|
Navalised Typhoon - some zombies just won't die, will they? If it's good for BAE, it's good for the military :ok: |
As i reacall SRVL trials were done, very successfully, on the Charles De Gaul with the VAAC.
All of that work then went into the F35B flying control software. Hopefully Hammond is actually getting his information by reading the reports of the guys at Patuxent River who are flying the B and the C side by side 6 days a week. We have had RN and RAF engineers maintaining these jets since they left the factory who can tell Hammond exactly which is more reliable and serviceable from day to day. However, unlike Panetta, he has not visited to get the truth straight from the horses mouth. As such he is relying on senior military people who may, or may not, have an agenda one way or the other. |
There are clearly valid arguments at the technical and operational level for both the B and the C.
However, let's look at the level up from that. Even the JSF's best friends cannot argue that the program has shown any signs of stability in terms of IOT&E completion, which, while it may not determine IOC, is a very big component of it. As for production schedules, rates and costs, the program of record rests on some big assumptions about partner willingness to pay pre-full-rate prices (for more than a few training jets) and about the ability of US budgets beyond the current FYDP to pay the bills. Now add the upcoming election (House, Senate, White House) and the resulting sequestration deal. Can anyone, anywhere, guarantee that F-35B/C will survive, or stay on their current schedule? What are the odds of a divergence from the current program? Conversely, there are two proven CATOBAR jets available/under upgrade today, and there will be two in 2020 (unless MMRCA falls apart and Saab snags Brazil). You've got to ask yourself one question. Mr Hammond: Do I feel lucky? PS Engines: "Three wheels on my wagon" was a staple of BBC's Saturday morning kids' radio show for many years. A saga of unquenchable optimism in the face of rapidly worsening reality, it joins "Wreck of the Ol'97" in my list of great defense-procurement-related lyrics. |
However, unlike Panetta, he has not visited to get the truth straight from the horses mouth. As such he is relying on senior military people who may, or may not, have an agenda one way or the other. |
LO,
I'm on your page, the sequester looks more and more likely to swing into action, especially if Obama wins; in which case, the B is history and the C will, in my opinion, be lucky to enter service within the next decade. I just don't get the impression that 8 weeks will be enough for the US government to come to an agreement that doesn't involve further defence cuts - the democrats don't seem to be all that bothered by the prospect of deeper defence cuts and the republicans are completely rigid in their opposition to any tax rises. The F35 is an almighty target. I wonder, if the sequester does take effect, will the US compensate a B/C unavailability with a rock-bottom deal for one of their chopped carrier air wing's aircraft...like a harrier deal in reverse? |
see the Indians are starting to practice deck landings with Mig-29's.....
|
Bastardeux - I believe some senior defense type was quoted the other week as saying: "We know sequester won't happen. We don't know how it won't happen".
That is, it will take a budget deal but that will depend on who wins what in November. |
Sharkey Ward vents his opinion on the JSF and more specifically the Bae role
in all this according to this blogger. http://snafu-solomon.********.com/20...-anti-jsf.html Reference the F 35 programme as a whole, you say, " If we pull out, British industry (mainly but far from exclusively BAE's) will cease to be a tier one partner. At present we get 15% of the entire JSF business. Its value is around £40 billion.” If we don't place an order for the F 35 this year, we shall no longer be a Tier 1 partner. I think you will agree that ANY ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT DECISION on procurement of this aircraft should not be made until risks, timescales and procurement costs are clearly known. Or do you wished to be tarred by the same brush with which you attack Gordon Brown's administration? I think you should take the blinkers off and have the Chairman of British Aerospace Systems and his associates removed from all teams that privately advise the Prime Minister and other Ministers. BAE is a major corporation with much of its business and employees overseas (particularly in the USA). To say that, " We could in theory still bid for small ad hoc bits of the project, but it would in practice be THE DEATH KNELL of the (large scale) aerospace industry in the UK." is a complete exaggeration - and a misguided one at that! Are not the 175,000 personnel actively serving in our armed forces more important to the defence and security of this nation than an aerospace company that over charges on every project and underperforms on every project? (What say you to the insider information that the Eurofighter radomes are now cracking up and falling off in the air during manoeuvre? Another real design problem that you can blame on BAE - not to mention many others including the Tornado F3 weapons system, Nimrod’s total lack of airworthiness and maintainability, the huge cost of maintaining Tornado GR4 in service, the inability of the Storm Shadow missile to guide properly to its target or for its warhead to work correctly, etc.) “But the F35 problems – though real – are being exaggerated, and no one anywhere in their political or military set up has shown us the slightest doubt that it will come about.” Where on earth have you been for the last few months? The latest GAO report and earlier DOD report as well as many articles from Pentagon-based journalists all demonstrate that the F 35 programme is in critical shape and will never meet expectations on cost or performance. 