No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

[Finnpog]

Excellent post John.
Have we not seen similar (not identical) scenarios where the A-10, though clearly not as pointy as other pointy things seems to be a really effective type for it's role and is not easily replaceable, and also with the B52 which soldiers on even though the B-1& B-2 surpass it on almost any technological level.

When you consider what the USMC already hangs off the Harrier 2s and 2+s, how long before it has a Storm Shadow / Scalp equivalent stand off weapon?

[ICBM]

Of course, the Govt could cancel the QE Class and procure the A-model post-2015.....

Cheapest of all three and I'm guessing that, by then at least, 5 years without Maritime Strike may or may not have embarrassed said Govt

[bobn]

I see Herr Goering of The Register has been allowed out again.
Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/17/f35_carriers_plot_by_bae_and_raf/page2.html)

Such angst http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

[Lima Juliet]

JF

A good post, but...

There is one thing that SHar always lacked and that was speed for air-to-air. Three things come to mind:

1. High Value Air Asset Defence (HVAAD) sometimes you need to cut the corner on a 'leaker' that is going for the asset you're protecting.
2. Supersonic launch gives a 10-20% launch success zone (LSZ) to missiles like BVRAAM/AMRAAM. Plus a block 5+ launch puts a further throw on missiles. You want to schwack the enemy long before it gets anywhere near your fleet or other assets, so long rockets are a vital capability.
3. Chase down and disengagement speed is a vital for an Air Defence fighter.

I know the SHar did well in the FIs, but the air to air threat wasn't really credible IMHO.

Just my 2 penneth, and as always, aircraft selection is a compromise - it just depends on what capability that were willing to sacrifice.

LJ

[John Farley]

kbrockman

Yes the Boeing concept was simpler than the Lockheed but it fell on the hurdle of supersonics. Supersonics need a much higher exhaust gas velocity and we don't know how to get that velocity for the combat mission without making the exhaust pretty hot in the process. So when they pointed this exhaust out under the CG they had recirculation problems with hot air making its way into the intake.

I'm sorry but combining supersonics and VL is very difficult. Lockheed have managed it (by using the cool fan exhaust as a dam to stop the rear hot exhaust penetrating forward) but at the cost of much complexity.

Leon

I would never suggest a subsonic engine can give top class interceptor capability for all the reasons you mentioned. However a simple reliable multi role capability available in real numbers is a very useful tactical bit of kit. The UK never saw the Harrier as having ANY air to air capability until the USMC in 1970 said putting a sidewinder on it could be very useful tactically because it had real persistence in a fight with the US reheated fighters of the day, could fight remarkably well defensively until they bingoed and got them as they tried to disengage. Harry Blot then stayed on the range and said send the next lot out. Its hard to beat the sfc of a large subsonic turbofan.

Hey ho.

JF

[LowObservable]

JF is right, of course...

The Marines could do their classic air mission perfectly well with a subsonic direct-lift STOVL. It's not the best for air superiority, but could certainly be equipped to take on a low-level threat (eg Naughtystan with a couple of squadrons of rusty MiGs). The high-level capability of the JSF-B, in the USMC, is in any case fatally compromised by the lack of organic AEW&C.

Supersonic STOVL is fundamentally difficult because of the complexity of avoiding HGI. Adding stealth to that equation makes things worse. Granted that the F-35B can be made to meet spec, it will be expensive to support and have very limited room to add any other capability, both because of volume and VL thrust considerations.

And how did we get into this mess? Because the experts (particularly in industry) assured us that it could be done in the first place, relatively cheaply and quickly. And after the X-plane stage, they assured us again that the risk had been reduced as never before.

[Bismark]

JF,

Just a small point...It needs more complicated ships and even they cannot operate for recovery in some sea states or visibilities. (How may helos fail to get aboard due motion and vis?)

....this is not an issue, all the RN's helos get back on board - I do not recall there ever being a helo lost due to an inability to recover due to sea state or visibility - or for that matter a diversion ashore. The platform only needs to be within limits (viz and pitch/roll) at the moment of touch down.

[Gravelbelly]

Errr... I think that is JF's point - STOVL aircraft can launch and recover in sea states that would stop CATOBAR flying

[exMudmover]

JF

" (In combat manoeuvring) it's hard to beat the sfc of a large subsonic turbofan"

Absolutely agree.

I was the RAF trials pilot on the definitive Phase 2 VIFF trial (flown in a GR3 with AIM9G plus SEAM), versus a Lightning Mk3 and a Hunter Mk 6 in the same sortie on Aberporth range. In each mission the 3 Combats against the Lightning were just 3 mins each and then he had to go home; against the Hunter we could manage 5 mins. No big fuel problem managing 6 engagements with the GR3.

The souped-up GR3 was XV277, ( with beefed - up nozzle drive etc.), last seen at Scottish Aviation Museum East Fortune.

Happy days.

[John Farley]

I must sharpen up my prose. Gravebelly is right I was suggesting that helos cope with really bad ship motion and vis because of the ability to hover.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Amateur question here.....whatever happened to the idea of using plenum chamber burning to make the Pegasus supersonic?
Its a development direction whichhas stalled yet years ago it seemed to have promise, and would appear to ease this problem of hot exhaust in the hover.
Could it not be made to work? Or was it simply that other methods appeared better?

[Bismark]

JF,

I am not sure the issue is the same in a 65,000 ton ship. I suspect STOVL and CATOBAR ops would stop at about the same time - certainly it has not been a problem for the USN.

Now, STOVL off the back of a frigate is a different matter! Remember the SkyCrane?

[John Farley]

Bismark

It depends on whether you have a ski jump. With one of those you are always going up and away from the sea regardless of where the bow is.

As for an arrested landing with the backend heaving - dodgy.

It was the Skyhook - but SkyCrane desribes it too!

[John Farley]

Milo

Sorry my friend PCB was on the FRONT nozzles and would have destroyed the engine unless you kept moving forward quite fast when in ground effect or used a gridded platform. Using a gridded deck edge lift might just have been on for vertical ops but all the benefits of operating site flexibility would have gone right out of the window. I was SO glad when the P1154 was cancelled.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Thanks for that John - I hadn't realised it would have been used in the hover. I'd naively assumed it would have just have been an alternative to afterburner while in conventional flight, not in vertical.
Something else learnt.... thanks again

[163627]

I having just been reading about the Home Office’s latest c**k-up concerning Abu Qatada; after all of this government’s very recent U-turns and knowing what politicians are like, do we really think the government is going to follow that up any time soon with another announcement that is going to open them up to more ridicule and allegations of incompetence? My guess is that there will be no announcement until just before the House of Commons summer recess; of course it could also lead the government to stay with the C as they will probably be out of office before anything connected with this project ever floats let alone has an aircraft on its deck. As Harold MacMillan once said “it’s all about events dear boy, events”!

[John Farley]

Milo

Yes I said many times to the Bristol engine men I am happy to use PCB except for takeoff and landing.


But they needed to light the fires for TOL because the supersonic part of the spec mission profile used enormous amounts of fuel which of course made the aircraft bigger and heavier until it needed the fires for TOL. The mission spec could not be met with an aircraft that would VL with cold thrust.

[Plastic Bonsai]

How much more mileage is there in the Harrier design?

Kingston did propose a tin wing "Harrier GR5" in the early 80's before the AV-8B was selected. From memory it looked like a GR3 with a bigger wing. Did that offer any improvements performance wise?

I had heard that the AV-8B aerofoil is less than optimum due to CFD taking a wrong turn at the time it was designed.

[163627]

Fighter jets about-turn 'will harm capability’ - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9217918/Fighter-jets-about-turn-will-harm-capability.html)

[orca]

Interesting that the MoD is planning for contingency operations or interesting that an aeroplane with far greater wing area and no lift fan can take more petrol and more bombs and therefore might be deemed more useful?

None of this is news. You just have to choose which camp you fall into:

1. We are broke and cannot afford carriers full stop. (Gloss over magic acquisition of C-17, reprieve of Puma etc etc as signs that we aren't.)

2. Anything's better than nothing, buy the B. It'll also save no end of time getting the ships rigged up. Might cost a bit (lot) more and could even fail altogether, but them's the breaks.

3. Last manned aeroplane. Buy the one that goes the furthest. Don't accept that it'll cost £1.7 Billion to fit out the ship(s). Invite USN and the French to embark occasionally as well.

4. Ask nicely for some Super Hornets to tide us over and then join the chaps in option 3.

5. Conveniently forget that this is and always has been a Maritime Strike capability and talk about it like it's a GR4 replacement.

[orca]

JCA is a maritime strike requirement, for which the money for a GR4 replacement was sacrificed. My point being that this unpalatable fact somehow got lost in the chaff of SDSR and reference to a GR4 replacement has been made ever since.

I honestly believe that there is still a general supposition that GR4 is to be replaced - even if not by DPOC which (I stand to be corrected - my sources are those openly available from parliament) is now no more.

It is also my belief that the dawning realisation of where this will leave the RAF (which you are totally correct about) is a mainstay in the 'revert to STOVL' thinking. i.e. we get DPOC back. Do you think we really will though?

So your point is entirely accurate - if JCA falls over there is a chance that it's Typhoon alone. Horrendous.

I think we do disagree on one thing. We are a small island nation - so the fact that others make do with dedicated land based air might have no direct read across to us. An extension of this argument might be that we should not worry about our current lack of MPA (in my opinion the single biggest error of our time) as Switzerland seems to have managed without one for years.

[Not_a_boffin]

And one thing well worth remembering. JCA is not JUST strike. The original FCBA requirement (which JCA emerged from as a joint effort with FOAS) included and still includes a requirement to provide a DCA capability for maritime AD, that's the Fleet (ie amphibs, strategic lift etc).

All the leaking of performance/OA data is doing nothing. Everyone accepts C is a more capable option than B. Orca's point 3 has it all - question the £2Bn conversion cost. It has to be "made up".

[Finningley Boy]

New warplanes 'less capable', secret paper shows - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9217344/New-warplanes-less-capable-secret-paper-shows.html)

This article states the obvious somewhat, but what puzzles, is just why did the last Labour Government go for B in the first place? Also, the claim here is that a total of either 136 or 97 airframes are to be ordered, depending onwhether it is B or C?:confused:

FB:)

[Finningley Boy]

And now I've just seen 163627's link!:O

FB:)

[Lowe Flieger]

Ignore the pros and cons of each variant for the moment, all very well covered again and again in this thread. As soon as one type appears to be gaining the ascendency, confidential sources start to spin for the other type. So what is going on?

1. There is complete confusion in the government about which is really the best military or economic version. They do not trust the information they are being given by their advisers (military or financial), as their advice seemingly conflicts.

2. This indecision means that when one type looks to be nosing ahead, it's detractors immediately start to spin against it, as they can see the opportunity to reverse the decision yet again.

3. Inter-service rivalry may well be part of the above mix - many on here are better judges than I as to how much this is the case.

4. It seems the choice is close run thing. If it was a no-brainer, then a choice should already have been made.

And the way out?

The root problem is that the government is being weak. It needs to determine what is it's absolute priority: military or financial. If it is financial then it makes it's choice on that basis - go the lower cost route. If it is military then go the route that gives the best military capability. At the moment the government is trying to mix and match both and that is causing the indecision. In normal times this is the normal situation. But these are very very abnormal times for the country's finances and it may be the unpalatable truth that money must hold complete sway over some military decisions, for the next few years at least.

It then has the problem of getting factual, unbiased advice as to the true military capabilities and the true financial comparisons. It seems that it cannot get either from within it's own military or financial experts so it should call on independent external sources if necessary (howls of protest expected, but if your own specialists won't stop fighting each other how else do you get impartial advice? If external advice is abhorrent, then make it redundant by stopping squabbling like children).

Above all the government must decide on it's objectives and then make the selection accordingly. And then you just have to get on with it, protests, objections, criticisms and everything else just comes with the territory. The government is being pushed and pulled around by every vested interest going at present and this weakness is causing harm on all fronts. The executive has the job of making the hard call. Make it and then go flat out to make it happen.

DC, you need to grow a couple.

[Finnpog]

This whole story and the Telegraph article featured quite prominently on the midday BBC 1 news today. The 'narrative' of the story is that the government is clueless and doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow.

I agree with LF's assessment above ^^^
It will be interesting to see this spun positively by the Whitehall PR bunnies.

[JFZ90]

This latest leak of OA info is worrying - but not because there is anything new or particularly worrying contained - but because the way it is being spun and presented is quite dangerous.

At the end of the day both B and C are pretty capable, but there is a risk that the "we can't afford cats/C" and "B is no good" soundbites may end up giving the current loonies the excuse they need to buy neither!

Those knocking the B now are playing with fire - and may leave the UK with nothing and selling the carriers.

[Not_a_boffin]

Those who assume the carriers can be sold need to have a think as to who will buy them.

If no cats / traps, then likely customer base is zero. Sp & It have just bought new (small) STOVL ships.

India? Needs STOBAR and has two ships arriving before QE & PoW.

Fr? Needs cat n trap.

China? (see India, but ships slightly further away)

Argentina? Oh, hang on.....

[Backwards PLT]

65 000 tons of steel is worth quite lot. You don't have to sell them to someone who will use them as carriers! (I don't advocate this COA)

Orca - I don't understand your GR4 point. JSF is, at least in part, going to replace GR4 so yes, it is a maritime strike capability, but it is also going to be a land based capability hence the main reason why the entire thing is joint RAF/RN. As a hard up UK plc we will need to be flexible with where we operate from, we don't have the luxury that the USA has of a dedicated carrier force and a dedicated land based force. If the next 20 years are like the last 20 then JSF could spend the vast majority of its time flying from land on operations not fom a carrier. If we spend the next 20 years trying to recapture the Falklands then the basing will be a carrier.

Last, I do find it amusing that some spun the change to F35C as an RAF plot to somehow do over the RN and now the change to F35B is being spun (by a few) as another RAF plot! More tinfoil hats needed, me thinks.

[LowObservable]

There is another level to the problem, which is the executability of the JSF program as a whole, given the following facts:

The SDD program is farther from completion than it was (according to official plans) three years ago.

The estimated program cost (R&D + acquisition) has increased by $36+ million dollars per day in then-year dollars since the contract was awarded. (Source: 2011 SAR.)

The program of record calls for US-only JSF procurement funding to reach $13 billion-plus (in 2012 dollars) at full rate, which is much more than all TacAir funding today, at a time when the USAF is expecting to be developing a new bomber and acquiring tankers.

This peak level will be sustained throughout the 2020s. If the operating cost estimates in the SAR are correct, there will be a parallel surge in TacAir O&S as the growing JSF force coexists with older aircraft with aging issue.

(Note: it can be posited that in 2030 we approach the sunlit uplands of a force dominated by mature, but still relatively new F-35s. The question is whether the fiscal pig represented in the above two paragraphs can fit through the budgetary python.)

The US government, Congress and Administration, are committed to further budget cuts, whether as a result of sequestration or as part of a deal to avoid sequestration. If neither happens, the risk to US credit is extreme. Defense cannot be exempt from Federal spending cuts and F-35 cannot be ring-fenced within defense, because it is too large relative to other programs.

Any UK decision must take into account the risk that these factors pose to the JSF program, in terms of cost, schedule and the pursuit of all three variants.

[kbrockman]

Maybe the Australian navy can start dreaming again like they did 4 years ago,
Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/aircraft-carrier-on-navys-secret-4bn-wish-list/story-e6frfkw9-1111115876869)

THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier

Read more:


This made me think back of an editorial I read also 5-ish years ago on how a Carrier could work for Australia.

It basically envisioned a medium sized carrier with a couple of Harrier type squadrons to be based mainly on the West,North and South coast of Australia
functionning as a feeder/support/command base for several small landbases all around Australia and its islands.
There would be no need for anything other than fighters and some support helo's and the cost would be not much more than 1 big landbase but could cover a lot more area without using too much personnnel.

This 65000T carrier was probably bigger than what they had in mind but it could work ok ,I guess.

Anyway, sounded much like a pipedream ,back then,and it probably still is but seeing how things evolve in that area in the world combined with the commitment they already made towards the JSF and the fact that they are doing quite well economy-wise always could revive 'the dream'.

[Not_a_boffin]

65 000 tons of steel is worth quite lot. You don't have to sell them to someone who will use them as carriers! (I don't advocate this COA)

There's about 28000 te of DH32 grade steel in each one. Plus a fair bit of copper, cabling etc.

Scrap price for steel atm is about £200/te. Call it £6M per ship, plus the copper & cable. If we got £12m per ship I'd be surprised.

[500N]

"and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet."

What submarine fleet ? The one where the majority are in dock being fixed
or we don't have enough crews ?

How about we get what we have, crewed and in the water first !!!

