F-18RNSurely the question that is being debated for the most part is if you buy a certain number of F-35B and there through life cost consists of the purchase costs plus the operational cost, and if the purchase cost is now higher than predicted a few years ago at what point does the cost of the same number of F/A-18 (or Rafale, or whatever) plus their higher operational costs work out cheaper and is that situation likely to occur.
Lots of people float around figures between $100 and $130 million for the F-35B at point of purchase then try to work out what the F/A-18 would cost at the same point in time, lets say that the F/A-18 will cost $80 million (my guess is good as anyone else’s). Say that it costs about £10 million a year more to go CATOBAR with F/A-18 (and presume Sterling will strengthen a lot so that means $20 million year) then if you look at a 20 year life span the difference in the cost between 92 F-35B would be (92 x 100,000,000 = 9,200,000,000) and 92 F/A-18 ((92 x 80,000,000 = 7,360,000,000) + (20,000,000 x 20 = 400,000,000) = 7,760,000,000) . This is obviously illustrative as I have no idea of the costs of the F-35B or what the F/A-18 will cost in 2016, but is shows in this example that the F/A-18 would work out cheaper, obviously longer the operational life, smaller the cost difference between the two options, and higher the operational costs for the F/A-18 over F-35B more it favours the F-35B.
What is therefore needed IMO is a bit more information on how much the price difference has to be between F-35B and F/A-18 before you end up with higher costs over the whole life of the F-35B and you are forced away from an economic argument to one based on how crucial the F-35B is to the “purple”, joined up role envisaged for it when the MoD decided to go ahead with a carrier programme.
Well I looked the flyaway cost up on Wikipedia (which I know has a bad rep for accuracy but still) and as of 2010 for the F/A-18E/F it was $60,300,000. I’m not sure if the E and F cost the same. E/A-18G was $73,000,000. Whilst for the F-35 and this is for no specific variant it was $191,900,000. I’m reminded of the documentary that was made a few years ago about TSR2 where allegedly the late Lord Mountbatten in trying to sell Buccaneers to Australia instead of TSR2s, produced a model of each plane and declared ‘You can have five of those for one of those.’.
Now lets suppose the FAA opts for the following number of aircraft – 68 of which 36 are single-seaters evenly divided between two squadrons, we’ll call them 800 and 801 RNAS’, 8 two-seaters are used in the roles of Tanker/ECM at sea and 12 more two-seaters are trainers ashore 899 RNAS. The remaining 12 (including a pair of two-seaters) are attrition spares. Only one carrier is operational at a time, the other in refit/reserve its aircraft operating ashore. Each of the front line squadrons are subdivided into two or three flights and in an emergency one of these flights from the reserve carrier can join the operational carrier in a surge role. Now this means: –
[PHP]TYPE NO. UNIT COST($) UNIT COST(£) TOTAL COST($) TOTAL COST(£)
F/A-18E/F: 46 60,300,000 37,687,500 2,773,800,000 1,733,625,000
E/A-18G: 22 73,000,000 45,625,000 1,460,000,000 912,500,000
F-35B/D?: 68 191,900,000 119,937,500 13,049,200,000 8,155,750,000[/PHP] That means that the combined F/A-18 buy is £2,646,125,000 a saving of £7,243,250,000. I can easily imagine someone desperate to save the carriers from the axe going to George Osborne armed with these kinds of figures and saying much the same thing. Even if the costs of operating CTOL carriers are a little higher. Not to mention arguments about cross decking with US and French carriers.
F-18RNThe other scenario that isn’t discussed here is the treasurey sees a saving, and runs away with it. My personal opinion is if HM treasury is convinced of the cost saving of buying F/A-18F over F-35B, F-35C, Rafale, AN Other then what-ever money is freed-up by that cost saving will never be seen again by the RN or RAF. E-2 Hawkeyes would be treated as an entirely new cost, along with any other aircraft and require separate justification in their own right, not a case of juggling money that hasn’t been confirmed to buy equipment that is not the navy’s first(F-35B), second(F-35C), or I suspect even third(close Anglo-French cooperation headlines) choice.
