Hi Not a Boffin,
You and I will NEVER be at cross purposes as you always talk sense compared to either my witterings or asking of questions.

I have spent the last few hours looking for the reference that caused me the confusion and I guess it may well have been my interpretation of your wise words:ok:

Thanks again for your excellent posts
John

How did the UK get here? OK, never mind how, we are here and that's that.

How do we get out of here?

Mothball the carriers, bin F35 (all versions) for five years, and then reassess when many of the interdependent variables have been reduced, and the risks acceptable.

Continue with Typhoon and Tornado, improve sensors, weaponry and defensive aids. Replace Tornado around 2025. This might be F35A or improved Typhoon or whatever, it's not clear right now. The money saved on carrier operations and F35 acquisition and operation has lots of alternative uses in the meantime, and many of them we are far more likely to need than a 'Day 1' stealthy strike capability deliverable by a handful of aircraft.

Not what I would wish to see in better times, but a realistic response to the Class 1 mucking fuddle we are in right now. We cannot afford a carrier capability with all that entails to do it properly. If we are only able to do it in a half-arsed way, it's way, way too risky to put such a high value asset and prime target in harm's way with inadequate and underdeveloped airpower.

The early concept design studies (circa 1996-1998) used the F18E as the basis for the "CTOL" carrier, because at the time IIRC the STOVL option was called the "STOVL Strikefighter" or SSF. The USN was still recovering after the A12 fiasco and had not yet worked out what to do beyond F18. the "what" subsequently became the JSF, which in turn became F35A, B & C.

The money saved on carrier operations and F35 acquisition and operation has lots of alternative uses in the meantime, and many of them we are far more likely to need than a 'Day 1' stealthy strike capability

Perhaps.

Indeed, in future we are more likely to need a maritime force air defence capability than we are a land-based deep-strike or CAS capability.........Carrier Strike is not all about Day 1 strike, there is a wider maritime piece that is often conveniently forgotten.

Lowe Fleiger,

I couldn't agree more. Land based aviation always trumps you for scale unless you do Maritime properly.

F35C brings range which means QECV can stand off further, or you can strike deeper. It brings persistence which means you can wait until the DCA has run out of fuel and then strike - or you can offer the boys on the ground a service for longer.

A cat and trap ship can play host to F18 or Rafale; a F35B ship is a F35B ship. We're now calling it Carrier Enabled Power Projection because apparently people didn't realise you could do lots more with a ship than fling jets around - hence rebranding required.

Using the smoke/fire curve (which accurately predicted Sea Jet demise, GR9 FE@R reduction and the loss of UK VSTOL) I detect suffcient smoke to asume that there's a fair old fire around the corner. I am going to put a pint on a reversion to F35B.

I think the real lesson to learn is the notion of the capability holiday simply doesn't exist. If you lose a capability - it doesn't come back. Good luck MPA brothers let's hope you can avoid a quagmire like this!

Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS)
 

If the trials of the X-47B UCAS demonstrator are successful, the USN may well decide to replace a portion of the F-18 Super Hornet fleet (and purchase instead of F-35 if it gets cancelled). The manufacturer's video shows possible roles as air-to-air, air-to-ground and buddy-buddy AAR.

If the UK went CATOBAR, at least UCAS would be an option.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how the carrier landing and AAR trials go in 2013.

Spot the deliberate error - F14s on carrier deck where archive footage (possibly from Top Gun) has been used:
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/pr...cas_b-roll.wmv

Smiles on the engineers' faces - it flies ! - potential dollars rolling in when the F-18 needs replacing !
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/pr...usic_Video.wmv

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/pr...AS_Gear_Up.wmv

BBC News - Ministers discuss U-turn on F-35 fighter planes

To a layman like myself and Im guessing most of the general public this news has me scratching my head.

Why were the Invincible class carriers and the Harriers scrapped?

Mate - you've opened a can of worms. The subject is still very emotive even though our Harriers are now in bits in the USA. It comes down to the simple fact that to save money an entire fleet had to go. The one that remained had to complement Typhoons capabilities and make up for slow progress in turning that platform into a mature multi role type.