[Lowe Flieger]

Those who assume the carriers can be sold need to have a think as to who will buy them....Agreed, it's unlikely there would be customers falling over each other to outbid their rivals for the ships. If sold as carriers, or any other type of active vessel, it's a racing certainty they would only get sold if they were a 'too-good-to-miss' bargain for the purchaser. We would have to brace ourselves for more 'They cost us £x and we sold them for £x - 90%' headlines.

Speculative purchasers for a not-to-be-missed bargain might include Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and Brazil. I'd bet that a Korean shipyard would do the needful on converting to cat and trap, or any other conversion for role, at a price that would still make the whole deal an absolute steal for the buyer.

And, of course, the UK wouldn't be selling them for the the cash it gets back, it would be because of the cash it no longer has to splash out to operate and maintain a full carrier capability. Not what I want to see, but a very real possibility in my opinion, whether sold on or not.


Edit: Forgot the need for Europe to beef up it's capabilities now Uncle Sam is back off to the Pacific, so they could become a European capability. Still cheaper to get any mods done in Korea but that would not be our call once our European allies are calling the shots and get themselves organised. Somewhere around 2050, perhaps.

[orca]

Backwards PLT.

My point was simply that as it stands there is no longer a GR4 replacement and when that (very loyal, long serving) war horse is put out to grass then nothing is going to back fill it. This is because the money was spent in the 'let's go to the C' decision in SDSR.

So there is no GR4 replacement.

But JCA (not repeat not JSF) can help fill the GR4 replacement criteria if we buy the C. It cannot if we buy the B.

So if you want to 'have DPOC' or 'replace GR4' (same difference) you have to do one of two things. Either accept that there are no extra frames but the new ones will cover up some of what you can no longer have - buy the C. Or you can argue for a reversion to the B to meet the JCA requirement and ask for your money back - buy DPOC.

[hval]

Not_a_boffin,

Steel is currently significantly less than £200 a tonne. Try £155 to £175. The added cost of cutting up and separating what has already been used, plus transportation has to be taken in to account.

What people sometimes forget is that the raw materials are actually a very small part of the costs for a project. It's the cutting, shaping and fabricating that cost, plus man hours, design and BAEs rip off prices. The political decisions by both labour and the Conservatives have added significantly to the overall costs. Building in different yards hasn't helped.

I believe that the costs for emals is at the upper end of the scale. Mind you the costs are probably realistic as something will go wrong, the politicians will change their mind etc.

[WhiteOvies]

Not sure about why the Aussies need to buy a carrier when they could fly F-35B off the new Canberra class LHD which handily come with a ski jump.


Likewise the Japanese could fly F-35B from the Hyuga class 'Through deck destroyers'.

Both are already in the programme and could add the B to their slated purchase of A's to go down the mixed fleet route like the Italians.

It also fits with the re-focus of US eyes on the Pacific and adds backup to the USMC B purchase.

Just thoughts....:8

[LFFC]

Those who assume the carriers can be sold need to have a think as to who will buy them.

Her Majesty's Prison Service? :E

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

based on every other Mess and ship sold to the Prison Service, they'll need upgraded facilities (TVs etc) before they are fit for rapists, terrorists and similar scum. Better budget for that.:mad:

[Not_a_boffin]

Hval - so you're suggesting that we might get less than £12M per ship? Do you know, I believe you.

You think that EMALS is at the upper end of the scale? Excellent. The hardware costs are known, to a credible degree. The manpower figures to make up the remaining gap to £1.8Bn are simply not credible. Something between 10 and 20 million manhours depending on whether you think BAES charge £50/hr or £100/hr (both higher than reality) is simply not credible.

10 million manhours is 5000 people full bore for a year. A more credible estimate would be one tenth that amount.........

[hval]

Not_a_boffin,

I agree that the additional costs are not credible. You did forget a few items though: -

1/ Project management
1a/ Tea breaks
2/ Transportation
2a/ Tea breaks
3/ Modifications to existing carrier hull and infrastructure
3a/ Tea breaks
4/ Installation of meals
4a/ Guess what?
5/ ITP (instrument and testing plan)
6/ Risk management costs
7/ Project management and team install infrastructure
8/ Cost of all the other dock yard workers who will have to stop what they are doing for a year, and still be paid whilst meals are installed.

Have I forgotten anything?

[Backwards PLT]

Orca - sorry still don't get it. As I understand it, if the money was spent on the C decision (which is confusing in itself because through life most claim the C is cheaper) then that will be with the expectation that the C is the GR4 replacement, surely?

Although I was told that JSF was part of the GR4 replacement well before the last SDSR as part of the 2 FJ fleet plan so it didn't matter if it was the B or the C, except the C is greatly superior of course.

[orca]

Sorry mate, probably the sort of conversation that would take 1 minute over a beer.

F35A could fulfill the criteria for DPOC, the GR4 replacement. £1 billion had been allotted to DPOC. Given the length of gestation these days it was safe to say that any manned solution to DPOC would involve F35A.

SDSR chose Tornado over Harrier/CVS in the knowledge that this would save money in the short term (about £300 million over 3 years) but lose in the long term (£680 million more expensive over 10 years).

Something had to give and the obvious economy was that if we chose the C model for JCA then we could still meet some DPOC criteria - at this point the the F35As you were briefed about disappeared. The £1 billion was folded into the cost of the ship upgrade.

So I guess what I am saying is that you can either view the decision to save Tornado as a decision that consigned its successor to the dust bin. Or you can (to my mind) skew the argument and and start talking about JCA as the de facto GR4 replacement.

The alternative is to revert to STOVL and ask for that DPOC money back - which may eventually result in a mixed A/B fleet for the JCA/ DPOC requirement. It might result in a B that deosn't work and DPOC money already spent on GR4 which (as rumour has it) has eaten a further £1 billion since SDSR.

I personally Lowe Fleiger has it right and I suspect that DC could be aided in growing a pair if he was being briefed honestly and competently. I fail to see how a U-turn is necessary unless someone has dropped an almighty ball, someone has been unable to deliver on a promise or someone no longer likes the deal they made having had 18 months of 'cold light of day'.

The dithering has to be a result of incompetent staff work (when we phoned they said EMALS was a fiver but we've double checked and it's now £1.7 billion), conflicting advice probably due to single service agenda (surely not) or the fact that no-one knows the facts...a known unknown if you will.

There are only two reasons for the U-turn which appear credible to my mind. The first is that industry simply isn't up to the challenge and has had it's bluff called despite ridiculous tariffs. The second is that someone in MoD has realised the full implications of SDSR and wants a new deal.

[Not_a_boffin]

Hval

Yes. Most of those factors even the tea breaks (!) are already in the existing cost. Assuming it's PoW for conversion, the relevant parts of the structure haven't been fabricated yet, so assuming the design teams get cracking (particularly on the detail of the supporting structure) delay is unlikely to affect more than a small proportion of those working on the project. The electrickery elements will also require work, but again mostly in the design stage.

Project and risk mgmt teams are already in place, as is their infrastructure, ITP will largely be supplied as part of the sale and will then fall on the existing test & commissioning team.

There will be no need for anyone else to stop what they're doing while the systems are installed.

Apologies for the slightly intemperate tone last night, post beer-festival posting never a good idea......

[hval]

Not_a_boffin,

I agree that all I listed is already within the project. The emals is an additional package to the main construction project. The sub contractor will have costed their risk, project management etc, but the main contractor certainly has not included meals in their project cost.

Much of the electrickery stuff is well past the design phase. Much hours work to be done, maybe, ooh, I don't know guv, back of a fag packet calc, how about £1 billion? Just for you. Cutting new access routes etc will cost you a lot, you know. We haven't tested the generators under this load, nor type of load before. They're only tested for one six volt light bulb. That's all you asked for, err, signed for in the contract. Talking of which, this is a contract change. Means the lawyers will get involved. There's another £500 million to the costs.

The above is tongue in cheek, but you know how it is.

I didn't notice any intemperate tone. In fact you should drink more often and then post. Nice humour.

[Bastardeux]

Could this turn out to be the most blatant mismanagement of resources my generation sees?

Interestingly, for the first time that I've seen, firm figures are mentioned...

British Study Determines F-35C Would be More Economical Option Despite Costly Carrier Upgrade | Defense Update (http://defense-update.com/20120424_which_f35_for_the_uk.html)

Fighter jets about-turn 'will harm capability’ - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9217918/Fighter-jets-about-turn-will-harm-capability.html)

[oldspool]

Following on from the previous post I noticed another link regarding the USMC purchase of B's and C's. The story isn't new but is significant in that it indicates further unit cost increases for the B model.

Five Marine Corps F-35Cs Units to Fly Off Navy Carriers | Defense Update (http://defense-update.com/20110315_f35c_marine_corps.html)


''Under the agreement, the two services will maintain the planned acquisition of 680 F-35s but change the proportion between the carrier based and STOVL variants. Under the new plan the Navy will buy 260 of the F-35C carrier variant, with the Marine Corps adding additional 80, along with 340 F-35Bs STOVL versions. Reduction of 80 ‘B’ aircraft is expected to further increase the unit cost of the STOVL version, already blamed to be the most complex, expensive and troubled part of the JSF program.''

[Engines]

Both the articles linked use similar figures, but they are, in my view, examples of selective leaking of figures plus uninformed 'spin'.

Leaking a DSTL 'secret' document is a serious matter in itself. However, the figures that are being revealed are not all that surprising. If anyone takes a look at the KPPs for the F-35 variants (open source and dating back to 07) the difference in range of the B and the C have been there for all to see. I have also seen open source briefs from LM detailing fuel capacities of the B and the C. I know that, because I delivered one of them to the RAeS in 2006. From these, it's not hard for a competent performance engineer to derive quite accurate estimates for 'time on station'.

Some errors mixed in with these old facts. The CVF deck surface does not need to be modified to 'protect it' from vertical anding jet blast. Catapults and arresting gear were included in the original CVF design. F-35C increased fuel capacity comes from larger wing tanks as much as the extra fuselage tank. And some partiality as well. The F-35B landing is not 'fuel-guzzling' - do the detailed calculations on fuel burn for a normal STOVL recovery and a normal CV trap recovery, and you find not much difference.

I really do agree with Bastardeaux that this recent 'B vs C' saga has been badly handled by the Government and the MoD. Objective analysis appears to have gone out of the window, and in my view it was a victim of inter-service politics, lack of technical grasp at at higher levels, and plain poor execution of the SDSR. Not good, and seriously damages the Uk's reputation for competence in defence acquisition. Bernard Gray will be looking for a new job soon, in my view.

Best regards as ever

Engines

[Widger]

F35B = more aircraft= more bums on seats for the two -winged, future leaders of the RAF Master Race.

F35C = Less aircraft and more competency required = more time at sea= more navy pilots = less bums on seats for the two-winged, future leaders of the RAF Master Race and an obsolete platform in the Typhoon. SHAR FA2 vs F3 all over again!!

[BEagle]

And would your fishy-folk flying the F35C have also been trained at an FAA EFTS, FAA BFTS, FAA AFTS and FAA TWU? Or do you expect the 'crabs' to have done all that for you?

[alfred_the_great]

Nah, it's ok, the USN are all good.

[salad-dodger]

Could this turn out to be the most blatant mismanagement of resources my generation sees?

It'll take some doing to beat MRA4, but anything's possible when the MoD get involved :ugh:

S-D

[dat581]

You would have to try hard to beat the RAN's Sea Sprite debarcle, $1.1 Billion wasted on eleven refurbished helicopters that never entered service.

[Widger]

and that is the other mistake in assuming all the 'schools' are RAF as opposed to 'Central'.

[WillDAQ]

You would have to try hard to beat the RAN's Sea Sprite debarcle, $1.1 Billion wasted on eleven refurbished helicopters that never entered service.

I dunno, MRA4 was less aircraft, refurbished, for 4 times the price, all scrapped.

[LowObservable]

I wonder if some of the inter-service aspects of this kerfuffle were sparked after the SDSR, when people realized that there would not (for a very long time) be enough UK JSFs, regardless of variant, to do more than maintain the carrier air wing. (Note that the Froggies have 60 Rafales for one carrier.) However, that problem (for the RAF) is less with the more "jointly operable" B...

[Not_a_boffin]

Who is the budget holder for JCA? I think we have a winner.......

[Widger]

CAP TA probably and the TA Programme Board in Main Building. I think we have a winner!

[Engines]

Gentlemen,

It might be useful to remember the circumstances that led to FJCA, and the intentions for the UK F-35 fleet.

Cast your minds back to 2000 and the heady days of 'Joint Force Harrier' standing up. The RAF and RN had agreed that, in return for the RN relinquishing ownership of its fixed wing fleet, the RAF would command, operate and develop JFH as a two aircraft fleet, bringing AD and Strike assets together into a fleet of aircraft that would support both land and sea based ops, using STOVL aircraft.

We had also committed to the JSF programme via a special 'STOVL MoU' which recognised the UK/US long partnership (over 45 years) on STOVL, and in which the UK stated that it saw the STOVL JSF as a key element of future UK tactical aircraft force planning. JFH was to be the 'route through' to those sunny uplands, building a true joint ethos ready to receive an aircraft that could deliver both AD capability and strike power from land or sea.

And to complete the picture, CVF was moving towards contract, built around a requirement that specified two large STOVL carriers with the capability to accept cat and trap as a fallback.

It was against that picture that the original Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) programme, Navy owned, turned into FJCA - Future Joint Combat Aircraft. No change to requirements, just a change of title. Still a joint STOVL future. Sounded great. Then the wheels began to fall off the wagon.

First wheel off - within weeks of formation of JFH, the RAF, who now owned the SHAR, decided to offer it up as a savings measure to pay for the huge cost overruns on the GR9 programme. Sadly, the RN went along with this, reassured that a 'Joint Air Wing' would form up to maintain two FAA front line GR9 units to maintain embarked currency. Incidentally, a plan that was not even discussed with the engineering Fleet Managers for the GR7/9 fleet before it was approved. (But hey, the pilots said it was possible, and who was going to argue with them?)

Second wheel off - The RAF decided to block formation of the second RN commanded front line unit. At about the same time, the RAF decided that the Harrier fleet FEAR should be reduced, and thus effectively withdraw their commitment to maintain embarked currency. Result - marked reduction in ability of JFH to effectively embark in CVS and fight. But not a problem for the RAF, who understandably gave priority to the Afghan ops.

Third wheel off - SDSR 2010, and the RAF (CAS, with CDS support) makes a decision to dispense with Harrier to preserve its entire Tornado fleet. This decision was not discussed with CNS before it was given to the PM.

Now add in the final element - the RAF's hidden problem that it had blown all its future tactical aircraft budget (and a few other budgets as well) on Typhoon, leaving the square root of s*d all for a Tornado replacement. The failure of a number of options and programmes (FOAS, etc.) followed.

The result of all these is that the decision to for cat and trap (and I am not saying it's the wrong one) was not accompanied by the important discussion on what the future F-35C force was now going to do. All the public discussions to date have revolved around the impact on the carriers, but the impact on land based strike has hardly been mentioned. And when it does, we get the sort of single service language ('fishy', 'crabs') that prevent any rational discussion.

So, just for stamps, here's my put. First, having decided to go for F-35C, the UK should now see it through. Another reversal of course would, I think, involve even more expense and we would end up with a less capable jet. Second, accept that cat and trap can't be handled like JFH tried (and utterly failed) to do naval aviation. The RAF just isn't interested, nor in my view should it be expected to be. Leave the F-35C force to the RN to own and command, with a secondary role to go land based if required (which all FAA units had in the past). Third, meet the RAF GR4 replacement requirement with F-35A. It's radius of action is only 10 miles less than the 35C, and it's cheaper. Reduced RAF requirement, as the RN F-35Cs could, in some cases, come in as backup. Finally, task DE&S set up a joint training, support and sustainment model for the two F-35 customers. Lots of reaL commonality to exploit there.

Result? a mixed F-35A/C buy. The country gets what it needs - effective strike capabilities based on land and at sea, and both owned by people who are competent and committed. Pipe dream? Probably. But better than the 'ferrets in a sack' spectacle the country is watching now.

Best Regards as ever to those who, while all this is being played out, are in harm's way...

Engines

[Not_a_boffin]

And (as ever) put logically and in a nutshell by Engines.

That argument (and history) is what should be in the forefront of the debate / debacle regarding the ships and JCA.

I wonder how many of the higher-up non-service protagonists are actually aware of this?

[FODPlod]

Engines - As ever, an authoritative, rational and well-reasoned post from you without a hint of the self-defeating enmity introduced into the debate by less considerate posters. Thank you for explaining the situation so clearly.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

FODPlod Engines - As ever, an authoritative, rational and well-reasoned post from you without a hint of the self-defeating enmity introduced into the debate by less considerate posters. Thank you for explaining the situation so clearly.

Really? Apart from his last 3 paragraphs stating his POV everything else reads like a 'Sharkey' rant.

