More trouble for the RN

That means that the RAF will decide if and when to put the wings onboard CVF.

The MoD decides.

If the UK returns to CTOL operations there is utterly no point in purchasing the Goshawk. The RN would do what every other country that performs CTOL operations does and send the pilots to train with the USN.

The Americans have a vast amount of experiance training people in CTOL operations and first class resources to provide that training. The USN can easily fit the small number of UK pilots into their training classes along with the French, Brazillian and Indians.

With only two carriers being purchased there is no point in investing in training aircraft even shared with france.

It’s not so easy. The F35B that will be onboard CVF are RAF property with RAF pilots. The RN will have only the carriers.
That means that the RAF will decide if and when to put the wings onboard CVF. When not necessary the RAF will deploy the F35B on land.
This is the case of today. RN has retired every RN Sea Harriers.
RAF Harrier are in AFghanistan and HMS Illostrious is taking a trip offering
to assist NATO av8b+ to mantain training of the RN air crew assistants.
To operate stovl from land or aircraft carriers it doesn’t need much training, so a RAF pilot can easily switch to operate from carriers.
For CTOL is different. To operate with catapults and to land onboard CTOL aircraft carriers will require a longer and harder training that is not convenient for RAF.
That’s the reason because the CVF are stovl.

I agree to an extent Fed, but it might still be useful to have a few based in the UK, if only for general training duties. The main course would of course still be in the US, but it would make a lot of sense to have a practice landing field (i.e. runway painted up like a carrier deck, with all the equipment too) in the UK. This would obviously allow RN pilots to do routine training in the UK, rather than need to go off to the US all the time. Shifting training time down to representative, but cheaper aircraft is very attractive, and a dozen or so Goshawks might not be a bad option!

Any new UK carrier landing field could prove very attractive to France, as Swerve rightly says! I would assume the French will be buying another few Hawkeyes once PA2 comes into service, and the UK should be aiming for at least ten or so. This could be enough to justify a joint Hawkeye service centre, hopefully in the UK.

If the UK returns to CTOL operations there is utterly no point in purchasing the Goshawk. The RN would do what every other country that performs CTOL operations does and send the pilots to train with the USN.

The Americans have a vast amount of experiance training people in CTOL operations and first class resources to provide that training. The USN can easily fit the small number of UK pilots into their training classes along with the French, Brazillian and Indians.

With only two carriers being purchased there is no point in investing in training aircraft even shared with france.

One other thing to bear in mind is the use of high fidelity simulators nowadays, which does ease the carrier-qualification problem a fair bit. If you develop, say, a two week course, with simulator time, flights in a T-45 Goshawk (or preferably a re-UK-ised Goshawk Hawk derivative, based on the Hawk 128), and a few practice landings, then you solve a lot of problems. RAF pilots would be able to do this course, as an elective module in their currency training, and then enter the pool of available RAF pilots capable of being borrowed by the RN. I know that this hardly makes them experts, and they would definately need a lot more than just this one short course, but it would certainly help!…

A re-UK-ised Goshawk, or Goshawk-ised Hawk 128, could be shared with France, as could any E-2 purchase, as a quid pro quo for RN Rafales.

One other thing to bear in mind is the use of high fidelity simulators nowadays, which does ease the carrier-qualification problem a fair bit. If you develop, say, a two week course, with simulator time, flights in a T-45 Goshawk (or preferably a re-UK-ised Goshawk Hawk derivative, based on the Hawk 128), and a few practice landings, then you solve a lot of problems. RAF pilots would be able to do this course, as an elective module in their currency training, and then enter the pool of available RAF pilots capable of being borrowed by the RN. I know that this hardly makes them experts, and they would definately need a lot more than just this one short course, but it would certainly help!

In the event of not going down the JSF route at all, then a Rafale purchase would work, as would Super Hornets, along with more Typhoons for the RAF. This does mean no stealthy fighter, which is obviously a major stumbling block, but it is not necessarily a non-starter.

If it were not for the major engineering issues, I would love to see a naval Typhoon, which would allow for a largely common fighter fleet. Unfortunately, this is not really practicable from what I have heard, which is a great pity. A few hundred Typhoons, and a hundred plus UCAVs would have made for a pretty good fleet!