Here's what the Parliament paper says:

Reduction in the number of fast jet fleets

1.8 Affordability constraints meant that as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, one of either the existing Tornado or Harrier fast jet fleets would have to be retired. The choice was discussed in both National Security Council meetings and the National Security Secretariat briefings clearly set out the implications of either choice. In terms of overall contribution to United Kingdom fast jet capability and operations in Afghanistan, Tornado was assessed as more capable. Harrier would be the preferred choice if a continuous carrier strike capability was maintained and would better support the immediate establishment of a UK-French Maritime Task-force. Retiring Tornado would save £380 million less than Harrier over the four year Comprehensive Spending Review period but £620 million more over 10 years.

The upgrade from STOVL carrier to CV carrier was mitigated by the CVS and Harrier savings, but crucially as well by £1 billion by cancelling DPOC - the GR4 replacement.

Please let's not get into the debate again, the Harrier's gone (literally).

Sorry, DPOC?

Just trying to follow the thread here.

DPOC was Deep Persistent Offensive Capability which had its provenance in FCAC (no idea) and FOAS (Future Offensive Air System).

All GR4 replacements really. A manned/ unmanned mix was talked of at some stage.

Nevertheless, as FB11 points out F35C could meet DPOC criteria where the F35B can't. Hence the saving of (a convenient) £1billion from curtailing DPOC was taken into account in the maths for going to the F35C.

One assumes that we'll need DPOC back if we go back to B...

Labour ‘saddled Navy with oversized aircraft carriers’

Looks like the politicians are only now beginning to realise the massive cost of the whole system to which they have been committed. It will only get bigger and bigger while the rest of the economy shrinks and shrinks - there will have to come a point..........

Would they not have been better off to spend a fraction of the money doing a really serious refurb of the little carriers and Harrier?

Three little carriers that are sustainable long term seems to be a better idea than one giant carrier and many question marks over every aspect of it.

Wise words indeed. Using the logic of hindsight, we should for example really have been flying F-15 and F-16 for the last 4 decades. But we always buy British even when logic (for that read capability) suggests otherwise. Hence Jaguar; GR1 and F2 Tornado.

Apparently, in order to beat the dead horse it's best to lean against the stable door you closed after it bolted. You get lots more leverage.

I hope that the PM's focus during his decision making process is on the 2 projects - both in large part driven by the beast that is BAE Systems - of aircraft and carrier in an objective way.

We are commited to F-35 and we are building 2 carriers - many 1000's of UK high-tech workers are way more important than what any of the kit actually does in some eyes.

We are buying 50 years worth of capability yet making decisions that are focussed only for the next 2-4 years.

I do find it ironic that the aircraft are twice the cost of the carriers - and rising - so the response when the carrier cost goes up is to switch to the yet more expensive variant of the aircraft. But it's OK, the sums in the 2-4 year period (at least the sums out there today - watch this space) favour the reversion to the B.

Now, step back...I need to take a run up so I can give the hind quarters a really good kick...and close that stable door for goodness sakes...

Much the same could be said of F35C and I truly hope some of the "advice" has not been driven by this thinking.

Phil,

Not sure I agree. The theory for the bigger carriers was sound. Eventually you have to buy new kit - that's a given. Small carriers and VSTOL aeroplanes will always suffer from performance limitations at some point, be it hot weather bring back, fuel load or getting a specific weapon off the deck. Invincible class ships really started getting complicated with 12 Harrier on them, even with no helos.

Big carriers allow you to operate more capable aeroplanes in greater numbers. I personally believe that you get to a low threshold below which it really isn't worth bothering. In the modern day you need something capable of launching a radar guided weapon air-to-air, using GPS guided weaponry and having SEAD or EA capability.

So big carriers make sense.

Now, if you were to buy two carriers of the same specification then you have redundancy. Simples.

The problem comes when that isn't possible due to budgetry constraints. And carriers are expensive enough for them to be criticised on cost grounds by those who favour land based air. And the more expensive you make the jets the more empty deck you get!

I personally thought that run on of Harrier at the expense of Tornado would give our small island nation a flexible, embarkable capability whilst preserving most of the attack and recce capability the Tornado offered. But the Harrier had dropped from a 18 FE@R fleet to 10 and the Tornado was still up at 40. So it was going to be bloody one way or the other. It went 'the other' and isn't coming back.

I'm not privy to what actually goes on in the towers of power. But what saddens me is that someone, or some people, or a systematic failing caused this. The Dannatts, Bands and Torpys of this world must have known that we were building up the famed £38 billion black hole - it didn't happen by magic. Like I said, I don't know where the blame lies. We just seem to be incapable of buying the right thing for the right price. More importantly we seem to be incapable of accurately forecasting how much projects will cost - so spend a lot of money finding out we can't afford them.