As always best regards.

[John Farley]

Engines

Thank you for a post worth so much more than many here.

J

[Backwards PLT]

I'm with fire n forget. Engine's post is not a generally accepted history, it is very much the current dark blue mantra of "The RAF shafted us over JFH". In particular the "facts" that it was an RAF decision to bin SHar and that the RAF "blocked" the FAA GR7 sqn.

I would also disagree that the RAF isn't interested in sea based Air Power - Air Power is the RAF's business, where the airfield happens to be is largely irrelevant. If that means RAF personnel spending time at sea then so be it.

The RN currently reminds me of Scotland - everything that goes well is due to them, everything that goes badly is the other guys fault.

[ORAC]

With the increasing lack of commonality between the versions, the difference in refueling systems (pending someone paying to have the 35A modified), and the similarity in performance between the A and C, why buy 2 different models? Just standardize on the F-35C.

It would also allow the fleet to be rotated through carrier use and equalise the airframe life.

[Aggamemnon]

With the increasing lack of commonality between the versions, the difference in refueling systems (pending someone paying to have the 35A modified), and the similarity in performance between the A and C, why buy 2 different models? Just standardize on the F-35B.

It would also allow the fleet to be rotated through carrier use and equalise the airframe life.

@ORAC Surely the logical outcome from your post is to standardise on F35C?

[Not_a_boffin]

It may not be generally accepted history. That does not mean it isn't true.

I don't think anyone (of whichever blue persuasion) would argue that the RN head-shed have covered themselves in glory throughout the JFH saga. However, as the RN no longer "owned" SHAR or it's budget, it could hardly stop retirement, without dismantling JFH and consequently disavowing "jointness".

As for blocking 801, I think there have been a number of debates on that in here, most of which centre on JFH mandating RAF manning / training quals, (despite FAA operating safety records), which the training system was not set up to deliver. So while perhaps not a "deliberate" block, an effective one nonetheless.

[Bastardeux]

Wait, so if the RAF are perfectly happy to do 6 month stints at sea, what on earth is the need for Navy command of squadrons? Sure post a few navy pilots that meet the grade for FJ onto the squadrons, but surely it would make sense to have one cohesive, unambiguous force? Either that or as engines says, a split A/C purchase?

[LowObservable]

Engines took me back to my childhood there:

I'm singing a higgity, haggity, hoggety, high
Pioneers, they never say die
A mile up the road there's a hidden cave
And we can watch those marginalized and oppressed indigenous peoples
Go galloping by

Anyway - assuming that the F-35A and F-35C make it past sequestration, hook issues, the IPP's flamethrower mode and certain contractors' apparent inability to locate their own body parts without a flashlight and a search warrant, the two-type approach could work and would give the RAF the stealth striker that they want.

As for range, I would pull the gun off the A (which should not be impossible with judicious use of B and C parts). Eliminates a lot of empty weight, frees up room for a lot of fuel, reduces drag and can't hurt the RCS, what with the present configuration being reminiscent of a donkey in Y-fronts. Also avoids introducing a unique new ammo type in the logistics system.

[orca]

BEagle.

Fixed Wing Fast Jet Flying Training is delivered very well by the RAF, with RN input, on behalf of defence and there is no reason to change that. Except we're changing it to MFTS apparently.

I am unconvinced myself of the requirement for any UK based fast air training for the F-35C given the USN and French make do with T-45C and as far as I have heard MFTS aren't looking at a big under carriage and a fresnel lens with which to practice flying into the ground in a nose up attitude and calling it a landing.

Therefore we actually need to send our small cadre to the US anyway. This leaves EFT and BFT for the UK.

[Backwards PLT]

Bastardeux - a good question! The crux of the matter is that the RAF think that carrier Air Power is Air Power and should be done by the RAF. The RN believe that carrier Air Power is Naval Power and should be done by the RN - it's all a matter of perspective.

Interestingly the use of Apaches from Ocean/Illustrious provides the RN with a bit of a quandry. At the moment on one hand they are saying that it is a great capability and no issue with army crews doing it yet at the same time saying that only RN pilots could fly fixed wing from the carriers. It could look a little like their problem isn't with the concept but with the RAF and some sort of perceived failure if the loss of FW in the FAA is long term.

[Widger]

backwards

No. The issue is that the RAF try and do Maritime aviation part-time. You could just about get away with it with the Harrier (no non-diversion flying!) But you will not get away with it on CVF without killing at least one person.

Most people could not care less the colour of the uniform. Call it the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF if you like but....to be operationally effective and safe, you have got to do maritime MOST of the time. That is the point and it does not juat apply to the Pilots, but everyone else in the chain as well, from the Chefs, Engineers, Survival equipment, Ops to ATC staff and the chockheads.

[orca]

Backwards/ Widger,

Let's not forget that the supervision of flying is provided by FAA on the platforms mentioned above. JFH got away with being provided with a Cdr (Air) and Cdr (Air Engineering) who relied on type specific advice from the embarked unit. Ocean had an aviator in command and a JHC Cdr (Air) for Ellamy. AAC embarked a SO1 'duty holder'. For a two line programme.

This simply won't wash with a CV deck.

The AAC embarkation is a perfect example of how a team of dedicated individuals (right down to Apache Maritime Strike arm patches) got themselves into the correct shape to put a pair of aircraft in harm's way. If you read their OC's response to being awarded a QCVS you will see that it was no short term thing. It took a real effort. Without breaking a sweat, I can think of at least one evening when one of the aircraft almost went swimming and there were issues with spotting and armament that the squadron and ship's team worked through.

So in summary. If you have a team that is keen as mustard on both sides of the fence and are prepared to work your nuts off for quite a long time to provide a small scale flying programme you can make it work.

If you want an integrated capability that's ready at the drop of a hat in an assured manner you need investment and supervision.

I for one would rather we ditched the ridiculous thinking that Joint means sharing everything and went for a Joint which brought our strengths together. RN should man, maintain and command the rebranded Carrier Combat Aircraft offering them up to the ACC in time of war just like the USN does. The RAF should do the same for the Stealthy Strike Aircraft. But we should combine the support facilities and co-locate the base. They could even train together just in case.

But serving on the wrong services' squadrons, swapping jets, reporting on other services' officers, RN unable to effect its own squadron's programme, Naval squadron with embarked jets on a RN CVS ordered to stop flying by High Wycombe? All wrong in my opinion.

But I fear a previous poster is correct. If you own the jets..you hold every ace in the pack.

[Backwards PLT]

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".

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!).

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.

[orca]

Backwards,

I am with you to what you will probably think a surprising degree. I think the RN has in the past been devoid of imagination and wit when designing the training schedule for their aircraft and the crab ones they hosted. I think they have been keen to have jets on the deck to the detriment of training opportunities.

The other side of tthe coin is that the RAF, or personalities within it (in the JFH case) were sea shy, thought that no good could possibly come from being embarked and assumed that the jets would be locked in a hangar whilst their air and ground crew would be forced to sing shanties all day long.

There is of course a lovely middle ground occupied by those of both cloths. Sadly in my experience the inhabitants were all Cdrs/ Wg Cdrs and below.

[163627]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but an aircraft carrier by itself is of very little military value; in fact the two QE ships have only a very limited defence armament and no protective armour (both items ditched to cut costs) so have in themselves no deterrent or other military value. What converts these two potential white elephants into potent weapon systems of the first order is the range and capability of their air wing. So most of the time a carrier is at sea without an effective air wing it is a pretty useless and ineffective military asset.For these ships to have any use other than to provide free cruises in the sun to their very large, expensive and highly trained crews they need a virtually full time air wing, anything else is just playing at carrier strike and the whole project should be binned before UK Defence plc looks any more foolish.

Two final points:

If part-time “tailored air groups” are the future, how come no other navy/air force is queuing up to adopt the concept?

The attitude of the RAF was encapsulated for me when 800NAS were refused permission to put “Royal Navy” on the side of their Harriers.

Please note, these comments relate to the QE and PoW being acquired to be full blown strike carriers; if they are to be the world’s largest and most expensive commando or helicopter carriers then that’s fine!!!

[orca]

Sadly old chap 800 didn't have any Harriers. It maintained and flew those Harriers allocated to it by the Harrier role office at 1 Group which became HEPC (which stands for something I can't remember).

AOC 1 Group owned all the Harriers, the RN owned none.

I personally think this is sad. I think the fact that it'll be exactly the same with JCA is even sadder.

[glojo]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but an aircraft carrier by itself is of very little military value; It all depends on what is defined as 'military value'

An aircraft carrier will have a state of the art Command and Control suite, it will carry officers from the Army who will offer specialist knowledge within their area of expertise. It will or should carry a detachment of Royal Marines, plus of course it has its own Royal Navy sailors who in times of need will wear MANY uniforms.

The exploits of one carrier in one commission.
Spain shut off fresh water supplies to Gibraltar and that island had problems with its water supply. The carrier docked, produced water for the island plus its engineers help fixed the island's equipment.

An ocean liner caught fire hundreds of miles out to sea, that very same carrier was one of the first ships to offer assistance. The medical staff worked around the clock to carry out numerous operations and first aid, plus sadly those passengers that died were interned in suitable locations.

Then on to Aden to embark more Royal Marines to offer assistance to an island whose army had mutinied against its British officers (yes helicopters were used to land the Royal Marines but no fast jet activity)

An aircraft carrier is a huge projection of military might whose deterrent value should never be underestimated.

The sailors of the carrier will help sort out the distillation plant on Gibraltar, they helped rescue the survivors from that blazing cruise ship., offered medical attention to the injured and sadly recovered the dead. They also went ashore in Tanganyika not just to help quell that mutiny but also to repair damaged buildings to help patrol the streets whilst there was still unrest.

Were these examples 'one offs'? I very much doubt it as there will always be calls to the British Government for help, assistance or aid and this is quite simply what the Royal Navy does.... Week in, week out, no fuss, no medals, no recognition and no publicity.

To highlight this here is another example:
Whilst serving on a very small destroyer at the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies we were diverted to the Seychelles where law and order had completely broken down and 'jolly jack' was once more expected to put on a different uniform and not just restore law and order, but get the island back onto an even keel.

A Navy electrician might be fixing a fuse one day, quelling a riot the next and then the following day be in a local school playing with children who cannot speak a word of English. an aircraft carrier will offer far, far more expertise plus of course equipment. Our destroyer had NO doctor and very limited medical supplies, but that did not stop us from dealing with a host of ailments whilst we were ashore on that beautiful island. :)

I always end up asking myself if the RAF really understand what the Royal Navy does when deployed overseas. I have given a few examples of my own personal experiences but we are also ambassadors, we go to foreign ports where we show those countries the very best of what our country has to offer and the carrier again will always lead the way in that regard. A modern carrier with state of the art aircraft will shout louder than mere words

I guess I had now better take cover and prepare for the 'incoming' :O

[Engines]

LO,

Thanks for the reply, and I hope your trip back to childhood was a pleasant one - although your reference was a touch obscure for me. Care to explain?

I'm interested by your comments on F-35 - what is the 'IPP flamethrower' issue you refer to? Happy to add some facts if you like (it's less hot and slower than the Super Hornet's, for instance), but PM me if you want some gen. I agree with yr suggestion for the A gun, better to go for the podded system. Saves weight and fuel.

Actually, they started with a 27mm Mauser, then dropped it for a US Gatling design. The 25mm round it uses is a standard NATO one, and more easily available (and a tenth the cost) of the 27mm Mauser item. But when has non-standard ammo ever stopped the pilots going out and buying the kit they want?

And on contractors' performance? See my previous posts. It's a free country, say what you like, where you like, when you like. Just don't get bent out of shape if someone asks you one day to see if you can do any better.

Best regards as ever

Engines

[WhiteOvies]

Engines,
I believe he's talking about the fuel dump issues reported in the media back in January.

163627

As pointed out there is lots that carriers can do even without an embarked fixed wing force, although you can do even more with one.

I still think we missed a trick not using Ark Royal with the aircraft embarked for Auriga 10 deployment: SK7, Merlin, Lynx and Harrier GR9 (with Sniper recce pod and Rover) in the anti piracy role. C & C platform, good area coverage, good mix of size and armament of helos covering a multitude of options, FJ with good recce capability and live downlink to the CVS ops room and A-G weapons if needed.

Ark also did a lot of the work up of the Apaches during the Autumn Joint Warrior 10, paving the way for HMS Ocean and Op Ellamy. Little remembered but important none the less!

[Backwards PLT]

163627, you need to be careful how you view QE class carriers. They may be nearly 3 times the size of the Invincible class but they're still not Nimitz size and the concept of ops is far different.

The current plan is for QE to carry 12 F35s plus a mix of helos. This makes it a jack of all trades (master of none?) not a "strike carrier" as you might imagine. Personally I think it's probably the right way to go.

By state of the art C2 I assume we are dreaming about QE, not Invincible class!!!

Orca - I agree, especially about the sea shy, although I think you are being quite generous to many at the Cdr / Wg Cdr level, that seems to be the rank where they turn and become politicians and few resist!

[glojo]

Hi Backwards,
I am sure the 'B' is a great aircraft but to me if we have carriers then we should have 'proper' carriers and there should be AEW plus EW capability. These carriers must surely be big enough to have a full capability but I bow to Not A Boffin regarding this topic.

[Backwards PLT]

glojo, I'm not so sure the B is a great aircraft, except in a pure engineering sense. I, like pretty much everyone else, think we should be going with the C. As you pointed out that means that not only is the C a more capable aircraft but also you can operate fixed wing AEW/EW/transport/RPA.

The carriers will have AEW capability, but unfortunately it will be rotary based with all the downsides that brings (height, range, speed, endurance).

The QE class could go with an all F35 loadout but it isn't as simple as flying the helos off and landing JSF on. And as I said that isn't the currnt plan - it's not all about fast jets, helos bring an awful lot of flex and capability to the party. Look at all the examples in your earlier post and which would have been more useful a bunch of stealthy FJ or a bunch of helos? Just to clarify - I am a FJ guy and I can't quite believe I'm saying this!

[glojo]

Hi Backwards,
Totally agree with all you are saying, I cringe at the thought of rotary AEW but I am an old fogey that served alongside Nelson so these new helicopter toys might be sufficient but to my way of thinking we need 'height' and 'duration'

Any carrier we deploy MUST carry sufficient rotor wing capability to carry out the numerous functions that are part and parcel of carrier deployment. Looking back at our last conventional carrier I believe she carried at least ten RW aircraft but I look forward to reading the thoughts of those better qualified to comment.

This post reads like I am making suggestions but please accept I should be asking questions.

I accept the Super Hornet is getting long in the tooth but a little voice keeps asking if we are making far too much of 'First Day' strike capability. Is the costs of this technology justified when we have tomahawk along with UAVs. Why not look at the Growler along with any further developments. Boeing have the so called 'Silent (http://www.defencetalk.com/boeing-f-15-silent-eagle-fires-amraam-missile-27622/)F-15E' will there be further improvements for the F-18?

[Not_a_boffin]

The "plan" such as it is, reflects it's authors rather than what the ship is capable of. There is currently a b8ggers muddle called Carrier Enabled Power Projection that seeks to have 12 F35, half a dozen Chinook, some Merlin and possibly some rotary-bag and even AH64 all embarked together.

The idea is (correctly) to demonstrate the flexibility the (large) ship brings. However, it does not mean that is only what the CAG should look like. For example, were we ever to go up against a remotely credible air force, (naval or land based) then you'd want more jets and less Wokka.

However, these "plans" are only assumptions, a bit like FE@R, they can change. What you have to make sure is that the baseline enabling capability (the ship) is flexible enough to do all (or most) the things you want to do now and in the future. That means cat n trap....

[Backwards PLT]

Out of interest, and ignoring inter-service conspiracy theories etc, is there anyone who doesn't think cat'n'trap is the way ahead. The intellectual might that is PPRuNe seems to be unanimous!

[TBM-Legend]

Isn't it really the B model or nothing? Therefore B model wins and should be seen as a good thing. Bit like the old Harrier vs. the real carrier arguments that raged on last century. Decisions are made [good & bad] and we will just have to do the job!

[SSSETOWTF]

Backwards,

I'll stick my head above the parapet and say that I'm not convinced that cats and traps are the way to go.

The 2000lb class weapons in the bay of a -C is a complete red herring to me. So you're having to go in LO config, i.e. it's a high threat environment; there's a target out there that a 1000lb class munition will bounce off but a 2000lb will destroy; and the threat that was so high a minute ago that made you go in LO is now sufficiently low that there's no chance that they'll protect the said target with SA-19 or -22 to take down the odd singleton PGM. Sounds like a trivial edge case to me that can be ignored. The question about capability is 'how many SDBs do I get in the bay' and it's the same for -B or -C.