What I’m interested to understand is exactly how the emals system would replace the current wire system/concept when landing (obviously the tail-hook still has to pick up a wire of some description). Personally I’d be amazed if the crew compliment only increased by 100 as they all have to be accommodated onboard the ship in sufficient quantity to support ops during all shifts not just 9 to 5, trained, fed, paid, cared for and everything else over the 50 year life of the two carriers. Then we have to consider how long those crew would be home for before their next cruise.
Then you have to look at the life-span of the aircraft and re-capitalization costs. Will a F-35B last longer than a F/A-18F on carrier ops, and if so then by how many years? No-one can answer it conclusively as the aircraft isn’t in service yet so someone has to make an educated calculation. Then ask do we believe the PR speak of reduced support costs per flying hour of the F-35 over jets currently in service, and can those savings be achieved. If they can, and the jet will be in service for longer, then things look increasingly dubious for the F/A-18F.
Could I just ask, and I’m not singling Hawkeye out here by the way, I’m just using his post to illustrate my point, why when discussing the possible purchase of SHs that they talk about the F/A-18F? Surely, whilst the purchase of a few Gs for ECM (and possibly tanker duties) and maybe a few Fs for training, the main version should be the single-seat E if only for just that reason, that they only need a single crew member which is less labour intensive. Also if they go down the CATOBAR route why can’t they be fitted, at least initially with steam catapults or keed the ski jump and add arrestor wires and an angled deck?
F-18RNDo you think that this thread and this one: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=102272 should be merged?
F-18RNI would add
5. Additional crew on CVF, and racks, catering etcetera for them,6. Cost of finding and training the person sat in the rear seat of the F-18F
What makes you think they going to buy the F/A-18F rather than the E? I can imagine that they might buy a handful of Fs and Gs (the latter to be embarked to operate as ECM/tanker aircraft, the former ashore as trainers), but the majority would (hopefully) be Es.
My response upon reading this thread is ‘Dear God please let it come true’. I recognise the importance of fixed-wing V/STOL ashore, but at sea I tolerated the Sea Harrier and laterly the F-35B on the grounds of any indigenous fixed-wing aviation in the RN was better than none, but who would pass up the chance for the romance and power of CTOL ops? I say let the RAF have an albeit greatly reduced number of F-35Bs to replace its Harriers and let the RN have its Super Hornets. I’m picturing airgroups of say 18-24 F/A-18Es, 3 or 4 EF/A-18Gs, 3 or 4 E2 Hawkeyes and 6 Merlins. Providing the Super Hornets are bought off the shelf and not ‘Anglicised’ like the Phantom or Hercules, I imagine it would be cheaper.
On the subject of crew training, the ships won’t be ready for a number of years yet, RN deck crews like FAA pilots could be sent on exchange tours with the USN and FN to learn how to conduct cat and trap operations ready for HMSQueen Elizabeth’s commissioning. Also has anyone considered the possibilty of STOBAR i.e. retaining the ski jump (which is much simpler, cheaper and less labour-intensive than catapults) but adding the triad of angled deck, DLPS and arrestor wires? Just like the INS Vikramaditya Admiral Kuznetsov and Shi Lang. Does anyone know if the Super Hornet can make a rolling take off from a CVF so equipped with a useful fuel/weapon load? If they can do that instead of Hawkeyes the FAA could use the porposed AEW variant of the Merlin.
F-18RNI haven’t picked it up myself, but in the latest edition of Warships International Fleet Review, Nigel ‘Sharkey’ Ward has written a two-page CVF article intitled ‘Tailhook vs V/STOL’. I believe it deals with those two different options for Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.
F-18RNThanks for answering my question Jonesy. However just to clarify, what were the 4 RN carriers of the 1960s/70s and what would CVA01 (and, if any, its sisters) have been, strike or fleet?
F-18RN1, We do not have the same REQUIREMENT for carriers as the French or Americans. Their carriers were designed relative to the Cold War. We are in a post-Cold War world where we do not need to do blue water sea control which is the only mission that the Fleet Carrier performs better than a Strike Carrier.
Read the MoD REQUIREMENT for the Carrier Strike capability. It is not a Fleet Carrier by any stretch of the imagination. CVF offers the capability to be re-roled to Fleet Carrier operation, albeit on the low-performance side, but until the threat board reflects the need for a Fleet Carrier why spend the money on capability we dont need?. Just for the ‘we can do it too’ factor with the Yanks and the French?. Poor reasoning at best.