80% of development testing remains to be completed and the USA is unable to predict any firm Initial Operating Capability for any of the three variants. For you to say, “And we took delivery of our first one this month – without fanfare.” is bogus spin! The aircraft in question is part of the development programme. It does not in any sense represent an operational aircraft. On paper, it belongs to the UK because the UK has had to put money into the project. You should not read any more into the delivery of the aircraft than that. If you do you are deluding yourself. The US Marine Corps is NOT in exactly the same position as we are reference to the STOVL. They will continue to operate their multirole Harrier aircraft until at least 2025, they plan to procure 60 F-35C aircraft for air defence and a deep strike and THEY ARE NOW LOOKING AT HOW THEY CAN ADAPT THEIR AMPHIBIOUS CARRIERS WHICH OPERATE THE HARRIER AND WOULD OPERATE THE STOVL AIRCRAFT FOR THE OPERATION OF NON-STOVL AIRCRAFT. “The EMALS technology is completely new and unproven, and has been designed for a 100,000 ton ship. When they have perfected it for that, they then have to decide how to redesign it for a 65,000 ton ship. Using as my reference point the absurd sums paid for other defence equipment (monopoly supplier and monopsony purchaser!) I am not altogether surprised that it is costing almost £1 billion, nor that the carrier alliance will chalk up £750 million completely redesigning and rebuilding the ship to accommodate it.” You are wrong to say that the EMALS system will have to be redesigned for the Queen Elizabeth class carrier. That is not the case at all. It is working well and has been designed for easy unit by unit installation into a carrier deck - whether that is the deck of a 65,000 ton ship or 100,000 ton ship. If your government is to be accountable it should take serious note of “the absurd sums paid for other defence equipment (monopoly supplier and monopsony purchaser!)” [BRITISH AEROSPACE SYSTEMS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE!] and prevent BAe from taking our government and our armed forces to the cleaners on all aspects of defence related costs! Again, I say to you, BAE were contracted to design the ships to take into account the fitting of catapults and arresting gear. FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, START HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE OR THIS GOVERNMENT WILL BECOME A COMPLETE LAUGHINGSTOCK! Yes, Gordon Brown may have made mistakes and may be culpable as a lackey of the unions but does your government now wish to be seen in the same light as a lackey of British Aerospace Systems? disclaimer; I know not everybody likes him, but it's an informed opinon nonetheless, take it for what it's worth. |
Of course I will disagree.....not because I am biased but because your argument is wrong.
Widger I don't think that you can say the way Harrier was operated from "carriers" would be the way that F35 would be from the QE class. The huge difference is that the Harrier GR was thrown in late on in life - with F35 it can be planned from the start. Everyone can go to F35 with an understanding of what is required from them, fundamentally different to some guy who "didn't sign up to be on a bloody boat". The point is, that for the QE class to be operationally effective, you need to have a weapon system, (which is all that F35 is) onboard when you need it. That means the whole system operational from the stick monkey, to the chock head. That takes time and must be continually practiced. With limited number of airframes, that challenge becomes even more difficult as you cannot just 'roule' squadrons through the platform. To do other wise is like deploying a soldier without a rifle or body armour......oh! At the end of the day there needs to be an assessment (I really don't want to call it a TNA) and the secret is to find the right balance of what has been done before and what new technology enables. This would then drive how much time is needed on board, in the sim or on a dummy deck etc. You then flex this depending on defence need - if we need aircraft in afghan for another 15 years then you lean carrier training as much as possible. If we are going to the Falklands which has been taken because everyone was drunk on Friday night, then you major on carrier ops (or lots and lots of tanking!). With F35C, you could do as the USN has for years and support the 'Stan' from the sea, without the need for HNS. You cannot do Maritime 'part-time'. When the need arises, you need a operationally effective unit. Yes it takes time to transit to various parts of the world but, that time can be used for final operational training, not training the pilots how to do a recovery in IMC without the availability of a diversion. My personal opinion is that the RN will simply have the attitude that they are Naval Power assets and should be on the carrier whatever and will be extremely reticent to let them go elsewhere. I have seen this attitude again and again with the RN - they are extremely protectionist. By contrast the RAF will simply look how best to employ Air Power in a given situation. But I am sure you will disagree. The RN has learnt to its cost, time and again since 1979, of the Defence stupidity of getting rid of its carriers, with the associated very capable aircraft (F4/Buccaneer/Gannet). Tactical Support to maritime Operations (TASMO) was a downright lie and never worked outside UK home waters or within a hour's flight of Singapore! In almost every campaign since 1979, the RN has come up against the limitations of the Invicible class and Harrier (Falklands, GW1, GW2, Adriatic), with the limits on numbers of FE@R capable of being carried, limits of MTOW, Bring-back, hot and high performance, range etc. They (RN and RAF) did a fantastic job making the most of the aircraft but, it was always a compromise, one which meant that the real benefit of Carrier based Air Power has been lost on a generation of both the public and UK Service Personnel, hence some of the rubbish spouted on here and other forums. QEC will enable the operation of air platforms, not just F35, the capability of which will not have been seen since 1979 in the UK. The only question, is what aircraft/UAVs will operate off the vessels and can they be afforded. Your comment that the RAF will simply look how best to employ Air Power is not worth justifying with an answer. |