The bottom line to this though guys is that the MoD have a kitty of about $20 billion set aside for FJCA. Now, IF F-35B was to fall on its @rse, and if we could not for any reason take up the F-35C, that the USN would trip over themselves trying to get us to switch to, the Rafale, even at $100 million per aircraft, would be easily affordable out of the existing budget.

The existing budget would even allow for the ‘compensation’ of the RAF with additional Typhoon airframes to make up for the loss of their Harrier squadrons and the departure from ‘Joint’ operations that a switch to CATOBAR and Rafale would, naturally, engender. Lack of finance is not going to be a driver for this anyway round – for a change!.

The optimal solution would possibly be the F-35C following an F-35B cancellation as the RAF have already, according to rumour!, shown interest in it for the GR4 mission post-Tonka and for RAF 35C pilots to deck qualify along with the FAA squadrons to retain ‘jointness’. Seeings as the first production 35B starts trials in December I guess we’ll find out in short order whats likely to happen.

A common unit cost for the F35B from 2006 seems to be ca.$62M cf $70M for Rafale. The former figure is going to be more susceptible to change though (reduction in projected buys, overrun costs).

What is the basis for each of those costs? I ask because combat aircraft cost comparisons are fraught with difficulties. It’s rare that two prices include exactly the same elements, & they’re often quoted in prices of a particular year, e.g. F-35 prices are most often given in 2002 prices.

The 31-12-2006 Selected Acquisition Report gives the average procurement cost of an F-35, based on the USA buying 2458, as $121.98 million, including fixed costs, in “then-year” prices (i.e. it includes a forecast of general inflation). At 2002 prices, it’s $85.2 mn.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/2007-JUN-SARSUMTAB.pdf

Excluding fixed costs, it’s estimated at about $104.4 mn in “then-year” prices. Making a crude adjustment to 2006 prices, that’s about $80 mn excluding fixed costs, & $94 mn including.

I think the $62 mn is probably “flyaway” cost at 2002 prices. If so, it’s about $68 mn at 2006 prices. Whether the $70 mn for Rafale is on the same basis, I don’t know.

F-35B is a potential non-starter for two unrelated reasons, only one of which is relevant to F-18E. One is that it might be cancelled. Unlikely, but not impossible. Too late for F-18E to be cancelled.

The other is the software/hardware access & approval for customisation issue, which could also apply to F-18E.

I think if the F35B programme was going to be cancelled by the US, then purchase of the F-18E would be politically difficult. Cannot imagine it happening, but……

And as you say, any fall through over technology will likely apply to the F18E. Even if it didn’t, giving them more money for an inferior plane seems ludicrous.

Now if we cancel F35B (due to rising costs?), then I guess F18E would be a contender.

relative costs of F35B and Rafale

A common unit cost for the F35B from 2006 seems to be ca.$62M cf $70M for Rafale. The former figure is going to be more susceptible to change though (reduction in projected buys, overrun costs).

I agree, the Hawkeye is the best option for capability, but I would say that the S-3 based option does have some benefits. The main ones are the multi-role capability, i.e. the ability to bolt on pods, and use it as whatever is needed; and the fact that it would likely use the (British) Searchwater radar, or a derivative of it. However, as you say, commonality of operations with the USN and MN are a great attraction, as is the support regime that comes with it. With the S-3, the UK would need to ‘adopt’ the S-3 program, and produce all the parts etc… Since the total order would be less than twenty (a dozen or so for AEW, plus a couple for COD hopefully, and a few spares), support would be a big issue.

Hmm, I wonder if Gulfstream ever proposed one of their bizjets as a carrier-capable aircraft? :diablo:

Ed,

I love the idea in theory, the problem is the number of carrier landing cycles left on the airframes. I had read a while back that they had many years of land based life left in them, but not many years of carrier life left on them.

Bang on. Having said that MoD have enquired about examples stored at AMARC and presumably we could find half a dozen examples that would last us a number of years.