2, The Argentinians did the damage because we had ASW and Commando carriers. A Strike Carrier like CVF in a Fleet that was optimised for expeditionary warfare and not bluewater ASW would have made the difference as much as anything else.
I am sorry if you feel victimised, but, too many people are fundamentally misunderstanding what CVF and the MoD Carrier Strike requirement are actually about…….just because CVF ‘looks like’ it should be a fleet carrier. That, to me, is simple ignorance and should be challenged.
Please forgive my ignorance but what is the difference between a Fleet Carrier and a Strike Carrier? I’m pretty certain in all the years I’ve been interested in naval aviation and in all the books I’ve read, documentaries I’ve watched, and more recently websites and forums I’ve frequented on the subject, I’ve heard the big US carriers as well as closer to home Ark Royal (IV), Eagle, Victorious and Hermes (before she lost her cats) referred to invariably as ‘strike carriers’ or ‘the big strike carriers’.
A few examples of this I found in The Fleet Air Arm An Illustrated History by Reginald Longstaff published in 1981 including page 222 paragraph 3 “The delayed blow of losing our last strike carrier* was lightened by the government statement that the third ship of the Invincible Class was to be named Ark Royal.” And on paragraph 2 of the facing page “The name of Ark Royal as a strike carrier spanned 41 years of naval aviation, and she was the last of a once mighty fleet of carriers who helped bring peace to the world.” And paragraph 4 of page 224 “On 30 July 1966, a new strike carrier* CVA01 was announced to replace the Ark Royal,”.
I’m familiar obviously with fixed or rotary wing carriers. I’m familiar with ASW carriers and Attack carriers as the US Navy used to field prior to the introduction of S3 Vikings and Sikorsky Ocean Hawks aboard their big carriers resulting in CVA becoming CV, but I must say I’ve always been of the opinion that the terms ‘Fleet Carrier’ and ‘Strike Carrier’ were interchangable. Is it a case of the number/variety of aircraft fielded or the facilities that the ship is equipped with?
* My italics.
F-18RNI just finished watching it and intend to transfer it to DVDRW (Sans adverts) for Posterity. I enjoyed it but I felt a flash of anger towards the end of the programme for three reasons. Firstly, even accounting for possible bias on the part of the interviewees, British Airways could have gone it alone in continuing to operate Concorde, especially as they had just splashed out on a new interior.
Secondly, the airlines didn’t implement safety recommendations made after the May 1979 incident that was reenacted and which could have prevented the 2000 crash turning into a tragedy. And thirdly, though this isn’t to do with Concorde itself, at the end they showed a couple of the Museum Concordes, one next to a hanger in 1970s livery (Brooklands perhaps?), nearby in the shadow of a tree, lay rusted and discarded a TSR2 cockpit, a very sad fate indeed.
Watching this documentary has made me consider buying the following DVD:
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/5366647/Concorde-The-Ultimate-Profile/Product.html#
However I’m concerned that it is essentially the follwing, but in different packaging:
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/5211168/The-Complete-History-Of-Concorde/Product.html
Does anyone own either or both of these and could confirm whether they are different?
F-18RNI used to think that Skyflash was a manly, heroic name but I am now forced to reconsider thanks to that observation 🙂
In the same vane, how about Firestreak.:D
F-18RNIMMOO seaslug is a bit naff as a name. But no worse than other near contemporaries ‘Red Top’ what? Are we firing copies of the Scum at our enemies? Sparrow? Sparrow? Of all the birdies to name your AAM after
Yeah and what about Skyflash. Is the pilot going to stop in mid air and show off his nose radome?:diablo:
F-18RNapologies F/A-18RN was using a hand held which somehow distorted the Fearless line. Should’ve gone to specsavers:eek: see it clearly now I’m on the MAC.
Thats quite alright Doc.:)
F-18RNI’m hoping to go to Duxford not this weekend coming but the one after, possibly a week Friday. What can I expect? Also as I’ll hopefully be in London for that period I’m thinking of going to Brooklands Museum as well. Mainly to see Concorde.
F-18RNShe’s there… you just have to read past the names.
The names are “class names” (except for singular ships), to the right of the name the first column is “No. of Units”… the number beside Fearless is “2”.
Therefore, that line represents both Fearless AND Intrepid.