OK, stupid question time (and I know there's already been a few of those).
If we go for the -C, then why would we need to spend copious amounts of fg hours practising landings? The key here is automation - even existing US carriers have an autoland capability - they just never use it. But we're culturally slowly coming round to the understanding that we are operating plenty of unstable jets that are unflyable if enough computers fail - so you build in redundancy. So, why should not every future F-35C carrier landing be 'hands-off'? (I understand there'll be a need for deck handling practice - but you could achieve that with non-flyable replicas!) |
I have a feeling you are vastly overestimating the capabilities of the current level of technology when it comes to autoland reliability and competence in the more adverse conditions.
Up until today there still is no substitute for that computer between our ears for complex tasks as this. |
Widger
Apart from the Falklands when have British interests been seriously at risk due to a lack of thru deck carriers? I can't think of another one.................. The trouble is too many Admirals think they have to be a mini-USN - they want carriers AND SSN subs AND SSBN subs I think two out of three ain't bad...................... |
I think sssetowtf makes some very valid arguments in favour of -b being a 'not bad' solution. If that's all we can afford, let's have it.
As for sharky - what exactly does he want & what is his point? Is he really saying no jsf won't affect uk industry? Thank heavens no one now seems to take him seriously - the level of bile suggests a serious lack of judgement & objectivity. |
Actually within his rant I see some of his bull****ting antics of old flaring up again:
What say you to the insider information that the Eurofighter radomes are now cracking up and falling off in the air during manoeuvre? not to mention many others including the Tornado F3 weapons system Nimrod’s total lack of airworthiness and maintainability the huge cost of maintaining Tornado GR4 in service the inability of the Storm Shadow missile to guide properly to its target or for its warhead to work correctly, etc |
Widger Apart from the Falklands when have British interests been seriously at risk due to a lack of thru deck carriers? I said that the RN has learnt to its cost, time and again the limitations of Through Deck Cruisers operating Harrier (RN or RAF variety). The CVS were compromised operating as anything other than ASW platforms and the Harrier was compromised by operating from it. The 'delta' (horrible term) between the Invincible Class and the likes of HMS Ark Royal of the 1970s, is huge! In every area of conflict since 1979, the RN could have played a much bigger and more effective role, in support of wider Defence, than it has done. My point about the utility of Air Power from the sea, being lost on a generation, is clearly summed up by your post. QEC will be a National asset that will be able to fulfill a very large number of Defence tasks. This is something that a previous poster has alluded to. QEC will be able to sail into a port and exert Defence Diplomacy for friendly nations. (Yes including hosting the Cocktail party that some posters mock but fail to understand that value of). That same ship will be able to poise of a coast for weeks, without the need for Host Nation Support or having to negotiate/cajole/argue with a 'friendly' state to base its aircraft there. QEC will be able to exert influence over most areas of the world. The weapon systems onboard, will be able to strike, defend, gather intelligence, provide support etc, all for weeks on end with minimal physical or cultural footprint. QEC will be able to protect the interests of the UK in all those areas of the world where it still has an interest...those same areas also holding reserves of minerals etc. which in years to come, will be the UK's children's inheritance. QEC will be able to operate helicopters, provide disaster relief, evacuate citizens, (without having to rely on Cyprus), provide medical facilities, engineering, rest and recuperation for troops, etc etc etc. It will be excellent value for money and all of a sudden, the UK will have a very 'in demand' capability. The issue is........what to fly off it and can the UK afford those aircraft? :ok: All spelling mistakes are because Eastenders is on and I have fat fingers. |
Apart from the Falklands when have British interests been seriously at risk due to a lack of thru deck carriers? I can't think of another one.................. I would suggest we forget what uniform we wear and ask what operations would have been easier if we had still had a carrier capability be it through deck or conventional. |
ORAC - I quite agree that when it comes to F35 or something else the flight test guys are not objective. However, when it comes to a decision between B and C they are, as they have worked on both, are all experienced on other types and can offer comparitive opinions accordingly.