When you play Top Trumps with the fuel number of course the -C wins. But then look at how we've traditionally operated tailhook vs STOVL aircraft. Hornet guys usually aim to be back overhead Mother close to max trap, or certainly with enough gas left in the tank to make a couple of passes, and then be able to hit the tanker if necessary or bingo to the beach (seeing as we don't have a tanker...) - around 3-4000lbs of fuel? Harrier guys on ops, i.e. bringing bombs back, would routinely come back with 1000lb of fuel alongside as that was all they could hover with. My point isn't that -B's could ever match the range figures or on-station time of the -C, but that I don't think the differential is quite as glaring as people make out when you start operating airplanes and stop focusing on spec numbers.

Finally on the fuel argument, how much is 'enough'? Our mighty mighty Tornados have been hailed as very successful deep strike aircraft for decades. But they don't go as far, or carry as many internal weapons, as an F1-11 would have, and they have a combat radius with a full warload that isn't that much bigger than a -B's. Just because the -C goes further than a -B doesn't render the -B useless. The basing flexibility of the -B is better than than the -C after all.

And on interoperability - buy the -C and you get one UK carrier, limited capability of cross-decking to the Frenchies if you don't land at max trap (allegedly), and you can land on any Nimitz you find. Buy the -B and you get 2 UK carriers, the French carrier, the Spanish carrier, the Italian carrier, all the Nimitz and LHA/LHD/LHX fleet and you can use any old LPH in extremis if fuel's tight. If you smoke enough mind-altering substances you can dream of a world of bottomless defence budgets in which the UK could be able to lease fleets of aircraft or buy cat & trap tankers, AEW aircraft, On-Board delivery aircraft etc. But personally I don't see it happening, ever. If we as a Nation suddenly come into a glut of cash we first need to buy some more destroyers and frigates to defend all the eggs we're putting in our carrier basket.

I suppose my position on the -B vs -C debate is that to a degree it doesn't matter. The frontline pilots who get their hands on this jet will make either work, and make it work very well. In my head they're both as capable as each other. My concern, if I have one, is that I'd hate it if, when you visit an F-35 squadron in 20 years time, all the guys are strutting around wearing patches that declare how many times they've successfully landed their airplane, and people are talking about who won the 'line period' and is 'top hook' for the last cruise etc.

Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!

[Bastardeux]

Long acronym man,

Your argument of the performance of the B vs legacy jets is entirely valid, but in your assessment of B vs C, you acknowledge that the B is the inferior aircraft; so other than the 2 carrier argument and less landing risk, what is your reasoning for preferring the more expensive B? This isn't an "I'm a know it all" question, I'm interested in trying to make sense of the logic that some people put forward for the B. At the moment, the pros and cons of the B vs C, are heavily in favour of the C.

As for getting a fully decked-out carrier air wings with AEW and COD, I guess we'll know after next years comprehensive spending review, if the money will or will not be made available for that in this decade. But I have to say, I don't buy into the pessimism that is gripping the country, yes we're in a bad financial situation at the moment, but in 25 years time we could be thanking the shale gas industry for turning us into Norway; alternatively we could be queuing at the world bank for aid, both are unlikely but you get my point. Likewise, we don't know to what extent the government will prioritise defence over other spending in a more volatile world; personally I'm in the camp that the commitment to increased spending after 2015 is a sign that the next 3 years will be rock bottom for the British military - our version of the carter years, if you will.

[orca]

SSSEOWTF,

Good arguments and whilst I don't disagree with your thought process my choice is still the C.

I do completely agree that we need strong leadership (not rules - but you can't stop the crabs making more rules given half the opportunity) to stop 'Top Hook' and 'Top Ten' patches appearing in Joint Force Lightning II. I have always found it funny how you never see a 'Top of the combat ladder' patch with the USN or 'Quite good BVR, not bad CEP' patch. (I dared to suggest once that 'the patch' (Topgun) was no more than our AWIs wearing a patch...and got looked at like I was from Mars.)

The again we are talking about the bunch who go to 'attention to award' and give people medals for going about their day to day business.

May be there is a direct parallel and the USMC award a 'top VL' for a cruise...not something we ever felt the need for!

Hope all well, Orca.

[Lowe Flieger]

The link is to a Defence News item confirming Hammond is still weighing up the choice between the B and C, with an announcement due sometime after May 3. The item also refers to a search for the source of the press leaks about carrier conversion costs.

Hammond 'still considering carrier options' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19580)

I have been very disappointed in how this has been handled so far, with the indecision pointing to weakness all round, but I hope Hammond is getting accurate and impartial advice so that he can make the correct choice for the circumstances. In that respect, better two more weeks than another rushed decision followed by another about turn.

The business of leaks raises some questions too. The press are often ridiculed over howlers (see thread title for example), yet when one vested military interest or another is worried about how a project is developing, they are not slow to seek support by leaking to the press. So is the press an ally or an enemy, or both, depending on whether it is furthering your interests or belittling them?

While the accuracy is often lamentable, and there are definitely downsides, on the whole I believe that the press shining a light on some dark places is in all of our interests. Not coughing up real secrets that threaten security you understand, but military procurement in the UK has short-changed us at huge expense for too long for civil servants or governments to be able to hide behind a security cloak that does more to protect reputations and political careers than further our defence.

[glojo]

There are excellent points being put forward for the B as opposed to the conventional C, but what about servicing? With a carrier just over the horizon would the lack of numbers be less significant if those that were aboard the ship were available? Servicing is always a major issue and if one type needs less than the other, then should that also be taken into consideration when making this decision?

When putting forward this case, has the value of having AEW been discussed? Are the benefits of the Hawkeye significant enough to influence the decision or is it being ignored? Is that specific option as important, or even more important than what type of FJ we go for?

Do we need to look at the whole as opposed to separate parts? If we go for the B then is there a long term AEW aircraft capable of operating from a grey funnel liner?

Again these are questions and NOT statements

[orca]

The significance of the quoted numbers is that they are all encompassing. i.e. if you want to go to war against country A, then you had better take an air group of N F35Cs or N+Y F35Bs.

Y is due to the fact that if you want to hit deep targets - errr, well you can't so the war will last longer. If the Flankers come up to meet you then the B gives you a few 'pump and recommits' the C gives you a whole load more. The B might well have a lower availability rate...hence we arrive at Y.

[SSSETOWTF]

Bastardeaux,

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I thought the -B was inferior, it's just different. I flew the -B a fair bit, and spent many hours in the sim 'flying' the -C and I much preferred the -B. They're both about the same empty weight (i.e. the weight penalty for STOVL is the same as the weight penalty for CV). But humping around all that extra 3 tonnes of fuel makes the -C fly differently. It's like the difference between flying an F-3 or Harrier with the drop tanks on compared to the clean config. But the -C does glide much further if you were ever to lose the donk.

I'm nowhere near clever enough to know or understand all the cost projections and estimates. Big picture though, the SDSR quoted 3.4 billion savings by switching to the -C, but I believe that included the savings from chopping the Harrier and eliminating the DPOC and only represented a cash saving of around 600 million (if memory serves). Since the cost estimates of putting the cats and traps into the PoW have ballooned from 800 million to 1.8 billion, that's certainly wiped out the up front 'saving' of switching to the -C. Curiously, the switch from -B to -C was made accepting the notion that we'd mothball the QE so only ever have one carrier with 150-200 days/year availability, which hardly sounds like an increase in overall Carrier Strike capability to me, even if the -C can go further than the -B.

The SDSR also assumed and relied on the notion that the defence budget would increase after 2015 in order to meet its extant planning assumptions for Future Force 2020. So the MoD still has a funding hole until at least the end of the decade, which makes it nigh on impossible to think about buying new aircraft types. If we decide against cats and traps now, we're probably not missing out on capability for a decade or 2. If the MoD gets rich enough in 20 years time to be able to afford E2Ds, C2s, F-18 tankers, T-45 trainers, X-45/X-47s then couldn't we modify the ships for cats during the normal refit cycle?

If the certified smart guys at Dstl say that you need to buy 138 -Bs or -92 -Cs (can't remember the exact numbers), personally I'd say that was another compelling reason to go for the -B. Wouldn't you rather see 4 operational squadrons of F-35 in UK markings rather than 3? The cliche of numbers having a quality of their own springs to mind.

Landing the -C on a ship is fundamentally no different from landing an F-18. It'll take constant training, you'll rack up the fatigue life of the jets whether you're embarked or not, you'll probably end up with an LSO empire and it makes us dependent on the US for our initial carrier training. Landing the -B on a ship is almost trivial by comparison. There truly will be an almost negligible training burden for embarked ops (from the pilot's stand-point), so there really is no need to thrash the clutch and lift system while you're shore-based. So I'm skeptical about all the accuracy of through-life cost projections that assume 50% of all -B landings will involve using the clutch etc. It also means that -B pilots can spend almost every minute of their time training to hit targets and not worrying about becoming 'Centurions' who have successfully landed on a ship 100 times.

As I said before, I'm pretty type-agnostic, but I lean towards the -B for these reasons. As long as we buy a reasonable number of F-35s I don't really mind what variant they are, or whether they say 'Royal Navy' or 'Royal Air Force' down the side. Let's not forget that, -B or -C, you still get the radar (that is so good that it makes you giggle like a school kid the first time you use it), the EOTS, the DASS, the MADL, the fusion, an awesome cockpit, and the LO capability.

Sorry for rambling on again. Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!

[oldspool]

In an ideal world it would be nice to see 2 carriers embarked with a healthy number of -C, however this isn't a game of top trumps.

Given the known (particularly budgetary) constraints, if the choice is between 2 carriers and 138 -B or 1 carrier with 96 -C, personally I'd go for the -B.

If this is the choice (I don't know whether it is) then I can understand why the military brass might be advocating a switch back to the -B. I'd wager that 'more ships and more planes' carries more weight [for both the RAF and RN] than many of the advantages currently being advocated of the -C.

Add to the fact that reverting to the -B moves the short-term cost of installing EMALS (whatever that ballooning figure is) out of the current planning round (and any implications on carrier build schedule) and the case for the -B becomes more sound.

As I say, I understand the capability advantages of the -C but I can understand the rationale of a possible reversion to the -B.

Best,

[PhilipG]

SSSEOWTF
I think that your arguments about different training needs for the B and C would have been very valid if the B could land vertically as a Harrier does. My understanding is that to be able to bring back unused weapons that the B will have to do a rolling landing.
I would have thought that the skills needed to master a rolling landing on a pitching carrier deck at night relying on the aircraft's brakes to stop, whilst a different skill set from those of a run of the mill naval aviator, would mitigate against the swing squadron concept.
Quite prepared to be corrected on my understanding..

[Cows getting bigger]

I see that today's Times reinvigorates the modified Typhoon discussion. :eek:

[exMudmover]

The last time the RAF tried an RVL on a carrier (back in the early days of GR1 - once again because of lack of VL performance), the pilot concerned lost directional control and pirouetted through 360 degrees while sliding gracefully between the ranks of parked aircraft! IIRC we never tried it again. Vertical was so much easier.

No doubt 'B' enthusiasts will tell me the deck RVL won't be a problem.

[orca]

Guys you are distorting the figures.

The 130+ to 90+ figure is a capability statement i.e. if you want to kill the same amount of baddies over the lifetime of the jet you require 130+ Bs or significantly fewer Cs.

Some seem to suggest that this means we'll get more Bs.

Absolute hoop. I'll wager the actual buy will be identical. We can only afford so many, we'll only get so many, let's get the better one.

[Engines]

Gentlemen,

Once again, for the avoidance of doubt.

The F-35B is required to be able to recover to the deck using a VL with a full internal weapons load of 2 1000 pound JDAMS and 2 AIM-120s. This drives the KPP (Key Performance Parameter) for VL Bring Back (VLBB). The F-35B meets this KPP under the climatic conditions specified in the JORD. The UK initiated the RVL studies because they want the aircraft to be able to do this at even more demanding conditions in the Persian Gulf in summer. I'm tempted to write this in capitals, as many don't seem to get the simple fact that the F-35 can bring back its weapons to a VL on a hot day. Not, I freely admit, on a super hot day.

RVLs - I certainly don't claim that 'they are not a problem', mainly because they have not yet been tried. However, citing Harrier GR1 problems as a reason not to attempt them in a 35B is not relevant. The Harrier's 'bicycle' landing gear layout caused immense problems in its early days (P1127 onwards) and the GR1 still had some major issues that were only partially fixed on the GR3. The AV-8B's revised outriggers were, in part, an attempt to improve deck handling. On top of these, the braking performance of the Harrier was marginal at best. Finally, Harrier flying qualities at RVL speeds were really not very good.

F-35B has a good stable gear layout with very powerful main gear carbon brakes controlled by a sophisticated computer driven system. It's flight control systems are 50 years on from the Harrier, and precision RVL approaches should not be a high workload event. That's what the guys doing the test flying say.

CVF is a big deck with a longer run out area, and will be a lot more stable in roll and pitch than legacy Harrier ships like CVS or LPDs.

I'm not for one minute claiming that these will solve all the problems of RVLs, should the RN go for them. But they make the issue a wholly different proposition from the days of GR1s on small decks. That said, the whole issue of operating aircraft from carriers calls for dedicated aircrew and RN ownership. The UK tried a 'joint' unit and it failed. Best to learn from one's mistakes, in my view.

Navalised Typhoon - some zombies just won't die, will they? It's amazing, and in a way, humbling, to see how effective BAE BD guys are at getting the Times to print their publicity material. However, it's more depressing to see how technically illiterate the mainstream press has become.

Best Regards

Engines

[Bastardeux]

Navalised Typhoon - some zombies just won't die, will they?

My thoughts exactly, though in the event of serious F35 trouble, I wouldn't put it past the MoD to take this route instead of the F18.

If it's good for BAE, it's good for the military :ok:

[WhiteOvies]

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.

[LowObservable]

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.

[ORAC]

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. To be fair, those on the ground flying the aircraft are not dispassionate and objective.

[Bastardeux]

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?

[Heathrow Harry]

see the Indians are starting to practice deck landings with Mig-29's.....

[LowObservable]

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.

[kbrockman]

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/2012/04/sharkey-ward-turns-rabidly-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.

[Widger]

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.

[Red Line Entry]

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!)

[kbrockman]

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.

[Heathrow Harry]

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......................

[JFZ90]

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.

[Fedaykin]

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?

Thats news to me, that would be a major flight incident that would more then likely lead to a grounding. Haven't heard about any such groundings for this reason and even if it is true might well not be BAE Systems fault as it is a multinational design.

not to mention many others including the Tornado F3 weapons system

Much has been written about the F3 Tornado's weapons system over the years but the early issues can't really be laid at BAe's door considering it was a GEC-Marconi Elliott Avionic Systems Ltd radar and weapon system, not forgetting Ferrenti who made significant components of the system but answered directly to the MOD. Actually it was BAE Systems after various mergers who eventually fixed it and upgraded it into what was a very effective system in its later years. Another thing about the Tornado ADV weapon system is in many ways much of the earlier flack was slightly unfair on the developers. Even early on the RAF started to ask for capabilities that were never put into the weapon system specification. Some capabilities that were available on the older Phantom curiously, the manufacturers are not telepathic if they are not asked for something they won't include it. Frankly that shows poor planning on the MOD/RAF side rather then the manufacturers.

Nimrod’s total lack of airworthiness and maintainability

Maybe maybe not, certainly I think BAE should of proffered some alternatives to the Nimrod airframe but done is done. No RAF aircraft enters service without defects and maintainability is down to how much you are prepared to spend. Neither MR2 or MRA4 lacked airworthiness, one had been operated ten to fifteen years beyond its planned OSD with all the associated risks and the latter was still in flight trials.

the huge cost of maintaining Tornado GR4 in service

What are those costs? What are they in comparison to other types? What capabilities do we lose if we decide to retire them now? What capabilities would of been lost if we had retained a different type? Are other Tornado operators paying significantly less then the RAF? The RAF and MOD clearly think its a type worth retaining, we could shop around for maintenance with the other Tornado operators if we so wished. Or keep the money in the UK and it should be noted the F3 fleet is being gutted to support the GR4's...good cost saving there I would think.

the inability of the Storm Shadow missile to guide properly to its target or for its warhead to work correctly, etc

I would say Storm Shadow performance is probably highly classified making any rumours rather suspect (except for the arch bull****ter that is..)! Any navigation issues or warhead problems haven't exactly been made clear to the public and considering it is a MBDA weapon based on a French designed missile parking any problem directly at BAE Systems door is rather unfair yet again.

[Widger]

Widger

Apart from the Falklands when have British interests been seriously at risk due to a lack of thru deck carriers?You are misquoting me. I never said British interests were at risk and we have not had a lack of 'through deck carriers (sic)'.

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.

[glojo]

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..................Hi Heathrow,
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.

[WhiteOvies]

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.

