nocutstoRAFI suspect the RAF was given the choice of either GR4 or F-35B and they chose the F-35B, they like both but they know that they are the whipping boys for this set of cuts as the Army is still fighting in Afghanistan and the Navy has been cut to the bone already, bar the carriers, and cancelling the carriers would IMO be a bit of political suicide.
However saying all that I am secretly hoping that Obama phones up Dave and tells him how disappointed he is the UK is chopping their military and if persists in doing it, the special relationship will be in trouble. Then Dave can tell his chum George to play nicely with Liam instead of keeping picking on him 🙂
nocutstoRAFHaving suggested in the past that from a political point of view that if the RN brought LCA (Naval) mk II to guarantee the Typhoon’s selection for the MCRA competition that it might make sense, I still have reservations given the fact that the LCA is not designed for the role the UK envisages filling – it is meant to replace Indian Sea Harriers, and Indian has Mig-29K’s if they want a platform with good amount of ordnance, as operating fighters in STOBAR configuration reduces their payloads and sortie rates, and the LCA is unlikely even with the EJ200 be able to take off with much more than what the Harrier currently carries.
I be more interested if BAE was able to build a derivative of the LCA (Naval) mk II under licence and use it as a CATOBAR plane – I do have three questions to help explore the idea -1) How much, if any, extra strengthening do you need to change a plane optimised for STOBAR to CATOBAR? 2) Does 2-D thrust vectoring improve MTOW and bring back weight for fighters in STOBAR configurations? 3) Is the LCA’s air frame able to handle the increase thrust of either the EJ210 or the EJ230 (I think that is the names of the hypothetical versions of the EJ200 engine with an increased thrust of 10% and 30% respectfully)
nocutstoRAFWhat Ian King’s saying is that BAE have been asked to provide costing for a variety of options.
As Obi Wan has pointed out there are very few companies that will keep trained and highly skilled staff on the pay-roll when there’s nothing for them to do.
When I read the whole transcript of Ian King’s statement, it seems clear IMO, his whole discussion is about how to retain skills in the UK defence industry, therefore I took his comments as alternatives to CVF’s as a way of keeping the specialist staff at BAE available until Type 26 comes on line.
nocutstoRAFMARS is no substitute for CVFs in terms of shipbuilding. Under EU law any such orders would have to be put out to tender around the EU, so the chances of the UK yards winning the orders becomes very slim indeed.
See my post above, it is BAE who mentioned alternative programmes – I assume they are open to them as it keeps their skills and avoids a situation where the UK has to buy foreign ships as the alternative is they activate the penalty clauses in the contracts if MoD cancels the CVF’s, the MoD pays up, BAE and other firm’s lay of their specialist staff and come 2020 there is no-one available in the UK with the skills to build the Type 26’s which end up being built in France, Italy or Spain instead.
I thought the exception to advertising an open tender in the Journal of the European Union was for defence related items, is the issue that as replenishment ships the MARS programme are not considered defence related?
EDIT: Also I thought the Canberra’s are being built at a cost of about £1 billion a ship, therefore two LHD’s would be ~£2 billion compared to £5.2 billion for the CVF’s!?!
nocutstoRAF…The cost of LHDs would be whatever their price is plus the CVF quit contracts.
When he was interviewed by the Defence Select Committe, Ian King (BAE’s Chief Executive) said the following regarding the carriers:
“Q12 John Woodcock: First, I have a question for you, Mr King. You talked about the carrier programme. Are you being pressed to reduce the carrier programme to one or to zero? Where are you?
Ian King: The carrier programme is committed against two vessels. That’s the current contractual commitment and that’s what we’re working against. We have been asked to look at a number of options. We were recently asked over the past couple of weeks-probably in the past week or so-to look at a number of options. Contractually, the programme is for two vessels and that is what we are working on.
Q13 John Woodcock: Can you say what those options are?
Ian King: They range from having one carrier to having no carriers but with an equivalent other programme to look at the skills. There is quite a range of options so that decisions can be made.”
He then goes on to say that the nature of the equivalent other programmes is still being debated but I do not think it is to far fetched to assume that it could be LHD’s – still I prefer two CVF’s and 2 LHD’s rather than two LHD’s and no CVF’s and I prefer two CVF’s to 1 CVF and 1 LHD.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmdfence/uc451-i/uc45102.htm
nocutstoRAF…cancellation of any part of the contract puts the UK out of the warship building business permanently.
Could the scenario be to build QE then keep the yards busy with MARS instead of PoW?