|
Originally Posted by White Overalls
However, when it comes to a decision between B and C they are, as they have worked on both, are all experienced on other types and can offer comparitive opinions accordingly.
I ask this question because of the experience, knowledge and most important, expertise of these pilots in the area of carrier operations. It has been stated elsewhere that we have Royal Navy pilots flying the F-18 from the decks of US carriers, these pilots will have expert knowledge of both conventional carrier operations and STOVL, surely if we are seeking opinions from pilots then these are the very best people to offer that advice? They may well have flown the SHAR as well as the latest Harriers so have an all round picture to compare the advantages, disadvantages of various types. what experience do the current UK pilots of the F-35B have to fall back on regarding conventional carrier ops vs STOVL? This is not a silly case of trying to score points, it is a sensible question asking about the expertise of pilots who are no doubt highly experienced, highly qualified and well respected RAF pilots, but what experience do they have to answer questions regarding suitability of aircraft for carrier operations? Why did we not put a Fleet Air Arm pilot into this first aircraft if we are still undecided and need expert information to help answer any outstanding questions? |
Glojo - I don't carry a flag for any specific service
My point is that we can't continue to act as if we have the resources of the USA - those days ended around 1945 We keep trying to develop/buy lots of kit that quite simply we cannot afford We need to decide a) how much of the budget should be ring fenced for defence b) what we can get for that money For the last 60 years defence has been demand driven - I'm afraid that is no longer possible and somethings are going to have to give |
Glojo - I don't carry a flag for any specific service My point is that we can't continue to act as if we have the resources of the USA - those days ended around 1945 The principal difference between the UK and USA IN 2012, is they don't spend anything like the amount we do on state provision. I believe there may be a balance somewhere in between, but to run again another line,always dressed up as "time for a few hard facts of life about our position in the world today" is not an eye opener, nor was it ever. We're still about the 7th richest nation on the planet. What we do have is the worst possible value for money in terms of quantity of men and machines from the defence budget. Furthermore, the F35 looks increasingly like a serious future defence arrangement fiasco not just for us but for all involved. FB:) |
What we do have is the worst possible value for money in terms of quantity of men and machines from the defence budget. Personally I think that some of the MoD standards are too high in terms of the performance vs cost trade-off, and I don't think I am alone, but generally I would choose the better quality because we take fewer casualties that way. I note that we learned a lot of expensive (in every way) lessons in 1982, many that have not been learned in other forces. To my mind, one of those was the need for good AEW- hence I vote CATOBAR |
FB,
Thank god, somebody else that isn't mired in pessimism; the way people are thinking at the moment, we're going to talk ourselves into a never-ending recession. Contrary to popular opinion, there will come a day when things start to get better and we'll be in a better financial position; in comparison to the history of our country, it's a few seconds on the clock With regards to America's bottomless pit of money, well even that is myth; racking up debt at a rate of $1.5 trillion a year is going to come round and bite them in the ass in a very, very big way - hence my extreme distrust of the -B surviving. |
Gentlemen,
Would you please kindly note I have not mentioned owt about post war, pre war, what we can afford, or what we cannot afford... my question was.. If we are going to ask the end user for their expert opinion regarding suitability of which aircraft may, or may not be better suited to the carrier role, should we be looking toward UK pilots that have expertise in both STOVL operations from carriers plus conventional catapult and arrester wire launches and recovery. I'm sure I have read somewhere that we do have Fleet Air Arm pilots qualified in both types and should these be the folks we should be listening to PURELY from the operational aspect of this decision. |
Words can't describe my amusement at yet another rant by the man 'Sharkey' himself - aka 'Angry from Grenada'... perhaps too much sun, rum and Patrick O'Brian like his colleagues-in-arms at the Phoenix Think Tank.