[glojo]

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. If we are talking about choice for UK carrier operations then do we have Fleet Air Arm pilots testing these aircraft? I have seen images of an RAF pilot but so far nothing about any Navy pilots. Is it correct to suggest that no Royal Navy pilot will take to the skies until 2013? If so then the decisons will be made long before any Navy pilot gets to fly this aircraft.

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?

[Heathrow Harry]

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

[Finningley Boy]

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

Not another, we're not the nation we were post. As for 1945, I think you'll find the gulf between what we could afford per head and what America could back then, was far wider than it is today.

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:)

[ProM]

What we do have is the worst possible value for money in terms of quantity of men and machines from the defence budget.

What we also have is much better quality than many other armed forces. It is easy to think the opposite because every issue or failing in the equipment supplied is jumped on by the media. That does not happen in other countries, not necessarily beccause they don't have such problems, but because there are so many problems they are not worth reporting.

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

[Bastardeux]

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.

[glojo]

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.

[ICBM]

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 Yeah right...given the recent changes in the JSF Programme of Record we could be absolutely forgiven for waiting until certain in-roads are made. We are a Tier 1 partner based on a number of things and having to place an order this year is certainly not it.


What say you to the insider information that the Eurofighter radomes are now cracking up and falling off in the air during manoeuvre? So what if this is true? Yes, sometimes design engineers do get things wrong on fatigue predictions and such things; however, if this tale is true the fleet would be certainly have been grounded (which it isn't AFAIK) and a full Eng invest would be underway. A fix would be identified and put into action ASAP, esp with the Olympic commitment on the doorstep. Mountains out of molehills; yet another desperate attempt to bolster a bitter underlying arguments about the demise of SHar and the SDSR 10 fallout.

The aircraft in question is part of the development programme. It does not in any sense represent an operational aircraft

No, perhaps not 100% but not far off. These jets are the most operationally representative test and evaluation platforms that have likely EVER existed and the UK have bought two with another hopefully inbound in two years or so. There are plethora of reasons why as well.

On paper, it belongs to the UK because the UK has had to put money into the project

Again, no: The aircraft belong to the UK because we bought them with money and, as is customary in such financial exchanges, really do own them. It has nothing to do with 'on paper' at all.

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

If you mean F-35C or another non-STOVL F/A-type then, unless technology has produced the ability to add operating 'acreage' to these amphibious ships, you can't adapt them to operate off an LHD, or even the new LHX.

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

We have a fair number of RAF pilots qualified in both types that also have a voice as well.

[Finningley Boy]

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...


Sorry Glojo, your name appeared in the quote in my first post misleadingly, the comment I was addressing was made by Heathrow Harry, only he was responding, seemingly, to an earlier post from yourself. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

FB

[orca]

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.

[glojo]

Hi FB,
No problem :ok::)

[LowObservable]

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?

[orca]

Good job no-one has worked out how to jam GPS.

What? They have? Oh.

[ICBM]

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.

[orca]

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.

[Not_a_boffin]

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.

[ICBM]

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.

[Not_a_boffin]

Which brings us back to "whose ends" are best served by fraudulent cost estimates?

[JFZ90]

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

[Not_a_boffin]

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.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

" 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

[SSSETOWTF]

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

[LowObservable]

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.

[LowObservable]

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...

[Not_a_boffin]

SSSETOWTF & Capt P

I have built ships gents. Let me tell you that Illustrious herself took 21M manhours all in. A T23 Frigate could be had for under 2M manhours.

If I apply a slightly more sensible rate of £50/hour, that £1Bn plus unaccounted for becomes 20M manhours.

The hardware price available open source includes a lot of engineering support, publications etc in the "£500M".

Other than the hardware, there are minor material costs (<<500 te of steel, which is currently @£2000/te - £1m the lot). Cabling? OK - tens mil if we're unlucky. Anything else apart from the power mgmt integration (the entire system was less than £100M) is manpower. Whichever way you slice it, well over 12 million manhours (that's 6000 people for a full year) doesn't smell right. Particularly when so many of the team "overheads" project mgmt, finance etc exist already.

My personal estimate would be something like a DO team of 50 for a year (that's 100000 manhours), 250000 extra steel hours, 400000 extra sparkies hours and a few odds and sods. Tell you what, call it a million manhours - at £100/hr (!) that's £100M. Plus your £500M hardware and say £100M for the power mgmt integration (a million manhours of software coders), plus the odds and sods. Add that up and you get £700M and a bit. If this is supposed to be conversion cost only, then you can hopefully see why I'm sceptical of the £1.8bn figure.

DLODs are all well and good, but this is supposed to be early years conversion costs, not TLC. If it is to include DLOD, then presumably less F35C compared to B might have an impact?

[orca]

Many thanks to everyone who has (implicitly and politely;)) pointed out the flippancy in my point about GPS jamming. I have no way of proving my credentials to you but they do include a 'reasonable amount' of EW and GPS experience, promise.

Let's keep it short. I personally think that whatever means you choose to make landing this thing easier might well be 'jammable' and will never be certified as 100% reliable. So one will have to train for the worst case and as that amount of training will be what the SMEs deem 'just good enough to be safe in all reasonably anticipated conditions' you will probably find that the training burden is pretty much the same.

[WhiteOvies]

Glojo,
current RAF test pilot, Jim Schofield, is a Harrier mate by background including CVS ops but having done ETPS has over 80 different types in his logbook if I recall the press release. BAES have 2 test pilots flying F35 inc Pete 'Wizzer' Wilson who started life in the RAF but then turned Dark Blue and flew SHAR. He has flown both B and C also.

I've heard that the first serving RN pilot starts this year and if the name is correct he has significant experience on both SHAR and Super Hornet.

It makes no difference though as the Treasury are calling the shots and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an F-35, F-18 or GR9 anyway:ugh:

[SSSETOWTF]

LO, NaB,

Ok, I didn't even make the cut for Staff College so I'm more than happy to be told why I'm barking up totally the wrong tree on this.

So take the cost of hardware changes to the ship as ballpark 700 million.

Now, pay for the UK to be different, and put a buddy refuel store on F-35C. Pray that the existing pipework in the wing is adequate for the existing F-18 system and you don't have a major re-design and re-qualification of the wing or have to start from scratch with the pod. The easiest possible solution would cost you a hundred million or more (as a rough guess, going by Eurofighter prices).

How many pilots will your frontline strength be? 60-odd? So 15-20/year going through the OCU? Pack them off to the US for a few hours famil in a T-45, then FCLP them, then send them to the ship. I dunno, maybe 6 weeks in the US, so maybe 150k/person worth of training? Call it 2 million a year total. Over the 40 year life of the ship, that's not far off another 100 million.

Buy 2 fully orange-wired early-LRIP -C models to replace the 2 -Bs we've bought. Couple hundred million right there.

Do some frantic contract re-negotiation to get PWIV and Asraam into the -C test Program (paying to be different). I doubt that comes for free. Couple of million in there I expect.

Fuel costs through life - pilots will always empty the tank, so straight away your fuel bill for F-35C is 150% bigger than the -B. Lots of millions in there.

Pour some concrete at the MOB to make an FCLP deck area. Few more million.

Build, staff and run an LSO school and training pipeline for the dozen or so guys to man the platform (or send another 4-6 guys/year across to the US for that piece to?). Another few million.

Recruit, accommodate, train, pay and pension the extra 10-20? (probably conservative) deck handlers, catapult operators & maintainers. Average salary 40k? Another million or more.

That's off the top of my head and I'm definitely not a procurement and DLOD guru. Factor in the fact that everything in defence procurement costs more and takes longer than your first estimate, and I can easily see why the 'cost of switching to cats & traps' is headlining well above 1 billion. And I don't think it's down to a con job by the old enemy of BAE, or some incredibly clever Machiavellian plot by the RAF to make the RN look bad. Could be wrong though.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Not_a_boffin]

SSSETOWTF

I do appreciate all those factors and have been involved in putting those type of costs together. However, the through-life ones (fuel, pilot training etc) do not belong in the "conversion cost" element, which is being sold as the reason for any possible switch back to the B.

The one bit that may be applicable is any texaco addition to C, although, again, you'd think that belonged in the aircraft cost. (Personally think we'd need to do it for B as well, with larger CAGs/SRVL, but that's another argument).

I'm in the C camp, on the premise that B is still a riskier option (no fallback and potentially the last STOVL jet ever) and that the cat n'trap fitted ship offers the possibility (way downstream) of incremental acquisition of better capabilities (AEW/ASW etc), instead of being hamstrung and tied to helos by the operating mode of the ship. The ship is large enough to do things properly so the old CVS size constraints are no longer a factor - it would be a shame if we boxed ourselves back into a corner on manipulated info.

I think that's the crux of it - if it really is £1.8Bn and the costs can be openly explained, then fine - if we can't afford that, then go to B (happily). But at the minute, I'm afraid it all looks a bit dodgy.

[glojo]

current RAF test pilot, Jim Schofield, is a Harrier mate by background including CVS ops but having done ETPS has over 80 different types in his logbook if I recall the press release. BAES have 2 test pilots flying F35 inc Pete 'Wizzer' Wilson who started life in the RAF but then turned Dark Blue and flew SHAR. He has flown both B and C also.

I've heard that the first serving RN pilot starts this year and if the name is correct he has significant experience on both SHAR and Super Hornet. Good morning White Overalls and thank you very much for replying and I have NO doubt the British pilots that are flying our F-35B are indeed highly qualified pilots with a wealth of experience and hopefully I never suggested anything other that that.

My question though is... If the only means of FJ transport they have experienced aboard a carrier is STOVL, then how can they make any type of judgement? I am NOT being critical of these pilots, their qualifications do all the necessary talking, but is a highly qualified pilot that has flown SHAR, GR9 and had a tour aboard a US carrier flying the F-18 a better option to advise on the suitability of what type of the F-35 is better suited to our needs? They might not have the same qualifications as the current pilot, but the qualifications they do have MIGHT make them better suited to compare these tangerines and oranges.

My research has shown the first RN pilot to be appointed to join the F-35 program will not be flying until next year but whether it is later this year or next... it is academic as they should possibly have already had the opportunity? (question)


Bottom line as you rightly suggest:

It makes no difference though as the Treasury are calling the shots and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an F-35, F-18 or GR9 anyway:ugh: :ok::D


I am told this is one of the latest picture of F-35B

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii527/glojoh/F-35B.jpg


It looks like our illustrious Members of Parliament are now becoming experts in all things military

Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/cornwall_news/9683402.Truro_and_Falmouth_Sarah_Newton_is_all_at_sea/)

In order to graduate from the scheme Members are required to spend twenty-two days in any one year on active service with units in one of the branches of the Armed Forces .. Twenty two days should be enough..... makes me wonder why it takes years to train our officers :rolleyes:;)

[LowObservable]

SSSETOWTF -

50 per cent more fuel shurely. - Ed.

Also, while I defer to those with more knowledge, might the need for a tanker not arise with the number of aircraft operating, not just with cats and traps?

As for pouring concrete: the last I heard, the USN specs for a land-based VL pad involved 30 x 30 m pads of heat-resistant concrete, the frequent "no different from an AV-8" assertions notwithstanding:

https://transportation.wes.army.mil/tsworkshop2012/submission%20by%20number/018/018%20Paper.pdf

Also, something just occurred to me about your ID here: The B is only "single engine" in that it replaces the combustor and turbine with a shaft, clutch and gears...

SSOAAHETOWTF?

And while I may not cycle all this kit at twice-per-sortie over the lifetime of the jet, I am certainly doing so when I am at sea.

[Bastardeux]

Glojo,

I can see why it's easy to be highly cynical about MPs only doing 22 days a year, but personally I see it as a good thing. 22 days is more than long enough to realise that a military held together by duct-tape is the price we've paid for EMA and all other such socialist bullsh*t.

When her night flight gets cancelled a couple of times in a row because the a/c is u/s, she may begin to question why that's an everyday occurrence.

But then again, maybe unicorns will jump to the rescue and naked glamour models will smother the entire crew nearly to death. Either way, exposing MPs to the real state of the miliary, for however short or long, can only be a good thing in my mind.

But we digress...F35 and all that good stuff

[glojo]

I can see why it's easy to be highly cynical about MPs only doing 22 days a year, but personally I see it as a good thing. 22 days is more than long enough to realise that a military held together by duct-tape is the price we've paid for EMA and all other such socialist bullsh*t. Fair point ;).. IF ONLY they treat these volunteers as a member of the ship's company as opposed to a VIP

[Bastardeux]

Agreed, I was going to mention that it's only worth while, if whoever's hosting said MP, doesn't have a marathon 22-day-long "Look how good we still are, we have a million waves up a day and 500 jets in the circuit at any one time", which is usually the case and gives said MP no impression of how things actually are.

[163627]

Governments can only make so many U-turns without being fatally damaged; bet this will put the F-35 u-turn announcement even further back!

May to ease airport passsport controls - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9244478/May-to-ease-airport-passsport-controls.html)

[SSSETOWTF]

NaB,

I think we're in violent agreement really. I'm looking forward to Ursula Brennan's next trip to the Public Accounts Committee to justify whatever decision is made.

I always assumed that all procurement decisions have to be made based on the full spectrum of DLOD costs. Whether the national press understand that when they come out with their soundbites may be the root cause of some of the trouble here.

My understanding is/was that people had run the DLOD numbers over the -B vs -C debate time and time again over more than a decade. Every single time, no matter who did the numbers, the answer was always that the total through life costs favored the -B. Allegedly when the numbers were scrubbed again pre-SDSR the answer was again the same and the military advice was to stay with the -B. The switch to the -C was apparently made at a political level then, blind-sided everyone and its rationale was never explained in any detail (certainly not to chimps at my level). For me, it was a masterstroke of political spin that you could suggest that mothballing one carrier and then spending at least 500 million on equipping your other carrier with cats (and ignoring the tanker & training costs etc) could be sold as more capability and cheaper. How could switching to the -C, which would always cost us more up-front and all the previous decade's analysis suggested would cost more through-life, ever be cheaper?

Technical risk is definitely worth considering and there's no question that the -B has plenty. But you have to give credit that it has done a stack of VLs now and been to the ship, so you'd hope there aren't too many undiscovered gremlins now and the Pax folks are slowly resolving the known ones.

I think it's interesting that people generally seem to believe that the -B is the most threatened of the variants, which I don't agree with. If the US need to axe a variant to save cash, if they chop the -B they effectively kill USMC fixed wing aviation. Both their Harrier and Hornet fleets are very old and tired, and the fleet of amphibs and their MEUs will eventually have to go without - pretty unacceptable to every USMC general walking the corridors of the Pentagon. But if they chop the -C, the USN would probably almost clap with glee, toddle off to Mr Boeing and buy a few more of their beloved Rhinos & Growlers, and place an order for a few X-45s to do the really nasty missions. To my mind then, the -C is just as much, if not more, at risk of being the victim of a cost-saving exercise.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Finnpog]

SSSETOWTF has a massive point. The 'power' of the Corps should not be underestimated on the american psyche, and therefore upon politician's minds. You also have the benefit that the B can work off both the Amphibs and also the CVNs.

The holy grail can only be for it to have a rough field capability akin to the Harrier. We have seen the YouTube footage of the Bs on Wasp, but how expeditionary could it be?

John Farley stated a few days ago, (I paraphrase here), that if all performance criteria were equal, why wouldn't you choose "Stop & Land' rather than 'Land & then Stop'? The more I have read on this site and elsewhere, the more I have altered my viewpont that perhaps the B is the better all round buy.

I guess this will mean a heli or Osprey derived AEW / ASAC in time to replace the SKs.

[Tester07]

that if all performance criteria were equal

they are not at all equal, surely?

[ColdCollation]

SSSETOWTF:

"But if they chop the -C, the USN would probably almost clap with glee, toddle off to Mr Boeing and buy a few more of their beloved Rhinos & Growlers, and place an order for a few X-45s to do the really nasty missions."

... I can't help feeling that that should be our template, too.

[Bastardeux]

I guess this will mean a heli or Osprey derived AEW / ASAC in time to replace the SKs.

And how much will this cost us vs. an off the shelf purchase of E2s? I'm willing to bet a lot of money that it would more than eat up any projected savings from buying the B...

I'm also incredulous to the idea that the B is going to be any cheaper to fly over the longer term (I'm thinking bring-back capability and underestimated use of spares). Given LM's track record on both the F22 and the F35, I'm not expecting any of the 3 variants to be particularly reliable but the B, with all its current shortcomings, and technicalities just seems like it's going to be too advanced for our own good.