The next column after that is “refit/reserve”… indicating how many of the class is unavailable for operations.
Thanks for that Bager, I was just about to post that myself :).
F-18RNHi Bager
Thanks for the reply. Obviously my figures don’t take into account the costs of building the ships in the first place, or running them. The costs may well have been huge, but if my figures do stand up, the fact that there would have only been an increase in personnel at sea of less than 800 surprised me. Of course there are claims that the Navy was struggling manpower wise anyway at this time.
As you will see, since you posted your reply, I’ve gone in and made some corrections and additions to the post, which I meant to do at the time. These hopefully respond to your points. I would be interested to hear people’s thoughts on my airgroup proposals, particularly the exclusion of the F-14 from CVA-01 decks.
F-18RNEver since i saw this thread I’ve been attempting to fathom out what my fantasy fleet would be. After some thought and consulting some of the many books I have on the subject as well as one or two websites have made my choice. Apologies in advance for the post’s length. I decided to ground my fleet a little more in reality and as such thought it might be interesting to contrast the Royal Navy as it actually was in 1977 (the year a third CVA-01 might have entered service) with the fantasy CVA-01 centric fleet I have come up with.
Royal Navy Combat Units: 1977 Table 1: Actual<br />
Type Ship/Class No. of Refit/ Crew Deployed Building/<br />
Units Reserve* Crews# Planned<br />
SSBN Resolution 4 1 143 429 0<br />
SSN Trafalgar 0 0 130 0 7<br />
SSN Swiftsure 3 1 97 194 2<br />
SSN Valiant 5 1 103 412 0<br />
SSN Dreadnought 1 1 88 0 0<br />
SSK Oberon 13 2 68 748 0<br />
SSK Porpoise 5 1 71 284 0<br />
CV Ark Royal 1 0 2640 2640 0<br />
CH Hermes 2 1 980 980 0<br />
CLH Tiger 2 0 885 1770 0<br />
DLG Type 82 1 0 407 407 0<br />
DLG County 7 2 471 2355 0<br />
DD Type 42 3 0 299 897 6<br />
FF Type 21 4 0 177 708 4<br />
FF Type 22 0 0 250 0 3<br />
FF Leander 16 2 251 3514 0<br />
FF Broad-Beamed 10 1 260 2340 0<br />
Leander<br />
FF Type 81 7 2 253 1265 0<br />
FF Type 12 2 1 225 225 0<br />
FF Type 12 Mod 9 1 235 1880 0<br />
FF Type 61 3 2 237 237 0<br />
FF Type 41 2 1 235 235 0<br />
FF Type 14 4 2 140 280 0<br />
FF Type 14 1 1 0 0<br />
Conversion<br />
LPD Fearless 2 1 580 580 0<br />
Totals 107 24 9225 22380 22</p>
<p>
In addition to the above ships, in 1977/78 the Royal Navy had another 272 vessels including landing craft, survey vessels, RFAs, Mine Warfare vessels etc. In 1977 personnel amounted to 9,800 officers and 62,400 ratings for a total of 72,200 plus 3,900 servicewomen. Table 2: Mine<br />
Type Ship/Class No. of Refit/ Crew Deployed Building/<br />
Units Reserve Crews# Planned<br />
SSBN Resolution 4 1 143 429 0<br />
SSN Trafalgar 0 0 130 0 7<br />
SSN Swiftsure 3 1 97 194 2<br />
SSN Valiant 5 1 103 412 0<br />
SSN Dreadnought 1 1 88 0 0<br />
SSK Oberon 13 2 68 748 0<br />
SSK Porpoise 5 1 71 284 0<br />
[I]CVA Queen Elizabeth 3 1 3250 6500 0[/I]<br />
[I]CAH Invincible+ 3 1 750 1500 0[/I]<br />
[I]DLG Type 82 6 2 407 1628 0[/I]<br />
[I]DLG County 5 2 471 1413 0[/I]<br />
DD Type 42 3 0 299 897 6<br />
FF Type 21 4 0 177 708 4<br />
FF Type 22 0 0 250 0 3<br />
[I]FF Leander 7 2 251 1255 0[/I]<br />
FF Broad-Beamed 10 1 260 2340 0<br />
Leander<br />
FF Type 81 7 2 253 1265 0<br />
FF Type 12 2 1 225 225 0<br />
FF Type 12 Mod 9 1 235 1880 0<br />
FF Type 61 3 2 237 237 0<br />
FF Type 41 2 1 235 235 0<br />
FF Type 14 4 2 140 280 0<br />
FF Type 14 1 1 0 0<br />
Conversion<br />
LPD Fearless 2 1 580 580 0<br />
[I]Totals 103 27 8720 23153 22[/I]</p>
<p>
NB. That is 773 officers/ratings more than in the actual navy at that time. I am surprised at how little difference there is in terms of the total expended man power involved between the two fleets.
