Geoff_BDon’t forget a fair amount of that cost is from stretching out the building program to keep the shipyards busy as they haven’t got anything ready for them to replace the carriers on the slips. Gordons delay added 20% to the cost, so this will be the same plus the Catobar gear.
As for F-35C over F-35B, well the costs didn’t really add up unless the govt have a better insight into the F-35 program and the DoD intentions. I rather suspect they asked for an accurate prediction on cost and actual capability together with a cast iron guarantee that the F-35B would enter service and didn’t like the answers they got back thus the decision to switch the JCA choice (If the C variant program goes belly up then at least there are alternatives available ! )
Geoff_BDidn’t Rolls Royce have to build a US assembly facility for the lift fan for the F-35B anyway.
As for the UK switching variants and reducing the expected order quantities – Well if Lockheed had actually produced the aircraft within the timeframe, performance parameters and predicted cost then we probably would have not been forced into switching !!!!!
As for why the C for the RAF, well all of them need to be carrier capable for deployment on the CVF when operating to bolster the airgroup or transitting to a conflict zone without a suitable friendly airbase to hand or within an acceptable ferry flight range.
Geoff_BBTW I wouldn’t pay much attention to the build times quoted for the CVF class, the timing has alot to do with when its actually required, when the aircraft and aircraft launch systems are ready for it and how the government wants to pay for it.
Currently its now on a slow build to spread funding and also spread the work load due there being no follow on work ready to replace it in the yards upon completion and that the selected aircraft won’t be available in any numbers till 2019/20 at the earliest.
Pretty sure if the airgroup was available and the strategic situation dictated an urgent need then the build schedule could be greatly shortened.
Geoff_BTwo cats and three wires, actually I think its an adapted image of the proposed PA2 from a few years back.
Not sure about the location of the port side forward Phalanx mount, seems rather close to the angle decks catapult run. Also I can’t make out the deck landing sight and associated equipment.
Well its their CVF design with the CATOBAR features, the fwd end of the abgled deck is straighter on QE than PA2 and the waist cat is at a different angle. The deck landing sight is on a platform at the edge of the angled deck, or rather the platform is there, the sight is absent.
Still its nice to see the revised artwork start to appear, i too saw it in desider but was hoping they would post it on one of the CVF related sites as a proper image we can get a proper look at hopefully with some of the other views.
Geoff_BErm Isnt IAC-1 being built in blocks ?
Geoff_BWhile, I have my doubts the F-35B will operate from USN Carriers routinely. I don’t see it being cancelled under any conditions.
I’m not so sure, USMC is likely to have some interesting debates about its use and choice of hardware, the over ambitious and expensive hardware its chosen to replace its existing kit must now be being questioned – CV-22, EFV, F-35B all supposed to be repalcements for cheap practical hardware and all have proved to have long delays, astronomical price tags and yet fail to deliver the expected performance for the price being paid.
I do wonder if part of the reason for the UK switch to the C variant was a lack of gaurantee from the US administration that the F-35B would meet expectations and would not be cancelled.
As for the initial question of will F-35B’s operate off US Carriers well that has to be seen on how exactly it performs. If the jetwash in VTOL mode is so hot then it may require a speciall prepared flight deck area for landing capable of withstanding the heat. Plus with all the push button computer controlled flight would the CVN need to have an ILS system for the F-35B to enable the computer to land the aircraft in the correct postion on the moving and pitching flight deck ?
Geoff_BConsidering how the Indians work they will no doubt consult with Thales, BAE & DCN over IAC2 probably along with Newport News as they tend to get advise and opinions before evoving their own design.
From an armchair observers viewpoint it quite hard to keep track of Indian projects as they tend to keep the details rather quiet (just see how little info there is on IAC1 or the current series of Destroyers & frigates currently under construction).
I rather doubt they would use the CVF design as such, but rather go with an enlarged IAC1 which is optomised for construction in Indian shipyards and then consult overseas companies with existing experience on the changes and the impact on they would have on the current design.
One aspect that nots been considered is the Russians, the Indians may well be talking with Russia on a common design with an eye for navalised Pak-FA for both navies ?
Geoff_BIt’s a shame that BAE had to resort to these measures but BAE have been looking out for our own defence interests more than the governments have been. With this contract BAE made sure that the UK kept the skills and jobs that it may need in the future. I assume that the government got a similar letter about the Astute program in reference to a loss of skills and jobs if not all were built.
Well it was the Labour governement that cancelled the other 6 type 45s that were planned, Cancelled the MARS RFA program, left the Frigate replacement program sit in limbo of never ending project studies without committing to a final design leaving the shipyards & Royal Navy desperate for the CVF order. Then with the carriers they fudge the decision for a few years forcing the price up, then try to coerce the French to join the program, before fiinally forcing the remaining warship yards into an enforced merger before placing the actual order.
After being given the run around all decade and see expected work fail to materialise its no wonder BVT made sure they had gauranteed work before signing up to anything.
Don’t let the spin doctors of the MOD & Treasury try and twist this intoi being BAEs fault as with the warship building its pretty much the previous governments.
The irony is if orders had been placed as planned then the yards would have had work and they should have no agreement would have been required and they would likely have stepped the carrier oorders so PoW would probably have been left in limbo as per the French PA2, whilst QE would probably have been ready to launch in the next 12 months or so.
Geoff_BI rather suspect there will be a slight delay due to the modifications to the deck of probably 6-12 mths depending on how long the structual mods take to be designed and if existing blocks already in assembly require modification.
The rest of the delay is probably going to be during the fitting out process whilst they await and then fit and test the catobar gear. I should think we’ll see QE launch in the 2014-16 period and probably set sail on builders sea trials well before the 2018.
Geoff_BNot at all. How many times do you expect QE to go into a dock in the two years after she’s floated out? That’s the period under discussion.
After that, one dock is more than enough for maintaining two ships.
Generally you would say none, but the given the current RN trend for bumping their first of class this year……..:(
Geoff_BOto Melara and Babcock International Group’s Marine Division have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to offer the Oto Melara 127mm64cal Light Weight (LW) to the UK Ministry of Defence for the Type 26 frigate for the Royal Navy.
Note the magic word is Offer, Babcock have lined up a deal with Oto Melara for the 127mm gun. Have no doubt that BAE Systems will offer a different gun either from their own stable or on behalf of a third party when the time comes to court the Royal Navy & MOD
Geoff_BI have readed in other post about the french PA2, and now its size is of 60.000 tons, and have only one control tower
QE class if of 65.000 tons so can someone tell me what the projects have in comom ?
IMO they are getting more and more away from each other
Actually that was DCNS pushing their revised Julliet design for PA2, not the Thales CVF design. Not quite sure where things stand with the actual PA2 design i had the impression the Thales design was the preferred choice but like the UK they had been required to work with the loosing design company DCNS as they hold the ship building monopoly. With the PA2 postponment it looks like DCNS has bumped Thales out of the way to promote its own design as the one they have continued to develop whilst the program sits in limbo.
I suspect they were eyeing the Brazilian Navy by pushing a potential San Paulo replacement with their FREMM, as they know the UK have mentioned CVF along with Type 26.
Geoff_BWell we have switched from the F-35B to F-35C as the selection for JCA. Its putting the carrier strike program back 4 years or so and will cost a minimum of £500 million for the pair (gets a bit confusing on that last bit, as Fox said thats the estimated price for both, but a junior minister said they had not yet decided if they will convert the 2nd carrier at this time ?:confused:).
Given the UKs level of access to the F-35 program it would be interesting to see what prompted the switch. Sure there is performance increasewith the C variant, and Catobar does allow greater inter-operation amongst carrier users but does it justify the costs in delay and conversion time.
It does make you wonder if the F-35B has further hurdles to overcome as yet be they structural, performance or politcal in nature which may have steered the British decision ?
Geoff_BThe odd remark in the cooperation article was the bit about each navy providing an Escort for the others task groups. We actually did that on a regular basis prior to Iraq & Afghanistan. So not really something new, just re-establishing old links.
Not quite sure why DCNS have revamped their Julliet design, unless they have killed off the Thales CVF based CVF in favour of their own. Quite amusing reading some of the Euronaval reports as the reporters try and explain how they have changed the CVF design, when infact its the Julliet design thats been updated :D. (I suspect DCNS are aiming at that Brazilian naval program with a faint hope the French Govt may be tempted to switch to the DCNS design if and when PA2 program is authorised).
Geoff_BInteresting question, i assume your talking about additional/or F-35B to complement the F-35A or are you thinking of a stop gap purchase of the RAF Harrier fleet ?
If the former then its a case of if they order the F-35B then it would depend on when the F-35B production deliveries start and when training programs are established, then get the first pilots onto the earliest USMC F-35B program to start the training process. The flight deck crews could go see the USN/USMC to get experience with VTOL ops on carriers.
If the latter then ity would be a case of getting pilots onto a USMC training program and possibly poaching some of the soon to be grounded UK Harrier pilots and crew to get the program rolling ASAP.
Modifying the ships wouldn’t be too hard as the Spanish design did include VTOL features.
Of course its just a pipe dream at the moment and funding would be highly unlikley without a radical change in strategy.
Sign In
