf type?

To quote Barry Norman, "And Why Not?" Maybe not a Taranis or X-47B Pegasus-sized UCAV, and I guess it depends on US DoD funding or whether LockMart plans to fund it itself, but this beast might be ideal for the CVFs if they remain as they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=vUpMG-KN7Pg#!

PP - 'Flexibility vs Capability'.

how much more - in real world terms - flexible do we think Dave B is really going to be than Dave C, or Dave A, or F/A-18, Tornado or F-16?

if, as is suggested further up the thread, Dave B could not have operated from Kandahar when GR9 first did, why are we buying this version?

does 'austere' in LM parlance actually mean RAF Lossiemouth?

There's a long list of pros and cons in making the choice between STOVL and cat and trap. It's not just a question of austere basing, but (as I understand it) a shedload of other factors like sortie rates and the sea states you can operate in. I suspect it was also felt that continuing with STOVL operations would be more straightforward and lower risk than getting back into the cat and trap game from scratch.

Then again there's a downside in terms of cost and other aspects of performance such as range.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages and how you view it depends on which factors you see as most important.

OOP's
 

F-35 alternate engine damaged after high-speed anomaly

single seat, single engine bla bla bla.:rolleyes:

So a new engine on a test bed has had a hiccup; what's the big deal ?!

SDSR – ‘Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends’
September 25, 2010
by Alexander Clarke

Contributing Author: Dr Duncan Redford
Introduction

‘Many of our allies still consider Britain to be a maritime power – even if we don’t’

The Strategic Defence and Security Review will ensure that Britain’s Armed Forces end up looking very different from today. Getting the balance right between short, medium and long-term threats, commitments, orders of battle, procurement plans and the desires of each of the three Services will be difficult. One issue that encapsulates the hard decisions that will be taken is debate over whether Britain should keep the two aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.

The carriers are a key component of a vital aspect of maritime strategy – the balanced fleet. A balanced fleet combines different capabilities rather than concentrate on one. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, able to deal with a very wide range of threats and tasks, from high-intensity war-fighting to disaster relief or anti-piracy operations – and everything in between.
A Balanced Fleet

As a result a balanced fleet is not irrelevant today, nor will it be in the future; it has a structural agility that allows it to meet a wide range of strategic scenarios. The flexibility of a balanced fleet – and the new aircraft carriers – allows Britain to insure against strategic shocks.

The Royal Navy has been accused of living in the past, or pursuing an “exorbitant quest” for these two new ships. So why are these two ships so important to the Navy? What can aircraft carriers do that makes them so important to Britain? In one sentence: almost everything a government could desire from its armed forces.
Military Role of the Carrier

The carriers will be able to play a major part in defending Britain’s global maritime and national interests, be they oil rigs, energy supplies, merchant ships, or the massive amount of British trade moved by sea. These carriers will support British diplomacy and deter aggressors, as well as protecting the other ships of the Navy from attack by submarines, surface ships and aircraft.

They will be the main means of attacking enemy naval, land and air forces in support of our government’s security objectives – “power projection”. They can support land forces carrying out counter-insurgency operations – as aircraft from American carriers in the Indian Ocean are doing over Afghanistan – or high-intensity operations if required. These ships will act as the command and control centres not just for naval forces, but also for operations involving all three Services.

The carriers can, in conjunction with the Navy’s amphibious ships and the Royal Marines, act as a mobile base from which land forces can operate against an enemy – terrorist or state – without the political, financial, diplomatic and military cost of basing troops on land, where they are constantly exposed to every means of attack. More importantly, the threat of being able to do all these things – especially when backed up by a “balanced” fleet, gives a prime minister a great deal of political choice about how Britain’s interests are to be protected.
Further Roles

But the fighting aspects of the aircraft carriers are only one part of the naval power that they represent. There are also the “softer” functions, which are just as vital as the high-intensity war-fighting. From disaster relief, anti-piracy, counter-narcotics, helping to implement UN sanctions, or evacuating stranded British civilians from war zones and natural disasters, to naval diplomacy, these ships – and the wider Navy they are a part of – will be able to provide massive support to British interests around the globe – sometimes through just being there; showing that Britain is interested in events in that region, or that we support a particular country.
Political Power

Using aircraft carriers means that the UK doesn’t have to worry about basing rights, over-flight agreements, or other states allowing us access across their territory. Carriers and the Navy give Britain independence of action if needed, and also make her a valuable ally. This isn’t about old-fashioned “gunboat diplomacy” – it is far more subtle; about the unspoken messages that navies, especially aircraft carriers as the pinnacle of maritime power, can send.