My personal opinion is that QECV and F35C are the right thing to be buying - it's not cheap but it'll last a while.

The Evening Standard article is utter b8llocks, an attempt to spin a revert to B decision and to perpetuate the myth that the QEC is some sort of job creation scheme masterminded by Gordon Brown.

I have seen the original staff target (7068 IIRC), which btw was created in the last days of Majors government, although not endorsed until 98 I think. The size of the carriers (even then) was 40000 te and driven by the need to deliver a meaningful effect as opposed to the tokenism of CVS. That is not to denigrate those who operated SHAR/GR7 and CVS, but merely to point out the obvious. If you were going to fight the wars assumed in the high-level OA and Defence Planning Assumptions, you needed to generate 100+ sorties a day, sustained for several days, as opposed to the 20-odd sorties per day you'd get from CVS.

The 65000te beast arrived in 2000, when it was realised that the previous concept designs had largely crammed the aircraft onto the deck as opposed to spotting the deck properly. Cost in ships is not directly proportional to size (even for warships), but the huge disparity in size twixt QEC and CVS has given two services the opportunity to spend the last decade sniping and presenting the ships as "unaffordable", one from fear (a threat to their fiefdom) and one from lack of comprehension and an understandable desire to focus on the war they were fighting. The Naval staff have also proven woefully inadequate in presenting their case. The cost growth from the original £3.2Bn for the pair first offered by the ACA in about 2002 is almost entirely attributable to this effect, which has led to endless attempted redesigns and programme delays, all of which actually cost real money to no discernable benefit.

Only two yards in the country had a realistic chance of constructing the ships in conventional fashion, Swan Hunter on the Tyne and Harland and Wolff in Belfast. However, Swans destroyed their large berth in 2001-ish to build the LSD(A) in a dock and Harlands was pretty much only a dock with no fabrication facility by 2002. That left a choice between Inchgreen on the Clyde, Nigg in NE Scotland or Rosyth as the only places with a cat in hell's chance of assembling the ships. As the first two hadn't been used for a decade and were essentially bare facilities, Rosyth was a no-brainer and nothing to do with politics or Chancellors etc. Gordon Brown did everything he could to avoid contracting for the ships (thereby increasing the price) and it was only (IMO) a last desperate throw of the dice that persuaded the useless tw@t to allow MoD to place the order.

The ships are big because we learned the lessons of CVS. If you're going to buy something, make sure it has the potential to be used properly, including potential changes of use. CVS was supposed to be a helicopter carrier with 9 cabs and a force of five SHAR. That it managed to eventually accommodate another eight aircraft (just!) was partly due to a good basic design, but also due to a change in policy (permanent deck park). However, building-in known limitations is not generally considered a good design model to follow.

This is a sorry tale even before the present shenanigans. The latest manoeuvrings threaten to lose the chance of a half-decent capability to short-termism based on half-@rsed data, ignorance and malice.

Build them in Korea in half the time and half the price!

These "work for the dole" schemes cost the taxpayers a fivetune....:eek:

Looking at todays DM; pint won !!

The Scotsman:

Published on Tuesday 20 March 2012 00:00

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is to make a Commons statement on the defence equipment programme amid reports of a major U-turn on the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, Downing Street said last night.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said Mr Hammond was expected to address MPs before Easter following reports of a rethink over the carriers’ Joint Strike Fighter aircraft............

Well...
 

I suppose that the B has in fact demonstrated the ability to land on a real ship at sea.

Maybe POTUS told Cameron on AF1 that the C had more issues going on behind the scenes with the hook - coupled with the point that America does love The Corps.

Its normal PR activity.

Option 1. Delete Carrier and F35 cost £xBn
option 2. Carrier and F35B cost £xbn
Option 3. 1 Carrier and F35C cost £xbn

Etc.

The MoD is skint. It has to save money. PR12 will be more about savings than spending/profiling. The reversion to F35B will be one of those options to be considered and the risks will be outlined. A decision will then be made as happens every single year with every PR round.

The problem this year is that there is no money, well, no no money but a yawning chasm of a black hole. The carriers are all but built/money spent and when in service will be of significant utility. The issue is what to fly off them.

All this chat about F35B or C is irrelevant and is missing the main point, that the UK CANNOT AFFORD any variant. Forget about Defence Industrial Strategy, that went out years ago on the altar of savings (recent announcement of MARS being built in South Korea) so, whilst it hurts to say it, to hell with UK industry and jobs in Rolls Royce. The MoD is not there to subsidise UK manufacturing. I will say it again, the UK cannot afford F35 so it must go for another option.

Build the ships with Cats and traps and purchase Rafale or F18. This will be a 70-80% of the F35 solution but, more than adequate for the UK's needs. 36 F18's instead of F35 could save in the order of £11Bn, which would fill about a third of the MoDs black hole, enabling future investment in more important capabilities such as Long Range MPA, ISTAR, AT, Helicopters, Vehicles for the army and the Future Maritime escort.

I know that this would upset the RAF, who want skies full of fast jets but, Typhhon is here, make the most of it. The UK cannot afford F35.

This is the sensible solution without inter-service politics getting in the way, without political interference or UK Defence Industry lobbying. If the MoD is to get back on its feet by 2020 and be a place where quality people want to serve, with appropriate remuneration and good conditions of service, then that is the choice that MUST be made. Look at all the other threads on here about pensions, pay, Married Quarters etc and you get the picture. Typhoon is here and the money spent, CVF is nearly here and the money all but spent (and considering thru life costs, relatively cheap for the effect) the expensive item, where the money has not yet been committed is the jet. The UK cannot afford F35, go for F18 or Rafale and then in 20 years time replace with UAS.

That PR12 black hole in full:

MoD budget 'now back in balance' - Defence Management

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is set to announce that the Ministry of Defence's £38bn financial 'black hole' has been "dealt with" and that the defence budget is now balanced for the first time in four decades, according to a report in The Daily Telegraph.

The story also suggests that around £2.1bn of unallocated funding has been found in the ministry's current financial planning round.

They may well have balanced it for PR12 (next 5 years) but they still have several years to go yet before they are out of the woods and there will still be savings required in PR13/14/15/

What an unbelievable :mad:ing mess.

That Cat in the Hat won't be able to pick this one up. Has anyone thought about what happens if (when) sequester kicks in in the US? Or if some of the numerous fixes and bodges being developed for the B add 100 pounds of weight apiece, or require the pilot to stooge around at 10,000 feet while the clutch cools down? Or that the system can't deliver improved VL performance without being redesigned completely?

Important point about Panetta's ending of probation: He did not reverse the key action that Gates took, which was to drop B production to a crawl until the aircraft worked. In fact, both B and C are in single digits until 2018-19 deliveries.

Widger

+1

If you can't afford to buy tailor made suits you buy "off the peg" - as the US did with our 70 Harriers - & the US Treasury must be laughing all the way to the bank...

The Harrier took many years to iron out the initial problems. The same will be true of the F35B - especially as the US will probably refuse to supply anything other than a flyable airframe!

That means MOD having to pay millions (billions?) more to kit the "bare bones" out with AI radars, weapon systems etc. - & we all know where that goes don't we! The A/C will be out of date before it enters service in a useable combat condition for the UK. Again, the US must be laughing - but they are nearly bankrupt & need our $$$........:ooh:

Also

Directly from;

I rest my case. Any advice to the contrary can only be based on self serving interests

Major mistake moving away from the 'cats & traps' both in terms of capability and long terms finances, but only to be expected from the politicians.

If the Evening Standard is right, then Cameron got mugged by Obama and th eoprion of going backed to the B is off the table.

Quote:

.......However, voices from Wahington suggest that the President said this was no option at all, and he wants the British to reconsider and go with the more powerful "C" version of the F-35.

It is being circulated that the US is now likely to order only four squadrons of the jump-jet "B" version for the US Marine Corps. Since this would be a maximum of about 65 planes, it is now thought in Washington that this is all a preliminary to cancelling the "B" version altogether.....

"Dave, there'll be no Dave "B", but I can't tell the Jarheads that outright right now, because I don't have the balls. You'd better order the "C". Tell you what, how about some F/A-18s to be going on with?"

"Oi Phil, tell your Navy blokes they're getting the C. Any questions?"

Whatever they order is going to get cancelled anyway, so the whole argument is pointless
However, they will order the - B. and then cancel it. Why? Because as its the more expensive aircraft, they will be able to announce bigger savings when its chopped.
Of course they'll be able to offer an earlier saving by not buying the catapults.

