nocutstoRAFThe main points that have come out so far on this are: F35 B which is the most complex and will be the most expensive version of F35, and have much less range and only half the stealth payload of other F35 versions, is, probably, in serious trouble so far as a British order is concerned.
The new 65,000 ton Queen Elizabeth Class Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers look very likely being completed as CATOBAR, not STOVL warships.
In the frame to replace F35 B are F18 Super Hornet and, maybe, if it is not too expensive, F35 C.
No fewer than twelve RN Fleet Air Arm Pilots are slated for training, on F18, with the USN. Not a lot else is known so far.
All good news for the Royal Navy, and for Britain, perhaps less good news for the RAF. Never mind they still have Typhoon and the Red Arrows…
While I like the idea of the CVF’s as CATOBAR (with a possible interim STOBAR step if need be) I think that as much as I want to read more into it that:
1) That the cost of going CATOBAR will be more expensive that what you save once you factor in the need for two more diesel engines, installation of arrestor gear, for the development of electromagnetic catapult, and for a serious increase in ground crew (see Jonesy’s posts) – this could easily exceed capital costs of £1/2 billion per carrier plus at least 20 odd extra deck crew, and if the UK copies US practice then the shooters will all be officers, so not particularly cheap deck crew either.
2) That there is a lot of confusion about costs, take the recent Israel story they are quoting a price of around $100 million a plane, but this is a projected cost based on what they will pay when the F-35A is purchased, while Australia is budgeting for a price of ~$65 million a plane which as far as I can tell is based on 2006 prices. You therefore cannot easily compare the F/A-18 to the F-35B and I would not be surprised if an F/A-18 in 2015 cost around $80 – $90 million with us having to sink development money for the weapon pod and conformal tanks, while a F-35B would cost say $130 million with good chunk of that coming back to the Treasury via indirect means.
3) Therefore I can only see CATOBAR occurring if either the F-35B is going to be cancelled, or if there are serious plans to cross-deck with the French or deploy a UCAV that needs to operate in CATOBAR mode within the first 10 – 15 years of the service life of the carriers.
Finally while the FAA pilots will all be fully F/A-18 certified they will also being flying harriers with the USMC..
nocutstoRAFWell everyone seems quite settled with the idea of sticking GR4’s in Kandahar now and had little compunction about sticking GR9’s in the base in its original unprepared state. I’d say that the comments of an unwillingness to risk F35B at forward strips might be just a little agenda-led!.
I am not sure if you suggesting that I am agenda lead or what I have read is agenda lead. I do not suppose it matters much as I have a natural bent toward CATOBAR just as you have a natural bent towards STOL and it is likely we are both filtering information through that bias and in my case I am more likely to pick up on stories that put the F-35B in a bad light.
Saying all that when I read op pieces where the author says that you cannot risk an F-35B in a forward operating base without C-RAM I was more imagining the situation where a flight of F-35B’s are dispersed a small strip with a small ground crew and a tanker for fuel a few kilometres from the front (a bit like how the Swedish planned to disperse their Gripen’s) rather than a situation like Kandahar (still I have only seen pictures of Kandahar since it was rebuilt)
Finally a bit of topic but I find it rather ironic that for the price of CVF’s the UK could have likely brought 3 BPE’s type carries plus enough F-35B’s to operate from them and the discussion occurring now is only really occurring because the CVF’s could potentially operate in CATOBAR mode thus allow the combination of wish fulfilment and speculative press stories to keep this thread going 😀
nocutstoRAFTechnically the last Telegraph story is pro-F-35 as the story is based on shifting to the F-35C over the B, in fact this seems to be the emerging position of stories coming from shadowy MoD sources. So the UK is apparently going to can F-35B which is half way through its testing programme for the C which has barely begun testing 😀
nocutstoRAFAs Jonesy said. They were used from Kandahar when it was too short & rough for Tornadoes. The runway was both improved & lengthened before Tornado was deployed there.
Thanks Swerve and Jonesy – it’s nice to see my posts are as error free as normal 🙂
But is it fair to say that it would not really be feasible under normal circumstances to disperse your F-35B’s to austere forward bases due to the risk of low cost weapons neutralising the fighters on the ground or have I been sucked in by the sales pitch for C-RAM systems and the critics of the F-35B?
Ok so bottom line you contend its cheap, proven and flexible. What factors are you using, genuine question, to base those conclusions on?.