[ICBM]

Finnpog, exactly! My view is that the -B gives the most for the least now and offers the flexibility and basing availability that the -C wont offer unless we spend more. Could the -B do strip work? Yes. Will it, and will it need to? Perhaps not, but it still 'can'. I'm not harking back to RAFG and the autobahn deployments here. I'm saying that the capabilities of the STOVL give military commanders greater, not fewer, options in the future for the money we have. The -B might carry 65% of the fuel load of the -C but the range and loiter are not 65%. That gets lost in many of the comparisons made. The larger internal weapons bay is nice but not essential if your weapons are accurate, have range in themselves, and can be carried in higher quantities (6 or 8). So if you want a jet with 0.5g more and 170nm more range but it'll cost you an alleged £1.8bn more for the privilege, crack on. Something will have to give (like less bought) as well. Or carry on as if the hiccup change to -C never happened because -B still meets the original requirement.

[Bastardeux]

ICBM,

Is a larger internal weapons bay not essential for stowing meteor? Or larger stores for that matter? If we buy the F35 at an eye watering cost, only to have no option but to hang stores of the wings in a high threat environment, does that not completely negate getting it in the first place??

Also, 1.8 billion over the lifetime of it's service is surely within the standard deviation of budget estimates over a 30 year period? If it is over the service life, then 1.8 billion is as near as makes no difference to being the same price.

I'm with CC, I'm increasingly inclined to think that the Strike Eagle and Super Hornets will still be the weapons of choice in 10 years time.

[glojo]

Hi ICBM,
Are some folks looking at this from a pure aircraft question?

We have all debated what the advantages\disadvantages of the aircraft are, but as has been discussed several times an aircraft carrier is more than an airfield, the carrier is a mobile fist or embassy, that can offer tact or diplomacy. The aircraft it carries must be capable of not just acting in a strike role, they also must be capable of defending its battle group.

If we look at what a STOVL ship offers compared to a conventional carrier then are we getting good value?

If next week, or next month the word from on high comes down and decrees that we go for the F-35B then the ships will be built without EMALS.. They will then only be capable of operating the F-35B or rotor...

If we stay as we are and the complete F-35 program gets cancelled then the conventional carrier will still have fast jet capability... be that the F-18 or the Rafale. If we opt for the -B and the program gets cancelled then goodbye fast jet capability... Game over and definitely no coming back.

I have said it so many times regarding what a conventional carrier brings to the table but if we go for the -B then do we go for a variant of Merlin for AEW if so how does that compare to the E-2? How many Merlin would be required to give similar cover to that which the E2 offers. How far from the battle group would the Merlin operate and at what height?

Choosing the aircraft has to be done alongside of choosing the type of base it operates from. Should we learn from previous conflicts and if so what lessons can be learnt from the Falklands where Harriers sometimes only had a 10 minute ability to remain over target before having to return back to their carriers, no tanking ability, back home to refuel. AEW, AEW and AEW.... The importance of that asset cannot be emphasised enough and the days of surface skimming missiles coming in from a maximum of 50 miles are over. Is the helicopter AEW capability good enough to detect long range incoming surface missiles and would we then need several aircraft to give adequate cover? Would choosing the -B prevent the Royal Navy from having the AEW cover it would need for any future conflict?

[ICBM]

Meteor needs a big bay unless MBDA can make a smaller version. As for having to carry everything externally then it depends The difference between weapon bays is not as significant as people make out and it is not the difference between carrying externally or internally in a high threat environment. That is a red herring. It depends on your mission and the weapons you have that DO fit. The analysis is there for the missions, in depth. The original requirement for a FCBA capable of operating from a CVF and doing the desired missions is there and was (and still is) fulfilled by -B. The RN solution for AEW has been MASC for years now. The enemy of requirements is creep and the thought that there is always something better (which there usually is) but succumbing to temptation delays and costs more. The -C, in a perfect world, would be joined onboard our 2 (why not 6?!) UK EMALS-equipped CVF by E-2D with on-call tankers etc. Now if you swallow the red pill the reality is much different and we can't afford the comprehensive solution so we get what we originally bid for; 2 ramped decks and the -B. The aircraft being cancelled? There would be re-think for sure and I'd wager the carriers would be sold, we'd abandon the notion of carrier strike (no CS now in its 3rd year, purists argue longer) and the UK would buy the -A!:E

[Bastardeux]

Sure the B fulfills the requirements for a FCBA, but I don't think it fulfills the requirements for replacing Tornado, or does it? I'm going off what other people have said on that matter. As for AEW, well yes, we won't be getting AEW for it this side of 2020, but what makes you think that the navy wont pursue that in 15 years time? I see all this grumbling about budgets as largely irrelevant because the current budget predicament isn't typical of the overall trend.

Glojo, to me, presents the most convincing argument; why would we restrict ourselves to such a narrow path and with less capable jets? I understand the arguments for the B on sea states but surely if the B was so much more advantageous, the USN would be at least buying a small number...but they aren't and never will be interested in STOVL.

[Lowe Flieger]

The decision between B and C should be announced shortly now that local elections are out of the way. I remain of the view that the decision will be made on short term economic grounds. So, if one version means lower expenditure between now and 2015 (next SDR and general election) then that may well carry the day whatever the whole life costs or military comparisons might show. I guess this would mean the B is favoured as there will be no EMALS cost (and for the purpose of justifying such a decision, a conversion cost of £1.8bn is much more useful than a lower one) and no need to change plans that were already in place before 2010 SDSR. I dislike short-termism, but it's sometimes hard to avoid the truism that you have to survive the short term in order to get to the long one.

Whatever is announced will only be relevant until 2015. The carriers will continue to be built and F35 continue to be developed, but the government has already confirmed the decision on how many aircraft to order will not be taken until the 2015 SDR. Export buyers such as the Dutch and the Australians have announced something similar. Sensible really as until the US really commits to the fighter’s production why would an export buyer take the risk?

And what might SDSR 2015 hold? Well, the carrier/F35 debate will get another re-run. It will need UK plc's economy to be much healthier than it is now for this to be a positive review. If it isn't, it then carrier strike and diplomacy may have come, gone, and cost us a big wedge of money before we got a chance to use it.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, a Flightglobal item hints at a degree of USN ambivalence towards the F35C. The navy’s F/A-XX proposition is a potential replacement for SuperHornet and not an F35C substitute, but the demarcation line between them appears to be a little fuzzy. The big issue is, of course, money. How can the navy get the funds to start developing another new fighter as well as introduce the F35C in these austere times? For F/A-XX to be ready for 2030 LRIP, they would need to get their skates on, and so have to start spending concurrently on the C and XX development in the near budgetary future. Seems a hard sell to me.

Senior official raises F/A-XX doubts while retired USMC Generals question USN (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/senior-official-raises-fa-xx-doubts-while-retired-usmc-generals-question-usns-f-35-commitment-371442/)

[jindabyne]

An excellent debate all of this, which this old duffer follows with much interest. Thank you --

[Lyneham Lad]

The decision between B and C should be announced shortly now that local elections are out of the way.

Probably waiting for a "good day to release bad news" scenario. :eek:

[SSSETOWTF]

ColdCollation,

I don't think there are many that would dispute that a Super Hornet & UAV mix would be a very fine solution for the UK. But as we all know, military capability is but one of the factors in these sorts of decisions.

Buy Rhinos & almost every single penny you spend leaves the UK, and all the jobs go to Boeing and the US. But UK plc's participation in the JSF program as a Tier 1 partner means that buying F35s generates literally thousands of jobs in the UK - not just BAE, Rolls & Martin Baker, but dozens and dozens of Small & Medium-sized Enterprises all over the country.

As a result HM Treasury does very well out of it because UK suppliers are now embedded in a program to produce 3000-odd aircraft. If you assume everyone's going to buy the number of aircraft that are on the nominal order books today, for every pound the UK MOD spends on their 138 aircraft, something approaching 3 pounds will be spent/invested in UK plc and around 1.80 of that will go to HM Treasury.

Then there's the issue of maintaining the UK industrial base & retaining knowledge and skills etc.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[ICBM]

Bastardeaux,

Any variant of F-35 would replace Tornado exceptionally well. The radar is eye-wateringly good and the range of the -B is better than GR4 with tanks. Add in the incredible situational awareness that the sensors bring and it is an extremely potent force mix with Typhoon. Stormshadow could be carried on all three variants externally, as could Meteor.

Lowe hits the nail square on the head wrt cost and the forcing function behind the upcoming decision. Industrial work share and the return of £££ to HM Treasury will rule out any F/A-18E/F buy if it's over F-35. Too much political risk in doing otherwise. Short-termism.

[timzsta]

I think ultimately the UK will stick with the "C". I very much get the impression the decision to switch from it came from above MoD/Sec of State for Defence level - ie it was David Cameron's wish to have a carrier the french/usn could operate their aircraft from, and that meant switching to the "C".

Or alternativetely a re-run of the numbers may lead to the whole damn party, carriers and all, being canned. That would get the vote of 2 out of 3 services and the treasury.

[Heathrow Harry]

SSSETOWTF wrote:-

"because UK suppliers are now embedded in a program to produce 3000-odd aircraft."

They're going to get a hell of a shock when only 200 are built then...............

[Not_a_boffin]

Or alternativetely a re-run of the numbers may lead to the whole damn party, carriers and all, being canned. That would get the vote of 2 out of 3 services and the treasury.

Fortunately, "cancelling the carriers" would by now save pretty much zero money. Cancelling the aircraft, which is the only thing to save the Treasury any money, would hurt both FAA and RAF, so unlikely to get light-blue buy-in.

[ColdCollation]

SSSETOWTF,

I get that, I really do. But getting best value for UK plc and the best kit for the job are often too much at odds with each other.

As noted here and on other forums, we still have a fair-sized defence budget. If could be bigger but that's another debate; what we have become very good at is going needlessly and expensively bespoke, or else being unable to plan for anything beyond tomorrow morning's headlines. That's something we can truly claim to lead the world in, unfortunately.

Getting the second or third choice of kit just because it serves constituency purposes must seem like a pretty sick joke to those who actually get shot at.

Forgive me if that seems uncompromising or naive. For me, all of this raises a much bigger issue to do with UK manufacturing policy: an overreliance on the defence sector.

[ICBM]

ColdCollation,

British industry has mostly always driven defence contracts and decisions in this manner; sadly it is naive to think otherwise. That us why we supported MRCA and not F-15E in the late 70s. You will never get around the constituency politik of defence strategy.

NaB. An odd comment. Cancelling the carriers might save nothing on money promised but the operating and support costs over, what, 30 years would be a significant saving that would amount to much more than the investment thus far. Please educate me on the number of projected refits of 2 CVF over the planned lifespan (then add at least 25% because we always extend kit), the cost in terms of fuel, all the RAS costs involved etc? Do we even have that sustainment figure mapped out? I think we might do and understand if it is 'not for this forum'

Cancelling the aircraft won't save the Treasury money in quite the way you intimate. Like the carriers our contribution has been given already, 10 years ago or so. The cost savings are much more flexible in terms of scaling the budget by altering the buy profile over the life of the programme. This might not yield the numbers in the timeframe desired but that's real life finance driving expectation, not the other way around which is what got the World into deficit in the first place. One can effectively build one's arsenal of F-35 as quickly or as slowly as one wishes by ordering more.

If we for some reason don't end up with 2 carriers in 2020 at least the UK are able to base from land and sea (aboard USMC LHD or even CVN) to conduct strike missions. Cancel the aircraft, keep the carriers and you then start begging the coalition CV aircraft to use your carrier to justify its existence. That simply won't happen.

[orca]

Here's a thought.

Buy B. Much lower range but the ability to go to sea on small boats that the USMC actually want to use for helos. Or our own boats of which one might be available.

Buy C. If B falls over we don't care. If QECV falls over, err...we still don't care, let's stop talking about a Harrier replacement and claim we have bought DPOC. If C can't trap a wire or whatever the next problem is wrt ship integration can't be fixed - we still don't care. The crabs never wanted to go to sea anyway. At least we bought the one that goes the furthest.

Buy C.

[ICBM]

If we buy -B we should get 2 carriers not 1 so that would have a sea-going platform for F-35 available pretty much constantly. Go -C and you'll get 1 carrier and the discussion on availability has already been had (read: horse flogged). The -C has superior range/loiter and that is very nice to have. I've already said that bay size won't necessarily make or break the mission. If the -B is cancelled by the US Govt and we cancel the carriers I would buy the -A. It has pretty much the same range as -C, has a built-in gun and has more kinematic performance than either of the others. It's also the least likely to be canned with the USAF being pretty reliant on it replacing their 'low' bit of the hi-lo force mix.

Oh and -A was the choice for DPOC

...and JSF ceased being a Harrier replacement on 15 Dec 10.

[ColdCollation]

ICBM, noted. And not naive. Just perhaps it's time for it to stop. We've history enough to learn from.

Then again, it's a Sunday Bank Holiday afternoon and I'm on the thick end of a large-calibre round from the Old Speckled Hen cannon... :ok:

[Not_a_boffin]

ICBM

Last time I looked, we haven't committed to any money for the aircraft, beyond the three demo models. We have committed to two ships.

That kind of makes the argument you present spurious, as the way to save capital cost is to kill the aircraft.

If we do buy the aircraft, the costs of QEC refit / crewing will pale into insignificance compared to those of the aircraft.

There is also an element of fallacy in that argument. Cat n trap does not equal one carrier. Cat n trap equals one carrier in the near term - depending on the conversion cost (the real one), there may be two ships, particularly as a QE conversion would occur ~ 2022 - outside the current EPP.

[LowObservable]

SSSETOWTF -

"I think it's interesting that people generally seem to believe that the -B is the most threatened of the variants, which I don't agree with."

That may be true but not in the way that you say it. If the C either gets scrapped or kicked far into the future (sequester, sequester-deal, the simple hook fix flunks) there will be a lot of unhappy bunnies in big-deck Navy as the Marines get the big bucks for the most expensive jets in the budget, to perform missions that at best are a sub-set of Navy tacair missions.

On the other hand, if the B gets stretched out or whacked, you'll see an offensive against the C by Boeing, GE, Raytheon and the Rhino Mafia. The C and the B need one another to survive.

A point on weapons: I believe that MBDA has schemed a Meteor with slightly cropped tails that fits the AIM-120 bays, which are the same on the A, B & C. However: If the F-35 does take over the world, there will be a lot of weapons developed or modified over its lifetime to fit the outer bays - and since the vast majority of the jets will be As and Cs, those new weapons may well be sized to the longer bays of those aircraft.

As for SSSE's economic numbers: The only way I can make that work over 3000 aircraft is that the UK-domiciled content is 14 per cent, but that sounds high. Most of the jets are not Bs, and for As and Cs the major UK content is the ejection seat and a hunk of aerostructure. BAE Systems has more, but that's EW stuff in the US.

[Lowe Flieger]

LO,

I recall seeing a figure of 15% quoted as the UK content in the F35, but I'm damned if I can remember where so I cannot link to the source. However, it does seem to stack up with your arithmetic.

Meantime, Mr Hammond has been talking to The Telegraph according to Defence Management. I'm not sure if this is an official announcement or government by media but, for what it's worth, it looks like hovering may be back in fashion.

F-35 'facts have changed' since SDSR - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19664)

[Bastardeux]

What a false economy, the auditors have said that the C will be cheaper, the B is still having major issues and any money that's saved from getting the B will only be eaten up by designing some ridiculous, bespoke AEW capability to produce 6 aircraft at 1 billion a pop; Jesus, what a clusterf*ck.

How much will it cost to refit the carriers, in the future, to conventional ops, when we decide that catapult launched UAVs are a capability we can't live without?

[Lima Juliet]

Parliamentary Question Time 24 Apr 12...

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Ministers in his Department have received any representations on technical difficulties associated with converting the aircraft carrier to a CATOBAR configuration; from whom any such representations were received; and when they were received.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence has not received any representations regarding technical difficulties associated with converting the operational Queen Elizabeth Aircraft carrier to a CATOBAR configuration.


:ok:

[Lima Juliet]

And more from the same...

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) whether UK service personnel have served in the US to gain experience of handling and flying catapult-assisted take-off barrier arrested recovery aircraft;

(2) what the cost to the public purse has been of sending individuals to the US to gain experience of handling and flying catapult-assisted take-off barrier arrested recovery aircraft;

(3) how many (a) pilots, (b) service personnel and (c) civilian personnel have been trained to operate the catapult and arrestor gear as part of the conversion of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review;

(4) how much his Department has spent on training individuals to handle and fly CATOBAR aircraft.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer 26 March 2012

Two Royal Navy personnel from the aircraft handling specialisation have previously undertaken preliminary training with the United States Navy in the operation of catapult and arrestor gear aircraft operations. Seven Royal Navy pilots have also been trained to operate US Navy aircraft utilising catapult and arrestor gear, as part of the training programme for the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers. No Royal Air Force or civilian personnel have taken part in such training programmes.

The costs associated with this training are currently being collated and I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as they are available.