If we don't place an order for the F 35 this year, we shall no longer be a Tier 1 partner What say you to the insider information that the Eurofighter radomes are now cracking up and falling off in the air during manoeuvre? The aircraft in question is part of the development programme. It does not in any sense represent an operational aircraft On paper, it belongs to the UK because the UK has had to put money into the project THEY ARE NOW LOOKING AT HOW THEY CAN ADAPT THEIR AMPHIBIOUS CARRIERS WHICH OPERATE THE HARRIER AND WOULD OPERATE THE STOVL AIRCRAFT FOR THE OPERATION OF NON-STOVL AIRCRAFT Widger, I agree that if we were just buying a Carrier Strike asset here then a total weapon system approach to the training, ownership and operation would favour the RN, however I fear that isn't the way its going to go now. The future desire for JSF for UK will likely need a 'carrier capable' platform that won't break the bank in the near-term and that will replace an ageing jet fleet (i.e. GR4) In terms of range and payload this puts favour back in the operating flexibility and basing availability of the F-35B (assuming EMALS on QE is too much ££) and I agree with SSSETOWTF's points that back up the STOVL variant's strengths. The money isn't there to really leap to F-35C now. We've just gone back into recession. Tewkesbury has the RN's only serviceable SSN conducting 'aid to the Civil Authorities' as we speak and the Govt has more important issues to hand than the rantings of bitter old Admirals and authors of 'I alone saved The Falklands' books. Just sayin' Oh, by the way: I'm sure I have read somewhere that we do have Fleet Air Arm pilots qualified in both types and should these be the folks we should be listening to PURELY from the operational aspect of this decision |
Gentlemen, Would you please kindly note I have not mentioned owt about post war, pre war, what we can afford, or what we cannot afford... FB |
Perhaps one for ICBM and SSSEOWTF:
Exactly how deployable and flexible is the F35B? I have in one mind's eye Harrier Ops of camouflaged hides and the chaps ready to stand to with blunt bayonet and sad shaking of head from RAF Regt Sgt. Meanwhile the conventional air force is being bombed in its HAS or has its runway cratered. Great use of flexible asset. Fast forward half a century. In my other mind's eye I have a highly sophisticated machine that can land in a small space/ on a small strip then await the C-130 / C-17 with countless containers of kit, mission planner, miscellaneous 'plane-talks-to-maintainer' computer, squipper lorry for care of that wonderful looking helmet etc. Meanwhile the conventional airforce is a good 100 nm back happy as Larry and the CVN boys are somewhere in their (not fixed, quite hard to find and sink) platform using their extra 300 nm of range to good effect and stepping ashore to well found airfields when it suits them. Not an F35B expert, hence asking the experts' advice. Regards, orca. |
Hi FB,
No problem :ok::) |
RLE - Actually, that's not a stupid question at all. It's one that is very difficult to answer.
Let's take two propositions. One, a Super Hornet doesn't land without a whole bunch of smart computing that interprets "where pilot wants to go" in terms of "flap this and adjust that". The F-35C is slightly more so, and I'd argue that one reason that the B is considered easy to operate at sea is that it has a whole bunch of extra control effectors which allow the whole operation to take place step by step - stop, sidestep, land - at the pilot's pace. All this is done by computers that are designed so that a catastrophic failure is about as rare as the wing falling off. Two, we pretty much know how to use GPS to determine the relative position of two objects (for instance, the center of the three wire and the end of the tailhook) within a matter of inches. Also with good reliability, particularly in an area where there are few obstructions to seeing satellites (for instance, 60 feet up in the middle of the ocean). So basically, I tell the computer on the airplane: Here is projected position of wire when you get there, and I update this at up to 100 Hz. At computer clock speeds, this makes a CV landing like watching paint dry. And of course, back in the 1960s and 1970s, we knew how to make commercial aircraft with passengers on board land automatically in zero visibility (and then realized that the exercise was a bit pointless since nobody could drive to the airport anyway). The basic problem is this: Are you so sure that you will always have autoland that you can do without the manual element and the associated training? |
Good job no-one has worked out how to jam GPS.