So ....first they announce the most expensive carrier option - and then pull back, so saving a fortune that they were never going to spend anyway, and then they save an even bigger fortune by not buying the aircraft they were never going to buy

LM warned, no more cost overruns or the US DoD will take less F35's.

More cost growth would cut F-35 buy: US Air Force | USWebDaily.com Follows News Happening Now.

ORAC - Do you have a link to that?

So is Cameron taking over what Brown started by keeping the ship yards in work?

I'm not a fan of the carriers and don't think they are a sensible option for our future Forces, the full cost of building, kitting, protecting and operating them will cripple the Defence budget for years. However if we are getting them a conventional design gives us a much more flexible platform with more options. I still can't believe they are not nuclear powered, which muppet didn't think oil prices wouldn't increase sharply in the next few decades.

With the F-35 rapidly slipping to the right, why not just build the carriers flat sans catapults and use them for helo ops? In 2020 +/- a few years we will be able to see if the B or C are actually fit for purpose and can carry out a refit. Continually changing a contract almost always ends in a large delay, poor value for money and a compromised product :ugh:

Just a thought, if the US bin the B we could buy those 65 odd aircraft destined for the USMC, then the UK could have a horrendously expensive bespoke fleet of poor performing aircraft :mad:

>>> Its a mess IMHO


Over on Aarse, they are speculating that the change is being made because the STOVL carriers have greater survivability (less to go wrong and leave your carrier dead in the water).

http//www.aarse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/178170-uk-aircraft-carrier-plans-confusion-ministers-revisit-square-one-9.html

Sorry, no. It's was in the late edition today. tapped in the above on my iPhone direct from the page.

Article was by Robert Fox their defence correspondent.

>>>Why were the Invincible class carriers and the Harriers scrapped?


Now that's a different matter entirely. You never throw your shoes away, until you have bought a new pair - a very basic adage that every five-year old learns.

But you don't expect our politicians to have the wisdom of a five-year old, surely? Come, come, now, don't be so naive....



>>>Would they not have been better off to spend a fraction of the money
>>>doing a really serious refurb of the little carriers and Harrier?

Don't be silly, that is logical and rational thinking, you cannot expect that from politicians. You have to remember that 98% of politicians are lawyers and economists, and they have trouble with words like 'machine-tool' or 'diesel-engine' - it like a Martian speaking, to them.

And you all wonder why none of the infrastructure in the UK works. And don't get me started on the Thames Estuary Airport again......



>>>The theory for bigger carriers was sound.

No it wasn't. A nation has to live according to its budget. To have had four smaller carriers would have been much more flexible and probably cheaper (economies of scale) than two large ones. It was the most stupid idea ever, and who knows why the Admiralty fell for it.



?

That well-known military think tank.:ugh:

Almost sounds like the AW159/Wildcat/Lynx Wildcat/Future Lynx order in places.

@The Helpful Stacker

Just like here then.

Are We Being Unfair On The F-35 Development Teams?
 

The F-35 series of fighters are highly complex systems that will work, sometime. Look at the P1127/ Harrier development. That was ten years or so until a useful aircraft was developed; wasn't it?

Due to the increased complexities of the F-35 variants, plus the fact that there are really three different aircraft being developed isn't it reasonable that it will take longer to develop than the Harrier and cost one heck of a lot more?

I know there are problems and that costs are increasing, but is this not the same for every project which is at the leading edge of technology?

Do most of us (including myself) have a downer on the F-35 due to the fact that we were promised the world at unrealistic costs? Should we not be looking at what the three variants will provide in the future?

In other words: -

1/ Were marketing making unreasonable promises?
2/ Will the aircraft be worth waiting for?
3/ Will the aircraft do what they need to do?
4/ Are they the correct aircraft to develop for the future, or should some other product be under development?
5/ Can the development teams (excluding marketing) be blamed for the current situation?

But the point is that the P.1127 was designed as an experimental prototype / technology demonstrator that through development was refined into a production model
With the F-35 production of what was close to the final configuration was decided on before any prototypes were built
The development process has been turned on tis head: instead of finding whats possible and then commercialising it, with the F-35 they've decided on a commercial product without finding if its possible.

Good answer Milo Minderbinder.

In response I write that if we only built what could be built now then developments would not occur.