Problem with that, though, is that its a poor relation to what, allegedly, was already on the table from Northrop Grumman. When initially mooted they apparently came back with an offer, at minimum, of 6 Advanced Hawkeye for circa $1billion. Now compared, whole-life, with the S-3AEW you have to say that a future-proof ASAC capability, enjoying commonality with other developed naval forces, like that offered by the E-2 would have a considerable edge over the S-3 option which may not last 10 years in service!

All that being academic of course without the inclusion of some kind of catapult capability on the CVF.

So?

So the Rafale’s unit price is higher. If that changes in the future, fair enough. But for the moment the F-35 is not more expensive.

Because when the French proposed selling it to Morocco they originally proposed a unit price of $60 million. They then back-peddled hugely saying they couldn’t do that such that it scuppered the deal. I don’t think they would have quibbled so much over a few million to the point where there was no deal – the unit price alone is currently $70 million. So unless the French sold it to us for cost it would cost a fair bit more, using current price-guides.

So? How much do you think we’ll pay for F-35B? The US expects to pay $104.4 mn per F-35 (average of all models) excluding fixed costs. The F-35B is ca 20% more than an F-35A.

Get in quick & buy up several ex-USN S-3s (supposed to be quite a few with lots of airframe hours left), plus some more for spare airframes, & all the spare engines etc. you can get your hands on. Oh, & some refuelling kits . . . just in case they come in handy. Make sure they come with full approval to do what we want to ’em. Purchase price trivial, though refurbishing, refitting with the radar, etc., would cost a bit. Should get 20 years service from ’em. 😉

I love the idea in theory, the problem is the number of carrier landing cycles left on the airframes. I had read a while back that they had many years of land based life left in them, but not many years of carrier life left on them. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly, they would be great for the RN, with the potential for multiple ‘versions’, simply by means of bolting new pods on the pylons, and in the bays. It could carry air refuelling pods, recon pods, jammer pods, AEW radars, weapons etc…

but why the Rafale?

Because when the French proposed selling it to Morocco they originally proposed a unit price of $60 million. They then back-peddled hugely saying they couldn’t do that such that it scuppered the deal. I don’t think they would have quibbled so much over a few million to the point where there was no deal – the unit price alone is currently $70 million. So unless the French sold it to us for cost it would cost a fair bit more, using current price-guides.

…

On the UAV issue, I agree that the Mariner has strong potential as a radar picket, but I would say that a fixed wing manned AEW would be pretty desirable. If necessary, copy the S-3 Viking basic design, and bolt on a Searchwater radar! :diablo:

Get in quick & buy up several ex-USN S-3s (supposed to be quite a few with lots of airframe hours left), plus some more for spare airframes, & all the spare engines etc. you can get your hands on. Oh, & some refuelling kits . . . just in case they come in handy. Make sure they come with full approval to do what we want to ’em. Purchase price trivial, though refurbishing, refitting with the radar, etc., would cost a bit. Should get 20 years service from ’em. 😉

…

If F35B is a non-starter because of US decisions, I can’t imagine Super Hornet getting through, though then again, our politicians have always retained the capacity to surprise/disgust/dismay* me, so….

* – please choose what you feel most appropriate;)

F-35B is a potential non-starter for two unrelated reasons, only one of which is relevant to F-18E. One is that it might be cancelled. Unlikely, but not impossible. Too late for F-18E to be cancelled.

The other is the software/hardware access & approval for customisation issue, which could also apply to F-18E.

Ed,

Well as I see it, and it must be remembered I am a lot better with the big grey boats rather than the little grey planes, F-35B comes with 40,000lb thrust in reheat. Empty weight is 26,000lbs and full internal fuel is something like 13,000lbs. If someone could confirm those numbers it’d be appreciated but they seem a good average of whats out there. Less weapons then I make that a PWR close to unity.

Internal only weapons load wouldnt change that much either, but, obviously hanging a pair of Storm Shadows externally and carrying 4 AMRAAMs in the bays is going to push the figures down a bit. As stated though – not so much I wouldnt expect it to have a problem with a no-WoD takeoff.

Hmm, you’re probably right, but I still have my doubts, given the sheer weight, so I would probably have to look up the take-off thrust. Easier just to take your word for it! :diablo: