nocutstoRAFI will admit further investigation shows the cuts are due to cut backs in MoD orders from 2009 rather than the SDSR but they are in parts of BAE directly servicing UK rather than the international market.
nocutstoRAFis the rest of the article not going to be utter rubbish as well then eh?
The fact that BAE is looking at the impact of cutting the carrier’s is true as it was also reported here: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/BAE-asked-to-look-at.6520953.jp
Times could be making the rest up, especially the had also previously predicted that the carriers will be going CATOBAR and it would be confirmed on Friday something they forgot this week
nocutstoRAFFirst casaulty of the SDSR 946 jobs at BAE Military Air Solutions and Insyte:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100909/tuk-defence-giant-bae-axes-946-jobs-unio-45dbed5.html
nocutstoRAFAustralia is budgeting a $3 billion Australian a Canberra in 2015 aus $ according to this http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canberra-contract-costs-armament-clarified-03983/, so on the same time scale would be about £1.8 billion, so I think it would be fair to say you would get 2 Canberra’s for the money left, with a whole load of wire and metal sold for scrap:(
Still three BPE/Canberra might not be able to do carrier strike but they would be able to keep the UK at the forefront of European Amphibious assault while allowing cuts in amphibious assault ships currently operated.
nocutstoRAFTo quote your own post, the bolding is my emphasis
However, he added: “We have been asked to look at a number of options, recently asked over the last week or so… I think they range from having one carrier to no carriers but with an equivalent other programme.”
I am not English teacher but that suggests that the options are two carriers, one carrier or no carriers but the BAE and it sub-contractors getting a programme of work equivalent to the carriers. IMO this is likely to be either a design based on the BPE/Canberra’s or frigates.
EMALS is not due to enter service until 2015 and is likely going to take 1-2 years of carrier trials to be bug free and has had some problems recently that where much more major that a few components failing on the other hand F-35B is still looking like it will be in service with the USMC in 2012, though it might still be a hangar queen in 2012 for a good few years afterwards.
Personally I wish that the MoD sunk the 2 billion US its invested into F-35B into building a new Harrier which could go ~M1.2 – M1.3 on reheat (which would obviously necessitate afterburners) with an AESA radar and maximum load out of around 4,400 kg (20% increase over Harrier II) as I imagine they would already be in-service by now.
Not keep bashing you for your costing but none of us here have enough grasp of the costs being thrown around to know if the F-35B is going to be expensive or not, all we can say for certain is that it has a perception of being more expensive. All we know at present is that Israel has calculated $100 million per F-35A – now that could be in today’s dollars or the price when it pays for them, you then compare it to the multi-year buy for the F/A-18 E/F at $58 million a plane but does not include government furnished equipment like the two engines, so you likely have another $10 million a F/A-18 and if add on inflation to when we buy it is possible that it would not be much difference in price to the F-35 and the difference might only work $5 – $10 million which will not be enough to offset the capital outlay now for new generators, arrestor gear, and EMCAT testing and integration . For what it’s worth when the next LRIP for F-35 comes out we should have a better handle on the costs, but even then it is only a guide as what DoD pays is not what we will pay.
nocutstoRAFQE gets an, affordable, Fixed wing Air Group or risks being cancelled, and if that does happen, RAF will not get STOVL F35B or F35 at all.
IMO there is no such thing as an affordable Fixed Wing Air Group on the table, the upfront costs of CATOBAR are quite high and require investing in high risk technology (it has certainly been de-risked less than F-35B) and the F-35B simply transfers those costs to the airframe. I think the F-35B will be cheaper than you do but that does not take away from the fact that in the numbers being discussed (50ish planes) the costs of 50 F/A-18’s + EMALS will likely cost the same or more than 50 F-35B once you factor in the large percentage of the plane is being built in the UK and the return to the Treasury due to this. The only way IMO that F/A-18 looks cheaper is if the MoD where buying significantly more aircraft.
I have a terrible feeling that we are going to see the end of the CVF’s because there is no cheap option. The only good thing about this appears to be the suggestion that the MoD will find alternative work for the yards to avoid the penalty clauses – so there should be 2 – 3 billion worth of new orders to replace the CVF’s – which for example might be enough to build half a dozen frigates.
nocutstoRAFAccording to the Telegraph two Sunday’s ago, in their story that the NSC was going to rubber stamp CATOBAR, said the NSC was meeting last week to decide which areas the SDSR should concentrate on cutting – could it be linked? However I can find no evidence that the NSC actually met last week!
nocutstoRAFI presume the idea is that BAE provide concrete evidence to the Treasury why cancelling will be bad for BAE and for the Treasury’s tax revenues.
nocutstoRAFFirstly thanks benroethig for answering my last stupid question.
Now straight in with my next stupid question – I suspect I know the answer (that it would cost too much) but I wonder why the back-up plan for F-35B being cancelled was the F/A-18 E/F and not instead a limited production run of new Harriers with all the mod cons – digital FBW, glass cockpit, HOSTAS, AESA radar, state of the art IRST, and a improved Pegasus engine, especially when the original plan called for 150 JCA which seems to me a reasonable sized order to be economic.
Finally RE: F/A-18RN my reading of various threads over PPRUNE, ARRSE, E Goat and Rum Ration suggests the RAF do not have any seats spare to train FAA pilots (which may or may not be all part of their cunning plan to kill of the FAA depending on who you talk to)
nocutstoRAFJust that it occured to us if the F-35B has to basically operate in STOL mode to do anything meaningful why bother with the added costs and complexity by going with the F-35C using the new arrestor gear that will be ready before emals and go with a STOBAR carrier config till the emals technology has matured
Did not LM offer F-35C to India on the basis of STOBAR (I think Boeing did the same with F/A-18)?
Not sure you can use Saab’s calculations of the difference between STOBAR and CATOBAR but they predicted for a STOBAR Sea Gripen the maximum take off weight would be 2/3 that of CATOBAR version dependent upon carrier layout so on that basis it would mean that a STOBAR F-35C could carry approximately 4,700 kg of ordnance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35C calculated as MTOW – Internal Fuel – Empty Weight x 0.67) which compares unfavourably to the F-35B at ~ 6,500 kg of ordnance. Obviously in the long run the F-35 C would carry more ordnance, have a longer combat radius, but once the carrier was set up as STOBAR I would not be surprised if it was up-hill struggle to get it fitted as CATOBAR.
http://www.stratpost.com/saab-offers-naval-gripen-to-india (could not find the original from Saab).
nocutstoRAFNo doubt LM will eventually get a adequate if expensive and complex aircraft to replace its Harriers in the CAS role, i’m just not convinced that it still meets our JCA requirement and neither is the MOD.
If the only way to operate the aircraft is in STOL mode which will require a barrier and a landing system, shouldn;t we then see in LM can switch us to the C add wires and angled deck to the CVF layout and use as STOBAR until the EMALS matures ?
I know that there was reference recently to an Air Marshall saying that he had concerns but your comment suggests that this is more than a concern – has there been a re-evaluation of the programme and will we likely see something the public domain soon about this?
It isn’t equipped or built for arrested landings. Redesigning it for them would add more weight & complexity.
:confused: – are your referring to the CVF’s or the F-35C that Geoff mentions?
nocutstoRAFI hope this is not a dumb question, but what is the low speed handling of the F-35B like? The reason I ask is I am wondering if the F-35B could be adapted to use weapons which would normally be used off helicopters, such as the future Lightweight Multi-Role Missile System (I am naively assuming that weapons fired off helicopters need the firing platform moving at slow speeds or even to be in a hover)
nocutstoRAFIn a me too manner – Like mrmalaya I started off thinking F-35B sucked but the more I tried to understand the various positions of each party the more I came to grudgingly approve of the F-35B. One of the things that drove me towards the F-35B was when people posted their opinion as a fact rather than their assessment of the situation, and it forced me to check the facts and understand the F-35B better. While some of the naysayers have a point in a lot of areas the criticisms have proven unfounded or at the very least not supportable at this point in time. I wonder if any of the naysayers for the F-35B were also convinced that last year Aster 30/Sea Viper would be cancelled after the failed test, which was later proven to be a result of faulty components (can you see where I am going with this) rather than a flaw in the design.