In terms of my rationale, I postulated on three CVA-01s one each in commission/working up/refit or reserve. Therefore each would have an accompanying Invincible. As for the Type 82s, I postulated 2 to escort each CVA-01. The number of County and Leander class ships I derived from reading Richard Beedall’s CVA-01 article on his ‘Navy Matters’ website which indicated that there would be nine fewer Leanders and two fewer Counties had CVA-01 gone ahead. According to Richard Beedall :”Most plans called for at least six ships*, including substitutions for a final two County class DDG’s.” * Type 82. I also got rid of Hermes, Bulwark, Tiger and Blake as I figured they would be surplus to requirements with the Invincibles on the scene. In terms of names I thought Queen Elizabeth, Prince of Wales & Ark Royal. On nomenclature I figured given the historic nature of the name Ark Royal in British carrier aviation, the powers that be could be persuaded to change the name. Ark Royal IV after all would have shed the mortal coil by time Ark Royal V might have entered service. Also since Prince Charles’ 1969 investiture, CVA-02 might have been rechristened Prince Of Wales. Afterall CVF-02 isn’t going to be called HMS Duke Of Edinburgh.
On the names of the escort carriers, I simply stuck to the names of the ships we got Invincible, Illustrious, Indomitable (Ark Royal V’s original name). Though I do take your point and if the three CVA-01s had been named for three senior royals, I suppose the escort carriers could have been named Eagle, Ark Royal and Hermes in the same way as our current Assault Landing Ships are known as Albion and Bulwark.
In terms of the airgroup there are a number of possibilities-
1973-1985: 18 Phantoms (or P-1154RNs), 22 Buccaneers (4 Tanker/EW aircraft), 4 AEW (initially) Gannet 3s, 1 COD (initially) Gannet 4 AND 2 SAR Wessex plus optional ASW Sea Kings.
1986-2000: 18 Tornado F6s (navalised F3s), 22 Tornado SR5s (navalised GR1/4s), 4 Hawker P-139B AEW, 1 COD (P-139B derivative) AND 2 SAR Sea Kings plus optional ASW Sea Kings (later Merlins).
NB. In terms of the ‘Sea Tonkas’ the tailfin and nose cone would have to fold and the wings would need to be fully swept for either stowage in the hanger or use of the lifts. Its also possible that a truly multi-role Tornado combining the functions of all the different types of land-based Tornado in a single airframe could have been developed in which case there would be 40 Tornado F/A5s embarked.
I have not suggested Tomcats as the Tomcat, even with nose cone folding and wing over sweep would have been too wide for the 32 and 33 feet wide lifts installed on the CVA-01s. They would have needed replacing with wider units before the ships would be Tomcat-friendly.
It is interesting to note that according to Jane’s Weapon Systems 1983/84 CVA-01 would have had ADAWS 3 Action Data Automation Weapon System which was a naval fire control system.
* = The figure of 24 ships in either refit or reserve is correct, however how the number of Frigates in reserve breaks down class by class isn’t clear from the sources and are based on my own estimates.
+ = This does not refer to the Invincible class carriers as we have them today displacing over 20,000 tons with over 1,000 crew but rather the 15,000ton helicopter cruisers designed to help escort CVA-01 class carriers
# = Deployed crews means the total number of officers and ratings serving at sea aboard all the operational units of a particular class.
Sources: Jane’s Fighting Ships 1977/78. Edited by Captain John Moore RN. Jane’s Weapon Systems 1983/84 Edited by Ronald T Pretty. The Fleet Air Arm: A Pictorial History Written by Reginald Longstaff. http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm Edited by Richard Beedall.
Sign In