Also, in the Torygraph today (I put a link to the article in the SDSR thread on the main board) they suggest that they will consider smaller carriers – sounds daft to me, as do most of the Torygraph stories – but could it be a sign that they are moving away from strike carriers to building LHD’s?
nocutstoRAF3. max. weight is increased from 5330 to 6000kg (but the engines stay the same)
4. passenger numbers reduced from 9 to 7.
Isn’t the increaed weight and reduction in passengers due to the installation of improved crash resistant seats?
nocutstoRAFI think the aim would be that the RAF would have 107 Typhoon’s plus another 90 odd F-35B’s (to bring the total number just under 200, and I suspect includes those slated to operated by the FAA).
nocutstoRAFShrug … I am sure it sounded that way when they made the decision to go STOL – now CATOBAR is an alternative if the F-35B is cancelled, CATOBAR as a cheaper alternative was before we spent 2 billion on the F-35B or asked for modifications to it to met our requirements, or made the final down select for a STOL carrier.
nocutstoRAFPersonally I am not sure but according to Navy Matters steam boilers could be included when they where looking at CATOBAR designs back in 2003 but it did not sound straight forward or cheap.
nocutstoRAFWhile I cannot speak for Jonesy, but I understood its because on the CVF’s they would either need a separate high pressure steam system (unlike previous systems which produced high pressure steam as part of their drive systems) with associate re-engineering or an electromagnetic catapult system which is still at a fairly early stage.
I know Jonesy hates it but the only low cost alternative to STOL is STOBAR but as far I can tell STOBAR really only suitable for an air defence carrier rather than a strike carrier like CVF’s, as for air defence I would expect sortie rates and range to not be as critical as they are for a strike carrier.
nocutstoRAFThanks Ben – I can understand cutting the F-35C it has little or no export value and the USN can make do and I imagine would prefer a F-35C cut if it gets them NGAD (Naval) as required. My surprise is that suggestion is cutting both the B and C as the B is slated as replacement for Harriers all over the world and there is not an alternative unless Boeing’s Phantom Works has managed to produce the Harrier III in secret, on the off chance that a gen 4.5 Harrier would do in the event the F-35B was cancelled. I also had an impression that the USMC is the favoured service when it comes to procurement and that there would be little appetite for cancelling the F-35B without a real replacement being available.
I will admit (on a slight tangent) I have had random day dreams that the proprietary aircraft Boeing mentioned at Farnborough is indeed a Harrier III and that come October Liam Fox is going to announce the carriers are STOL and the UK is buying an initial order 70 odd Harrier III’s – this day dream makes me very happy and has nothing to do with the performance of the F-35B or anything else logical.
nocutstoRAFI think that the consequences of a STOVL cancellation would be a lot more politically significant than many on here are realising.
My worry is Gates retires at the end of next year, it is looking like there will be a major shake up in next year’s budget for the US military and Gates has demonstrated a willingness to be ruthless in his cuts in the past. If there are a lot of cuts he will likely re-structure the F-35 programme, which IMO is either cancel F-35B or cancel F-35C, I think C is more likely as it is not as far along as B, the USN has publicly stated that more F/A-18’s are a viable alternative in their attempt to get funding for their Next Generation Air Dominance fighter and thereby dug their own hole
nocutstoRAFMore speculation on the outcome of the SDSR – this one suggests that the only realistic cuts are personnel:
EDIT: And even more speculation today – this time Trident might be replaced with cruise missile based system, and the carriers might be replaced by smaller carriers and JSF cancelled or seriously cut.
nocutstoRAF2, The Government make serious cuts to the RAF and reallocate funding to the Navy to cover the expenditure.
Personally I think the RAF is going to get serious cuts, if it is really lucky say about half the money cut will eventually will be re-invested in tactical and strategic lift and other non-glamorous areas (i.e. not in more fast jets).
Again this is only my opinion but I think the only thing stopping the RAF at the moment throwing their toys out of the pram and joining the army in a PR campaign that results in one carrier built as helo carrier and the other cancelled is that they will get “control” over the F-35B buy and the RN is cooperating in a strategy that allows for long term basing of FAA squadrons on land if the mission requires it. Which IMO is good sense on the part of the RN as the Government is not interested in those sort of missions where land basing of 800 and 801 would be on the cards.
The only threat I foresee is the F-35B being cancelled next year by Gates and the cost of going CATOBAR being so great that it kills the CVF’s
Sign In