If I had been in charge in the US DoD I might have done things differently but I would not have removed the need for a STOL aircraft.
nocutstoRAFOkay F/A-18RN
What I like to see as a realistic outcome is that FAA or a joint force stand up with 4 front line squadrons and that what ever aircraft is chosen is delivered by 2018, has sufficient capabilities to provide CAP, CAS and SEAD/DEAD, be able to carryout strike missions. It should also be able to carryout first day of war operations against a force with reasonable SHORAD and against an equivalent sized air force of moderately modern but not top spec fighters (like older Mig-29’s or Mirages) without US assistance, and be integral to any US lead air campaign.
I want a solution that does not result in a massive cut in jet numbers or the CVF’s being cancelled.
Having looked at it objectively I think for the time being STOL is the best way forward given the current circumstances and I like to see a multi-year buy of 18 F-35B’s from 2017 for 5 years to give a total 90 F-35B’s split as 2 FAA and 2 RAF squadrons with 12 F-35B’s each, plus an OCU of 14 and with 28 as the maintenance pool/attrition pool.
I like a low power EMAL system installed to launch UAV’s and small UVAC’s and the carriers operate 4 – 6 UAV/UVAC’s for ISTAR and strike missions. I like to see enough Merlin MaSC’s purchased to allow 4-6 on the carrier’s at all times and to have 1 deployed with the Type 45’s. I also want to see that that there are sufficent Merlin’s and Wildcat’s available to cover utility and ASuW/ASW.
In my dream world the MoD would get an extra 10 – 12 billion a year, the CVF’s would be completed as CATOBAR with F-35C and they would also get 3 BPE’s with mix of helicopters and F-35B’s. They would increase escort numbers by at least 20, build more SSN’s, increase the Army size to about 150,000, seriously increase fixed and rotary tactical lift for the JHF/RAF, buy 30 A400M’s and 2 more C-17’s, buy Tranche 3B for Typhoon, and purchase F-35A’s and B’s for the RAF 🙂
nocutstoRAFNocutstothe RAF/RN:)
i am not trying to argue with you. and thanks for the info on the weapons bays (which i shall now stick in my pipe and smoke).
I too have been thinking on this and accept that the F35B could do well enough with a version of AMRAAM. My question is, will this be a bit more costly if Meteor is the weapon of choice on Typhoon, or is it likely that the Meteor will get integrated at some point later?
also on a general note, there really is no new infomation on the MOD wanting another aicraft (the newest stories date from 2006), and i think we are rapidly getting to the straw clutching stage with this story don’t you?
the rolling landing techniques have been under development for years. that indicates to me that the UK has an excellent grasp of what they will and won’t be able to do with the F35B
I did not think you where arguing – I thought you where rightly questioning the basis of my comments, something we should all do if we see a sweeping statement with no real back up. While the bay did shrink the important part of my comment was not supportable (that it could not integrate Meteor) so I owe you an apology for worrying you unduly. Questioning people’s statement should be part and parcel of what we do here, personally I am prone to stating facts based on other peoples opinion’s and while my head says STOL my heart says CATOBAR (or ironically STOL only if it is delivered in the form of a new variant of the Harrier 🙂 ) so I tend to be more inclined to believe the F-35B is going wrong than others.
As you rightly point out we have been developing the rolling landing technique and we paid additional development money to get the F-35B modified to do this.
As MBDA wants to sell Meteor and the F-35 is projected to be the single largest number of aircraft sold in the future I bet that if we wait long enough MBDA will pay for it themselves. I wonder if Boeing plans to integrate Brimstone on the F/A-18 as they appear to be partners with MBDA in the programme?
OldandBold’s statement that the head of Boeing Europe was contacted regarding a lease to buy option of F/A-18 might be interesting and a sign of change or it might just be due diligence on part of the MoD
Sign In