Substantive answer from Peter Luff to Jim Murphy:

In my answer to your Parliamentary Question dated 23 April 2012 (Official Report, column 716W) about the training of Service personnel on aircraft carriers, I undertook to write to you about costs as soon as the information was collated. I regret that it has not been possible to compile the information in the time allowed before prorogation, but I will write to you as soon as it is available.

*

*

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which fast jets operated by other nations will be able to land and take off from a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier operating STOVL.

Answer

Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)

Based on the analysis undertaken prior to the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, which the US Marine Corps and Italy plan to acquire, would be able to land and take off from a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier operating STOVL.

*

*

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to restore carrier strike capability.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

As we announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, it is the Government’s intention to restore a Carrier Strike Capability around 2020.

*

*

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds on the number and names of aircraft carriers operated by other nations that the (a) Hornet fast jet, (b) F35B and (c) Rafale fast jet is able to land on and take off from with a full weapon load.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence is only able to comment on the current position in relation to carrier-based operations by other nations rather than the technical specifications of other nations’ capabilities. As of the end of February, the US Navy operates the Hornet from the Nimitz Class aircraft carriers; the F35B has operated from USS Wasp. The United States Marine Corps also intends to fly the F35B from United States Marine Corps decks. Italy is part of the F35B international programme, and intends to embark the aircraft on the Portaerei Cavour. Rafale operates from the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

[lj101]

Rumour has it the announcement may be made on Thursday.

The scales are tipped towards the 'B' as the books balance better in the short term.

All speculation of course.

[Finnpog]

This Daily Telegraph article About-turn on new variant of carriers&rsquo; fighter plane - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9253377/About-turn-on-new-variant-of-carriers-fighter-plane.html) from this morning reads as if some was reading PPRuNe over the last couple of days.

Is this corroboration or just the same information repeated?

[Pheasant]

Reading the PQs above and other stuff re likely reduced purchase of whatever version of Dave is bought, it seems to me that the Government is going to want to see these ships and jets deployed. This raises the question over who will be the Competent Authority to run the "carrier strike capability". I use the term carefully as this will not be about just running the jets, but the whole package. If the buy is small then there will be strong pressure for this capability to be flly worked up at sea and remain so (unlike the way the Harrier was treated in its later years.

So, who will it be - the RAF, with a philosophy of minimal contribution to the wider capability (manning the ship) and a hopon-hop off mentality; or the RN with a deep desire and long developed understanding of operations "from the sea"? The two services are poles apart on this, with little trust now in existence - I can't see Joint Force JSF working somehow.

[Lowe Flieger]

...This raises the question over who will be the Competent Authority to run the "carrier strike capability"...This must be the bit where Harry Hill leans forward across his desk and says:

"Now I like the Royal Navy, but I like the RAF too. But which is better? There's only one way to find out...FIGHT!"

Remember boys, theoretically at least, you are all on the same side.

[LowObservable]

It all sounds pretty real.

The future of the UK carriers now depends on the Marines' ability to sustain support for the idea that they should get an F-22-priced fighter that is slower, less agile and shorter-legged than an F-16, and that will normally be deployed in six-aircraft units in a combined force with no AEW or AAR. And sustain that support through the next few budget years.

This was also done against US advice, which should probably raise a question or two.

[Jimlad1]

It may also be worth pointing out that any decision will be taken by Cabinet (e.g. our elected representatives) and not the military. I suspect though that whatever decision is taken will lead to angry posts, books, poison pen letters for decades to come.

[Lowe Flieger]

...This was also done against US advice, which should probably raise a question or two. Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. Just how much have we hacked off either or both of the USN or USMC with all this fannying about? And if we have seriously p****d them off what longer term impact does that have? At the military level do you get away with just rolling your eyes and saying "Politicians, huh?" or does the damage go deeper?

Still, if the story is confirmed, which looks 99% certain given the leaks to the press, at some point you just have to knuckle down and get on with it. F35B it will be. Another u-turn or major change is unthinkable.

Well, until 2015 anyway.

[cyrilranch]

"F-22-priced fighter that is slower, less agile and shorter-legged than an F-16"
where is there info that says this the case.
As I understand it , the B is less useful in Range & load against the A & C.
but I was led to belive that the B would be better than the Harrier GR9 and the F16/F18 in Range and load carried.
is someone telling me porkies:confused:

[LowObservable]

Porkies! Heaven forfend!

F-35B MMo is 1.6, F-16 is 2.0

Note: it can be argued that the F-35B will reach 1.6 with bombs on board. Flight testing will show whether this can be done practically without burning too much gas in acceleration.

F-35B is 7g, F-16 is 9g

F-35B radius of action is 450 nm, high-med-high with 2x1000 lb bombs and 2xAIM-120, and no gun; F-16 will do similar range without external fuel but has loads of ext fuel options (370 or 600 gal tanks, centerline tank, conformals), which the B does not.

[Comedy dave]

Please feel free to shoot me down.

This is obviously completely theoretical now, but.......

My understanding is that taking off with a ramp the B will point at the ramp, full throttle and brakes off. I.e the lift fan won't be used. Like a normal takeoff except you leave the ship before your at flying speed.

If this is the case then surely a C could use a ramp also? The Russians seem to have no difficulties.

Logic: The C variant has an issue with it's tail hook. This surely is a relatively simple fix in contrast with the B that just looks a bit too complicated for it's own good (the need for autoeject does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling).

The one advantage the B has over the C is getting back on the carrier. Clearly
the C is the better aircraft for the UK if you have the choice.

I can only assume the costs have gone through the roof because the 'fitted for but not with' was a lie, and what this really meant is that a space was left for some extra cabins, the AAG but NOT space for the catapults. Hence the massive cost has likely come from the expense of redesigning the top third of the ship to fit the catapults and energy storage devices.

Thinking outside the box, just because EMALS is too expensive, does that mean you have to go back to the B? Keep the ramp, install the JBD's that were planned, put the AAG in the space left free for it, make a few adjustments to the left sponson, fit the LSO station and forget about the science fiction catapult. Launch the C off a ramp and accept the lower pay load as it will only matter when there is no tanker, it will make a much better Tornado replacement (which is what the thing really needs to be) and the hawkeye can go off a ramp (apparently) if it's arrested so there is no need for a bodge job AEW solution.

If the C does get delayed to a deal to take B's to start and then swap them for C's if you need the capabilty early.

Please point out the flaws in my idea.

And God knows what the spams are thinking, but our reputation with the USN and USMC must be in tatters. Let's hope the sake of the exchange lads the USN doesn't do the same as the USMC and sent them packing. And good luck trying to get some harrier exchanges, although it is ironic that the result of this is we will probably end up with some harrier boys and girls on exchange flying ex UK frames.

With regards to FAA vs RAF control, assuming FAA Fast Jet survives this cluster it will have to be joint, the FAA is not going to quadruple in size during a period when they have no aircraft. Similarly the RAF has no interest in flying off boats, at least not for a career. It will be joint, it will be a mess and it's inevitable (unless as will probably happen the whole thing gets canned and we end up with 105 typhoons and the 2 biggest most expensive helicopter carriers in the world).

[Bastardeux]

By contrast, the development of the jump-jet fighter is proceeding more smoothly than expected, meaning the aircraft could be ready to fly from the new carriers as early as 2018.

Who on earth is making up this BS, to want the B based on flexibility, lighter training burden etc. is absolutely fine, but whoever is advising that we take it because it's going to be cheaper and less risky is an example of the reasoning why we have found ourselves in such a god awful financial clusterf*ck, with very little to show for it.

You can take the Air Force out of the STOVL game, but you can't take the STOVL game out of the Air Force!!

[Navaleye]

Personally, I think its a sensible and pragmatic move. The uncertainty over the IOC of the C model makes it a very risky proposition. Taking production set 2 of EMALS is certain to be a risk also. Better take the B regardless of its perceived limitations and get Carrier Strike reestablished as soon as. This sensibly means that we can operate/rotate both our new carriers as planned. Agree they should be Navy cabs also.

[teeteringhead]

And all that expensively purchased (cos it ain't an exchange) F-18 expertise is for .............

[Bastardeux]

Does this mean the 400 million that was going to be used to convert the carriers, will now buy us more jets? Well at least there will be plenty more cockpits...oh wait, that's only going to buy us 2 extra aircraft.

Happy days.

[Widger]

Nope the £400M will be just a little drop out of the swimming pool deficit that needs to be emptied!

[oldmansquipper]

F-35 'facts have changed' since SDSR - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19664)

:ugh:

For everyone's sake....PLEASE SORT IT OUT!

[riverrock83]

Beeb says F35B as well:
BBC News - Government in U-turn over fighter planes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171)

[350J]

And all that expensively purchased (cos it ain't an exchange) F-18 expertise is for .............

Erm...embarked maritime fixed wing experience to grow expertise within the RN to run Carrier Strike. Be that delivered with the B or the C.

[lj101]

Apparently listening to the House of Commons live at 1115 ish tomorrow MAY be of interest to some.

[Backwards PLT]

Of course noone really understands the finances for this but on the assumption that the amount of cash allocated to buy (and maintain) aircraft remains constant, this clearly means that we will get fewer, less capable (ref: dstl) aircraft. This is a big negative.

On the other hand it does mean they can operate off both carriers (assuming the mothballing plan is, err, mothballed). This is a big positive.

Unfortunatley the carriers are now limited to VSTOL/rotary, probably for their entire lives. A big negative.

Although it might appear more attractive now to go for a split buy (A and C) for RAF and RN, especially given the CEPP plan to only have 12 JSF embarked, I think it would be a mistake, denying us the ability to surge in crisis a la Falklands, although it must be a very tempting option for the RAF.

[LFFC]

And all that expensively purchased (cos it ain't an exchange) F-18 expertise is for .............

350J

Erm...embarked maritime fixed wing experience to grow expertise within the RN to run Carrier Strike. Be that delivered with the B or the C.

... that by the time the capability arrives, will be flying for the airlines! :D

[henra]

This sensibly means that we can operate/rotate both our new carriers as planned. Agree they should be Navy cabs also.

Just out of curiosity:
Where does the optimisim come from that B Version still equals 2 active carriers ?

Being German I don't have much experience with your politicians.
If I look at ours I'm sure I would expect the smallest common denominator.
And that would be the combination of only 1 carrier plus selecting the less capable aircraft. :}
But maybe you are more lucky with your politicians...

[JFZ90]

Henra: Just out of curiosity:
Where does the optimisim come from that B Version still equals 2 active carriers ?

Good point. You could assume that one of the drivers for going for only 1 carrier when they switched to C in SDSR was they couldn't afford the converson costs - but I suspect they also took all the savings from not operating the 2nd carrier too. This money maybe unlikely to be found to go back - but we'll see!

It will be interesting (and perhaps revealing) if the number of carriers is not mentioned if the u-turn is annouced tomorrow?

[350J]

Quote:
And all that expensively purchased (cos it ain't an exchange) F-18 expertise is for .............

350J

Erm...embarked maritime fixed wing experience to grow expertise within the RN to run Carrier Strike. Be that delivered with the B or the C.

LFFC

... that by the time the capability arrives, will be flying for the airlines!


Or will be Cdr Air. Change to the B also potentially brings capability further left arguably strengthening the rational for F/A18 slots right now.

[JFZ90]

Change to the B also potentially brings capability further left arguably strengthening the rational for F/A18 slots right now.

This is true, but perhaps the RN crews currently with the USN F-18s could switch to the USMC and train with the new GR9 squadron that they're about to stand up - VTOL Harrier ops more relevant to B etc. :ugh:

[350J]

This is true, but perhaps the RN crews currently with the USN F-18s could switch to the USMC and train with the new GR9 squadron that they're about to stand up - VTOL Harrier ops more relevant to B etc

No, because the RN are after experience in embarked multi role carrier ops focused on delivering carrier strike. USN F18 ops from a CVN are more in line with what the RN is looking to deliver in the future when compared with USMC AV8B ops from a LHD.

Also, a tour with the USMC doesn't guarantee embarked experience. The only benifit with going AV8B is VSTOL experience which we are all led to believe is a very straight forward affair in the JSF.

The RNs biggest challenge and main argument for being involved in JSF is that they need experienced aircrew to run the show on the carriers. The bigger, more complex the carrier and the more time they spend on board the better.

[glad rag]

Or is it because there ain't gonna be ANY F35's purchased at all and the RN ain't gonna commission any carriers?

who knows how this CF will turn out!:mad:

[Bastardeux]

The article in the Times cites risk of no carrier strike capability until 2023 as the biggest driving force behind the decision, along with up front cost...am I missing something when I say that the F18E seems like the perfect solution to this, in more ways than one?? I'm sure the 100 unnecessary trainee pilots in the pipeline would be thrilled to hear that there is suddenly going to be cockpits available for them, the cost of catapults is mitigated by the peanut price of the F18 and the lack of F35 is completely acceptable because the US Navy are on the same time frame?? Who knows, we may even have been able to eek out a deal with the Americans for a discount as compensation for having to buy them in the first place.:mad:

[BlindWingy]

Fantastic. A giant, expensive, fault prone fan where bombs, missiles and fuel could be, all because we're too poor to afford real carriers. You couldn't make it up.

[JFZ90]

More of the same....

Government forced into U-turn over Royal Navy fighter jets | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/government-u-turn-fighter-jets)

The navy will hope that the second carrier, which was due to be mothballed as soon as it was completed, will now be reprieved and made ready for service.

[Lima Juliet]

F-35B? Oh good, another "whistling sh!tcan" like the Harrier...

http://echostains.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/choc_teapot-groovy.jpg

[Frostchamber]

Henra asked where does the optimism come from that B Version still equals 2 active carriers.

I don't think there is any suggestion that there would ever be 2 carriers active at the same time, rather that because both would be usable without conversion we would cycle them in and out of high readiness, meaning we'd have one carrier available 8 years out of 8. Given how difficult reversion to B will be politically (the Guardian has helpfully reprinted all Cameron's statements about B vs C at the time of the SDSR) I'm kind of hoping that the Govt will cite the ability to alternate between both carriers as one way of sugaring a difficult pill.

[Not_a_boffin]

However, the uncomfortable truth here is that CTOL did not necessarily equal one carrier. I think it was Gerald Howarth who noted that it was hoped that converting the second ship (ie QE) would be looked at in 2015.

What the current debate has done is highlight that at no stage has the provenance of these "conversion" costs been exposed to real scrutiny. I think I am correct in saying that it is still unclear whether the "£1.8Bn" or whatever it is today has been generated by ACA, by MOD or by Aunty Betty in the commons tea room. I hope the "costs" are opened to scrutiny, but doubt it will happen.

This has stitch up (with saving DPOC as a non-carrier capable frame) written all over it. Forget all the nonsense about UCAVs. Whether the next generation aircraft is manned or unmanned, high in the requirements list ought to be carrier compatibility. By going STOVL, it is pretty much guaranteed that "carrier compatibility" will be too difficult and expensive.

[JFZ90]

However, the uncomfortable truth here is that CTOL did not necessarily equal one carrier. I think it was Gerald Howarth who noted that it was hoped that converting the second ship (ie QE) would be looked at in 2015.

What the current debate has done is highlight that at no stage has the provenance of these "conversion" costs been exposed to real scrutiny. I think I am correct in saying that it is still unclear whether the "£1.8Bn" or whatever it is today has been generated by ACA, by MOD or by Aunty Betty in the commons tea room. I hope the "costs" are opened to scrutiny, but doubt it will happen.

This has stitch up (with saving DPOC as a non-carrier capable frame) written all over it. Forget all the nonsense about UCAVs. Whether the next generation aircraft is manned or unmanned, high in the requirements list ought to be carrier compatibility. By going STOVL, it is pretty much guaranteed that "carrier compatibility" will be too difficult and expensive.

What seems possible is that the 1.8Bn is a total cost, including DLODs etc. and includes things beyond just the conversion costs (e.g. extra manning/training etc.) - it begs the question as to whether the SDSR decision was properly costed (or rushed) or whether it omitted some costs that have now become clearer or have just risen.

What I would like to know is who actually pushed for the B >> C switch during the SDSR - was it a political driven request - perhaps driven by Liam Fox and his "advisors" in pursuit of the catchy headline, or a jolly good idea from one of the floors of MB to make some short term or through life savings that was actually pushed in the first instance by some in MoD?

I wonder what side of the B/C fence some of the key actors are actually on - e.g. CAS, FSL etc.?

[Bastardeux]

NaB,

I totally agree, I can't help but get the feeling that old STOVL habits die hard, and that the Harrier guard's nostalgia has a lot to do with this.

[LowObservable]

NaB - Not to mention this factoid, which just appeared again in the Grauniad:

"We are looking at a potential seven-year delay for the F-35C, which would mean we would not get the aircraft on the carriers until 2027," the source said.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? If the C is seven years late it will be dead, because its carrier slots will be filled willy-nilly by Super Hornys by then. The B will then be nonviable.