What? They have? Oh. |
Orca,
Surely a man of your pedigree cannot deny the basing availability or flexibility offered by a STOVL platform? It was the very reason GR7 and, later, the GR9 were in AFG first, and for such a relatively long tenure for a start. Having 200nm of extra range is very nice and I still believe the C would be the right platform in some (not all) cases. Cost, Schedule and Performance are normally prioritised in that order when things start getting hard for programme management. If cost wasn't an issue for CVF (which it is!) and an issue for JSF (which it is!) we'd have the lot, on time no doubt. Sadly the Defence Board is faced with losing one if a change is not made - e.g keep F-35C but lose one or both CVF. Keep the carriers but maintain the original plan/requirement. Lesser of two evils. Deploy 'ability'? Good point. Hopping a C ashore would present the same issue but you can't do it easily from a CVF autonomously because you won't have the sort of lift platforms to haul the support eqpt 200nm to the FOB. It comes down to what you want to do and for how long. I join the many on this thread eager to hear the imminent decision and reasons why. Hopefully it will allow the fine people working hard on delivering the aircraft to get on with it with some stability. |
ICBM,
I would love to agree with you. Flying off small strips etc was really good fun and gave us a really flexible option. As you say it allowed us to operate from KAF for the years that no-one else in the UK inventory could. But the Harrier (1 and 2) were made for the job and worst case you could operate with a bowser and a truckload of KRETs with one weapon hoist. I now stray from the bit I consider myself an expert in to the bit I don't. I suspect that the F-35B cannot do 'bare base' the way the Harrier could because of what you have to take with you, what kit you wear and what bombs you drop. I might be wrong, but you're only as flexible as what ever brings your kit behind you, and you're only ready to go on the timeline that your support assets can meet. So I can see (and fondly remember) the utopia of unsupported ops, but think we need to be careful looking forward when we could be comparing apples and oranges. It might be that if the C-17 is u/s or the strip is 10ft shorter than the C-130 can accept, or the maintainers left the spgr for the bombs behind....you get the idea...that 'flexibility' might not be the same with such a high tec beast. Flying off roads is cool. Being u/s on a road because the jet can't start before it chats to Fort Worth isn't. (Don't know if this is a possibility but you get the idea) Of course I could be wrong which is why I asked. Now. You raise a very valid point. This all needs sorting out once and for all, then it all becomes irrelevant. One would have thought that if SDSR was done properly and if all the guesses about costs had actually been estimates and if ACA had actually designed the flexible design all those years ago....if, if, if...we wouldn't be in this sorry a##ed mess. For all those involved in the CVF, JCA and SDSR programmes undoubted hard work we have created a saga you simply wouldn't believe if you saw it in print. I also tend to have a lot of sympathy with the 'we'll make it work' chain of thought. Because we will. But in my mind, one variant will be alright for a small island nation, the other will be a world beater. |
ICBM, Orca
Do we know that the £1.8Bn is a valid ACA cost estimate? I repeat, the hardware cost of EMALS and AAG are known. The "unknowns" are : 1. Integrating the EMALS/AAG into the ship power management system. The whole system cost less than £100M, so worst case, that's your cost. 2. EMI/EMC with the ships local systems - possibly an issue, but tbc. 3. What on earth at least 12 million manhours (the difference twixt hardware costs and "the cost") could credibly be spent on? One point - the "flexible design" was never meant to have a full detailed design for exact installation of the cat n'trap systems in it - apart from anything else the ITAR issues prevented that until the FMS approval. The point of the flexible design was to ensure that the deck was big enough and with area in the correct places to allow an angled deck, there was sufficient "free" space in the gallery deck to fit the below deck systems and that there was sufficient provision in the weight / stability budget to allow for heavy cats etc up top. If those elements had not been in the design from the off, then we would not be having this debate. |
Orca me old, we both remember those days in the same vein. You'd be forgiven for questioning the deployability of all the F-35 variants in the same breath. The contracted hardware is cumbersome. The follow on solution will, neigh Shall, be more man-portable and LM acknowledge this. Timeline for delivery of a solution was post-SDD and that is a moveable feast. But, what can be changed to make the best of the SDD deliverable has been looked at in depth. You don't need to hook the jet up to Ft Worth to conduct a turn-round quite like some people believe. It is scenario dependant and chimes back to what you want to do when deployed and for how long. Squirt of gas, onward to your mission? Stay and operate for a week, a month, longer? As you and I both know, everything has always hinged around that.