A navy capable of operating at a global level with carriers at its core will be a powerful “naval diplomacy” tool. It can move at 500 miles a day between trouble spots and loiter out of sight until needed. It can deploy for months without the need for land-based support. It can operate overtly in sight of a coast line to reassure the friendly or deter an aggressor; the strategic flexibility and mobility inherent in maritime forces gives politicians options, not dead ends. It can visit ports and countries to show support for British interests, to build good will and understanding, or to aid the civil authorities. It can be used to promote alliances by working with friendly navies; it can build trust with former enemies by allowing ships to exercise together without the potential political problems of land-based operations.

The carriers are also a symbolic commitment by Britain that says it values maritime issues and the Royal Navy in particular. It is a commitment to a very public form of international prestige and national power – carriers divide nations into those that have them and those who will end up wishing they did. After all, when Tony Blair was prime minister it is said that his first question regarding the British response to an international incident or crisis was always “Where is our aircraft carrier?”
Cost-effectiveness

Critics of the new carriers are quick to point at the cost. However, to get out of the contract will cost £2.3 billion which, as these ships will only cost £44 million a year to operate, is more than will be spent on them in their entire working lives. It has been suggested that money could be saved by reducing the number of aircraft or making them less capable. Having fewer aircraft actually wastes the investment in the carriers – it’s like buying a tank but never buying shells for the gun. As to having less capable aircraft, that is already happening. The version of the Joint Strike Fighter we are buying, the F35B vertical/short take-off and landing model which is slated for the carriers, has less range and a smaller payload than the conventional naval “C” variant the Americans are buying; the “C” variant is also about £25 million cheaper per aircraft.

If Britain wants to save money in the carrier programme, fit them with catapults, arrester gear and buy the F35C, not vertical/short take-off version. These carriers represent excellent value for money – probably more so than many other British or European defence projects in the past 20 years. The commitment Britain shows to its maritime position through the carriers and the concept of having a balanced Navy is valuable. In an age where Britain will need the support of allies to further its foreign and security policy, it makes sense to contribute to such alliances as Nato or the EU in the most effective manner to ensure our voice is heard.
European and World Standing

Many of our allies still consider Britain to be a maritime power – even if we don’t – and given the contribution Britain makes to maritime forces available to the European members of Nato, it is easy to see why they think we are. Britain is ranked first in its contribution of nuclear powered hunter-killer attack submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and at-sea replenishment vessels to keep the fleet supplied wherever it is in the world; it ranks second in terms of helicopter assault ships – “commando carriers” and air-defence destroyers; third in anti-submarine or general purpose frigates; and fourth in mine-sweeping and mine-hunting ships – which does not reflect the qualitative and quantitative superiority over many ships in other EU and Nato navies. Importantly, given the small numbers of ships involved, scrapping one or two ships could have a massive impact not only on Britain’s capabilities, our international credibility and the value of our support to our allies, but also that of Nato and the EU.
Way Ahead

If Britain wants to sit back and let the world come to us, inflexible and immobile, chained to our island, then cancel the carriers and continue decimating the Royal Navy. On the other hand, if Britain wants to be a part of the global community, it will need a capable Navy to promote and defend its interests around the world – and that means it will need aircraft carriers. For hundreds of years and until quite recently almost the entire country believed that “It is upon the Navy… that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly depend”; there is still a great deal of truth in that statement today.

SDSR – ‘Carriers give politicians options ? not dead ends’ The Phoenix Think Tank

F-35 grounded to fix new software problem
"All flights in short take-off and vertical landing mode are also suspended after a post-flight inspection on the BF-1 flight test aircraft detected an "issue" with the auxiliary inlet door hinge located immediately aft of the lift fan.

Lockheed is still working to identify the root cause of the auxiliary inlet door hinge issue that has stopped all STOVL-mode tests.

The STOVL-capable F-35B has to complete at least 50 vertical landings to clear the flight envelope to launch a series of shipboard tests scheduled in March 2011. Completing shipboard testing is critical to meeting the US Marine Corp's plan to enter service with the F-35B in December 2012.

The software-based grounding and the STOVL restrictions mean the F-35B could fall further behind schedule with two years left to stand up the first operational unit for the USMC."

F-35 grounded to fix new software problem