[dat581]

I totally agree, I can't help but get the feeling that old STOVL habits die hard, and that the Harrier guard's nostalgia has a lot to do with this.

You would think that the RN would be happy to get away from STOVL when it was only a short sighted political decision that led them down that path in the 1970's in the first place. Does anyone think the Sea Harrier was more capable than the Phantom?

[Thelma Viaduct]

Arseholes.

[orca]

Pious,

Was that a (succinct and accurate) summary of the whole debacle or an answer to the question about SHAR and Phantom? Or both?

I wonder if we could have a year when we found something out by the proper channels instead of just getting it from the press with 24 hours to run?

[SOSL]

"Does anyone think the Sea Harrier was more capable than the Phantom?"

Maybe not, but what about the Falklands?

Rgds SOS

[dat581]

Maybe not, but what about the Falklands?

Well i'd say the result would have been the same or better. The same RN pilots with a higher performance aircraft, longer range weapons, alot more fuel (much more time on station over or west of San Carlos Water), plus a second pair of eyes in the back seat. Up against the same oposition.

Is the same mistake being made 40 years later.

[orca]

Chaps,

You have brought a debate about two great aircraft and an amazing British victory into a thread which is dedicated to a story so desperately sad that you couldn't script it.

It is akin to playing sevens and having beers at a funeral.

Please take your two legendary aircraft and hard fought battles and leave us to weep.

(Then again...might all turn out to be rubbish...I'm backing the C! Come along David, you can do it!)

[SOSL]

Still they did a good job didn't they?

Rgds SOS

P.S. I must go to bed soon - oh no the suns just coming up and radio 4 is on. I can't get any sleep now!!

[SOSL]

Hi, Orca. Sorry to learn that you are weeping.

I had quite a lot of beer at the last funeral I went to - it was a mate of mine who had served about 20 years in the Harrier force.

The whole point of this thread is which type of aircraft should be deployed from the future carrier. It's going to be the F35 but which version?

[dat581]

The point I was trying to make is the decision seams entirely political with little regard for the best solution just like in the 1970's. Of coarse the chaps did well in 1982 23 - nil speaks volumes on that.

[SOSL]

I fully appreciate your point Dat. I suspect that the decision is more fiscal than political.

P.S. I still want to go to bed but it is now definitely daytime - the birds are singing outside my cottage - maybe I'll have a nap later on.

Rgds SOS

[lj101]

Jeez

It's going to be the B.

The RN were VERY pro C, as were the majority of the RAF.

[Willard Whyte]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_mJmwQtPmusk/RllYUDP3jEI/AAAAAAAAAdM/8vIFpxLDR68/s400/burning+banknotes.jpg

[Heathrow Harry]

amazes me that after all this time politicians don't realsie that making ANY change to an initial spec it the defence business allows the contractors to drive a cart & horses through the budget (aided & abetted by the respective service)

A design engineer I knew always used to say the British engineering firms all relied on variation orders to make money

[BEagle]

Now confirmed by Philip Hammond:

Underlying facts upon which the earlier decision was made have changed. 2023 was the earliest at which EMALS could be fitted - the estimated cost has more than doubled in the last 17 months with possibility of further increases.

F35 STOVL programme has made excellent progress in recent months; the balance of risk has changed, so that F35B poses no greater development risk than other JSF variants.

'Cats and traps on a single carrier was the right decision on facts made at the time'. However, the delay in the programme for 2020 was unacceptable.

Both carriers will now be completed to operate STOVL versions of the F35; order for JSF will now be changed to F35B. First production F35B should be delivered in 2016, to fly from HM Queen Elizabeth in 2018 after her sea trials in 2017. Force to be operational in 2020.

[XV277]

Now confirmed by Philip Hammond:

Both carriers will now be completed to operate STOVL versions of the F35; order for JSF will now be changed to F35B. First production F35B should be delivered in 2016, to fly from HM Queen Elizabeth in 2018 after her sea trials in 2017. Force to be operational in 2020.

And no selling the spare carrier to the French.

[Not_a_boffin]

2023 was the earliest at which EMALS could be fitted

WTF Over?

Second production set of EMALS was allegedly secured by Fox and GA are supposed to be able to deliver in 2016.

Oh well, two ships operational.......for now.

[glojo]

It all appears to be about cost savings as opposed to operational needs and here I am again querying costings. When this first carrier deploys with its wing of F-35b aircraft the battle group will be reliant on the venerable Sea king for AEW coverage.

The carrier is deployed to regions where it needs to be able to not only project power, but also protect itself from any type of enemy threat. What duration does the Sea King have and how many will deploy with this battle group? As soon as I start asking these questions I am told that BAe are developing a replacement aircraft which will be operational before our first carrier becomes operational.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070831020749/uncyclopedia/images/a/a2/Flying_Pig.jpg



I am listening to Mr Hammond talking and at the moment he is criticising the Labour party for ordering 65,000 ton carriers without cats and traps... He is calling it lunacy and I agree, it is lunacy and remains so. It is lunacy to commission carriers with no tanking capability, no air EW and a very limited AEW ability.

Are we now going to spend far more money developing the MASC system for the STOVL carriers as opposed to simply buying the E2 off the shelf? How much money is going to be spent developing this system compared to EMALS conversion? When the Merlin eventually becomes operational will its operating systems compare with that of the E2? Are we developing a system that is better that that of the E2? The RAF quite correctly operates the excellent Sentry aircraft, would they be happy if that cover was not available and all they had was the trusty old Sea King?

I have always said having carriers is going to be expensive and if we cannot afford the best, we should not play games by getting an inferior product. This is an inferior product and listening to the grilling Mr Hammond is getting I would say it is very much deserved.

Not a Boffin
Will the new carriers operate the Chinook as Hammond is claiming they will deploy with them?

[NorthernKestrel]

Analysis here of the switch - including reference to Grand Old Duke of York's decision-making skillset...

http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2012/05/10/what-a-carrier-on/6788/ (http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2012/05/10/what-a-carrier-on/6788/)

[ORAC]

F35 STOVL programme has made excellent progress in recent months; the balance of risk has changed, so that F35B poses no greater development risk than other JSF variants. :hmm: :hmm::hmm:

[The Helpful Stacker]

Have the MoD budgeted for boots with flaps on now that the Harrier Mafia have their favoured replacement?

[Widger]

Well the decision is made. Now the UK needs to get on with the job, get the ships built, get the crew trained and get some aircraft onboard. The Sea King will be going out of service in 2016 and MASC will be provided by another rotary platform in the short term, most likely Merlin, which whilst an improvement on Sea King, will still be restricted in range. The ships will not only carry F35B but also be able to operate Rotary Wing including CH53 and VH22. The advantage will also be that the Chinook can be put in the hangar with rotors spread, so the ground crew will no longer be struggling to do maintainence in sub zero temps/high heat/high winds.

The main issue will be that the RN and the RAF must stop tearing each over apart over what amount to several dozen pilots. I understand the RAF's focus on bums on seats and that no-one except fast jet pilots can be remotely capable of leading the Air Force and the RNs wish to get back into the business of projecting (naval and air) power across the globe. To be operationally effective and justify the expense of the capability, the F35B must operate at sea for most of the time. The method of operation that JFH utilised, might well be good for a land campaign such as the Stan, but for virtually every other scenario, the two services must get the best out of the ships. It is not important what colour uniform the stick-mokeys wear. What is important is that the capability of Carrier Strike is not attenuated by a desire to keep the aircraft 'landside' for the majority of the time.

These two ships, together with their air groups, will protect the interests of the UK for decades to come. They will have the ability to promote the friendly face of the UK (yes cocktail parties etc), promote UK business but also use a big stick by (apologies to Sean Connery) 'schitting of their coascht and lischening to their rock and roll' and when the time comes to project force, without worrying if the locals are going to let you fly from their airfields.

The first crews join QE next year I believe. I for one look forward to the UK making a success of the ships and the aircraft, recovering a capability that was lost in 1979 and the lack of which, has limited our contribution to protecting the UK's interests ever since.

[peter we]

Whats the chance we will get a AW609 or V-22 for MASC (now called Crows Nest).

How about a E2 - they tested it on the Ski jump, apparently.

V-22 tanker?

[LowObservable]

NaB - They certainly had a formal FMS offer on EMALS. Less cost per unit than CVN-79, I was told.

[Not_a_boffin]

Have just listened to Hammond's video for the MoD, which appears to suggest that the ACA had completed the costing work and that the capability presumably meaning F35C (as opposed to the EMALS system) could not be delivered until 2023.

I remain convinced that the conversion costs must have all sorts of stuff clagged into them. It simply is not possible to absorb between 12 and 20M manhours converting the ships. However - it's done. As Widger says, we must get on with it and make sure it delivers carrier strike as opposed to a couple of weeks a year hopping on and off. If we get the second ship to operate on a one-up, one-off basis, then good stuff too.

However, there were a couple of jarring notes. The CEPP concept apparently requires operating helicopters and f/w at the same time - that sounds definitively like the end of LPH(RC). There was also some reference to being able to operate helos at the same time as f/w with STOVL, but not with CV. Fitting the rotor heads into a cyclic deck plan has always been difficult on CVN - however, they tend to have an awful lot more cabs to park on deck, limiting where helos can operate from. QEC even in CV configuration has a lot of deck area free, clear of the runway. Smells like looking for things to justify the decision, but only to be expected I suppose.

Glojo - no probs operating Wokka - although not the most deck friendly aircraft.

Widger - best definition of an aircraft carrier I ever heard was form Norman Friedman, who noted that "you don't buy a carrier to protect ships, you buy it to sit off a third-world sh1thole and threaten to burn it down".

[LowObservable]

LPH(RC)? A replacement for current ships?

[cokecan]

slightly tangental, but meh - if we've going back to STOV/L, is there not a significant rationale for retaining HMS Illustrious until the two CVF's enter service - Ocean and Lusty providing what will now be relevent deck handling/air operations experience as well as the 'strike' capability with AH-64?

[Not_a_boffin]

Unfortunately not. No aircraft to handle aboard her.......and F35B will definitely not go aboard.

[163627]

Thank god we have finally seen sense and have gone back to where we should be; by reverting to the B we've saved at least £100k on buying a new model of the QE for the 5th floor of MB. :ok:

[Thomas coupling]

I have no proper knowledge of FW operating from carriers even though I flew off them in helos for years. Which is why I ask this question to those who are more in the know regarding FW assets and capabilities.

We are a 2nd division military contributor to the West (SDSR saw to that). We could sink even lower if circumstances get worse in the next 5-10yrs.
Why are we 'trying' to keep up with the Jones's w.r.t. the best/newest FW in the world? When will we ever learn to project our own needs rather than cow tow to the coat tails of others.
When (if ever) will we really need the cutting edge technology of Typhoon for example? Why then are we even going down the road of F35's...what is the point? When if ever will these beasts be needed to exercise their superiority as modern day fighters/bombers?
What is wrong with continuing to build the best carrier platform in the world (because of fwd projection needs) but instead of the F35 (et al)...why not buy a plethora of F18's or Rafale even?? I bet you could get 2 or even 3 F18's for every F35. Tested, tried and proven...probably capable of coping with the needs of the Uk for atleast the next 20yrs. Why do we always insist on cutting edge unproven technology?
BAe have said the revised launch process will cost billions.....we all know why that is don't we? Have you known any government tell a prime contractor where to go at this stage in the process? I suppose their mitigation is that it will safeguard jobs.

Let's all learn from the Canadians here: They are struggling with Merlin's 6 years after ordering them and still not front line. They are struggling with S92's, years later and they now find they are struggling with the F35 procurement process.
NEVER, EVER, BUY NEW...is my motto (even if you can afford it). :ugh::ugh:

[cokecan]

NaB, sorry, i wasn't clear - i meant using the embarked helicopters as the aircraft handling practice. with the end of A'stan in 2014, there'll be lots more helicopters to go around - as well as the move of Merlin HC into the CHF. i can't see any future government being too keen of involving themselves in long term, large-scale ground operations in countries they can't spell...

uppity wog-bashing from beyond the horizon, yes - 4 Mech Bde to Somalia, no.

[Engines]

NaB,

If there's one thing the RN have got a lot of recent experience on in the last few years it's operating varying types of air groups and aircraft mixes.

I absolutely agree that mixing FW and RW ops from a deck can be a real pain - I freely admit to throwing a hissy fit or two (or three) on Invincible when my beloved Sea Kings were elbowed off the deck by the shiny SHARs one they'd had their night's sleep. I was young, excitable and not wise. Not much of an excuse, but it's all I've got.

But you know what? We managed to get 11 Sea Kings, 9 SHARS and a Lynx working off that small deck, as well as countless other visitors, in absolutely awful weather conditions.

CVF has a deck about the size of 'Forrestal'. It's not going to move about as much as CVS. I have faith that, given the right command and control arrangements, the RN can deliver a really important flexible maritime aviation capability for the country. If that means re-inventing deck ops, heck, we've done that a few times over the years. (Angled deck. Steam catapult. Ski Jump). Not easy, not straightforward, but if you know what you're doing, doable.

The RN and the FAA know what they're doing. They'll do it.

Best Regards to all those who now know what they're going to do. What an opportunity. I envy them.

Engines

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Hmm! Confused!

Perhaps my thoughts can be best expressed by quoting this post of mine from the Future Carrier thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/221116-future-carrier-including-costs-158.html#post7131970):


GK121

Interesting. Surely if the build was slowed for political reasons, then it can be speeded back up?

Also I understand that there is nothing to stop Illustrious being retained post 2014 (until QE comes along). Even in a LPH role, having more than one flat top gives a margin of safety in case of accidents or other unexpected things (Lusty recently sustained some damage on exercise). Things do crop up - like this possible deployment to Somalia (http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Royal-Navy-tackle-Somali-pirates/story-15694141-detail/story.html).

Mach Two

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the "No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B" thread? (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b.html)

We don't have any to embark. The UK doesn't operate Harriers.

I have noticed that. But other countries do, and their jets could be embarked. There was also talk at one time of an RN Hornet squadron - why not an RN AV8B squadron?

If F35B is chosen, the RN and RAF pilots need to be worked up on that, not a type we no longer have.

What about the guys flying the F/A18? The UK has never operated that, and I think the idea for RN guys to fly them was to build CTOL experience. If the future is not CTOL, but V/STOL, then perhaps training on AV8B will be more suitable for a future transition of F35B? An RN AV8B squadron has other attractions too (such as giving us back a task force capability this decade). The politicians (the PM mostly) looked into the crystal ball with closed eyes, and saw nothing unexpected this decade.

The Americans want to UK to have a decent carrier capability - seeing us as a very important ally.

Carrier crews will need to be worked-up once the new carrier is being introduced to service. Quite a way to go yet.

Hmm! I am not sure the Officers quoted here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8799280/Royal-Navy-sackings-will-lose-aircraft-carriers-skills-forever.html) would agree:

The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said.

Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.

Or indeed the First Sea Lord: Loss of Carrier Strike Capability Top Concern of Royal Navy Chief (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110511/DEFSECT03/105110307/Loss-of-Carrier-Strike-Capability-Top-Concern-of-Royal-Navy-Chief)

F35B or F35C, we still have to get there. Current policy does not answer several key questions?

How will we maintain and develop carrier related skills this decade?

What will we do if we need to provide a task group with air defence beyond the range of ship based sensors and weapons, or if ROE demand positive ID before things can be engaged?

How will we make up for the shortfall in maritime force projection, given that SSN numbers will decline this decade, so there will be less TLAM shooters, and Apache is limited in sped, range, and payload, and available only in limited numbers?


I wonder if the cost issue is the only one, or if training and skills (and current capabilities this decade) come into it? Issues which, of course, were discussed at length both on PPRuNe and elsewhere...

cokecan

You mean keep Lusty on in the LPH role - perhaps as Ocean is (reportedly) in a piss poor state?

[Not_a_boffin]

Engines - we're in agreement. My point was that Hammond (or rather his briefers) suggesting that operating helos together with f/w was somehow easier with STOVL compared to CTOL on a deck of QEC size was stretching the actualite - not that the RN (and the Crabs if they're aboard) couldn't do it. I think the record on a CVS was 22 cabs, including 10 SHAR which must have been "fun"......

As you say, let them get on with it - please God with no more interference.

Cokecan/WEBF - the decision on Ocean vs Lusty has been made and I doubt it'll be reversed. Irrespective of the material state of Ocean a complement of sub-300 vs one of 600+ has a logic all its own.

[ghostnav]

The only reason we are having this discussion is one thing - we cannot afford it! Sadly, the politicians have never grasped the fact that we are no longer the leader of an empire.

If you really want to have power projection, then go look at the US and see what is required.

These carriers should never have been ordered - it takes money away from capabilities we really need - such as MPA!

I am fed up with the political excuses - this is all about saving pennies when pounds are really needed.