The jet has its own in-built hoists for weapon loading; just one such example of an efficiency. Others include the diagnostics on board. NaB. The numbers (means) are always cooked to achieve the desired ends. Such was the case with GR9 vs GR4. Such will be the case with -C vs -B and EMALS. It should come as no surprise that the UK Govt are about to make a U-turn to STOVL and blame cost. |
Which brings us back to "whose ends" are best served by fraudulent cost estimates?
|
I assume the £1.8Bn could include costs for delays - interest on capital etc. so could be including various issues driven by the conversion decision.
It would be interesting to know how much of the F35B and F35C cost goes into the UK defence industry - and hence is also recouped as tax (if any). I wonder for example if the RR workshare in the lift fan more than compensates for the extra cost. What level of tax is typically paid on US acquisitions of this type? PS orca - google 'crpa' for one well established jamming solution |
Cost of capital can't be more than £100m at the very extreme. Workshare offsets are not a "cost" of the ship conversion, which is what the £1.8Bn is billed as. Delays at this stage for PoW "ought" to be minimal.
12 Million+ manhours is simply not credible. Someone somewhere is making it up. Endex. |
" Which brings us back to "whose ends" are best served by fraudulent cost estimates? "
" 12 Million+ manhours is simply not credible. Someone somewhere is making it up. Endex." NaB, I have to take issue with those. As I am sure you're aware, there is no such thing as an accurate estimate. Estimates are, well, estimates. The credibility or otherwise is entirely due to the quality of the data, assumptions and risks used in whichever methodology is used to derive the estimate. The team doing the QEC costings sit just down the floorplate from me and I know that they take great care to produce rigorous outputs. The amount of scrutiny that is applied these days ensures that. The use to which the estimates are put following delivery to the customer is another thing entirely. Lies, damn lies and statistics come to mind. P.S Cost of Capital Charge under RAB was removed from April 2010 |
Gents,
In my limited experience, it is very easy to overlook the amount of effort it takes to fully engineer what would, at first glance, seem to be relatively trivial changes. When all we wanted to do was move a couple of lights around on the QE to tweak the Bedford array for SRVL the price was huge - because all the ripple through of all the sub-structure and wiring changes was significant. It's easy to think that you just go out and buy an EMALS shipset for 400 million, get out your arc welder, bodge it on for a few million more and off you go. I don't pretend to have the foggiest idea about ship-building but I doubt it's that simple. You're assuming the deck's sub-structure was perfectly and fully designed for the EMALS and arrestor gear and their mounting points (or whatever you call the things that you use to attach a piece of equipment that is designed to accelerate or decelerate 25 tones of aircraft in a couple of seconds to/from 150 knots). But you also have to bodge on an LSO platform somewhere and all their comms requirements, move all the lights that were set up for SRVL onto the angled flight deck, and I shudder to think of what you have to do with things like electric power cable looms, electro-magnetic compatibility testing, qualification and certification testing, jet-blast deflector installation & their cooling requirements etc. I assume any headline costs discussed these days include the full Defence Lines Of Development analysis - so they'll factor in the costs of all the extra personnel you need on deck to use cats & traps, their training, accommodation & pension costs (over the 40-odd year life of the system), the logistical costs to maintain the cats & traps, the costs of disposal etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that i think 1.8 billion is a bargain, but it doesn't surprise me. I'd love to see a huge UK carrier battle group steaming around the world with a deck over-flowing with F-35C, F-18E, E-2D, C-2 and some Sea Kings (just for old time's sake). However there are good reasons why the US DoD budget is >10 times bigger than ours. Regards, Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly |
Orca - GPS can in theory be jammed, even though there are anti-jam receivers. However, jamming gets easier when the jammer is close to the receiver. This is one thing if you're defending yourself against attack, another in jamming receivers aboard a moving CSG.
|
SSSETOWTF -
"I don't pretend to have the foggiest idea about ship-building"... Mr Boffin does seem to have such. And if we're talking life-cycle costs, from a May 1 release: "Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, has received a contract for $315 Million from Pratt & Whitney to supply the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem® for 17 F-35B Lightning II aircraft." Like a second engine. (Or four and a half F414s.) Clearly LCC would be affected by how often you do STOVL, but still... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.