As stated, despite objective attempts to generate a solution, I cant get the same tasking coverage 56 F35B can undertake with less than 72 of any cat type…..
If the consistent rumours are true then the MoD is cheating and moving the goal posts to accommodate a political aim of cross-decking with the US and French navies rather than doing it on a cost basis analysis. However when you ran the numbers did you consider that for the F/A-18 we could/would have to use the US training pipeline and therefore (may) not need an OCU when running the figures?
nocutstoRAFIf a CVF had troops embarked could it really carry such a large air group? From what I read once they have troops embarked it seriously limits the capacity of the CVF’, personally I be surprised if it could manage more than say 9 – 12 F/A-18’s, 9 – 12 Merlin HC3′, 2 – 3 Merlin in MASC configuration and a flight of Apache’s, still that would be good enough to deploy a company/battalion (around 200 – 300 men) in one go.
nocutstoRAFIf the rumours are to be believed then amphibious over the beach operations are to be binned as part of the SDSR with troops being inserted by helicopter. If that is the case then there is no need for Albion or Bulwark and with a CVF doing the work, no replacement for Ocean. What needs to be retained is sea lift of heavier items and logistic support and that is the role of the Bay class.
While that is very similar what I have argued is shaping up as the way forward for amphibious assault (insertion by helicopter), it would be good to replace Ocean as it would be a lot cheaper to buy a BPE at around €360 million in 2005 money than risk PoW, unless the plan is to modify PoW’s design to make more like BPE and add a stern dock.
nocutstoRAFSTOL is jolly useful if you are facing a massive Soviet airforce and your runways have been bombed but I am not so sure it is relevant to the current world except in the niche of keeping training costs down in moving a fighter from land to sea and back again.
As far as I am aware the Harrier’s have not been used off short runways during Afghanistan, and to be honest I am not sure if UK goes F-35B anyone wants to put a $60 million + plus aircraft in an austere forward operating base within range of enemy mortars or MANPADS unless they had no choice as it is perfect example of how an enemy with cheap and readily available weapons could inflict disproportionate damage to the UK forces.
We could operate them from forward bases if we invested in a C-RAM system – networked 20 or 30 mm gatling guns with radar system designed to intercept mortars, rockets and artillery shells but I think more likely the F-35B will be operated off either a carrier or from an airbase located far enough from the front line that there is little risk of insurgents with mortars damaging or destroying the planes.
I am sure others will pick up any mistakes or gross generalisations I have made.
nocutstoRAFCutting Ocean, Albion and Bulwark is not HALF the amphibious capability. You grossly overvalue the Bay class vessels. Losing Albion and Bulwark is a major blow to the power projection capability, and in fact it is one of the cuts i truly hope WON’T happen.
The RN amphibious capability can survive losing Ocean if PoW is safe.
But losing Albion and Bulwark as well would spell the end of any ambition of amphibious operation any harder and larger than driving a mexeflote into Haiti’s bays to bring aid.
Okay another long post so I am going to cherry pick the one bit to respond to – I have not seen anything where they state which three ships we be cut from the amphibious assault, so until forced to do otherwise I am choosing to believe it will be Ocean decommissioned early and two of the Bays sold off, mothballed or if they can be converted as replenishment ships, turned into replenishment ships. Even better if we can swap them, do you reckon the French might swap one used Mistral for two Bays? 🙂
nocutstoRAFAll of those listed together are unlikely – but worse cuts would be paying of the frigates early with no plan to replace all of them, cutting 10 – 20% of the army, cutting the TA back drastically.
Each of the cuts you mention, individually make sense.
Take the carriers – if you cut PoW then you are in the same position as the French, not a bad position to be in IMO.
Cut half the amphibious assault (I not sure I ever seen anything more than loose 3 amphibious assault ships) – makes sense if it allows us to keep PoW, only starts to be nasty if taken with the loss of PoW.
F-35B numbers to drop or be replaced with F/A-18’s – to be honest I think this is a done deal and I think inevitable. It would only be problem if they could not get any funds to buy any new fighters – I think we will all have to live with 3 – 4 front line squadrons of F-35’s (or whatever) replacing GR4’s and Harriers. Lets hope when there is a upturn in finances the UK is one of the first to implement UCAV’s.
IMO the Army have agreed to cut one Armoured Brigade to get FRES Scout, and I assume they will pursue a direct fire version of ASCOD as part of making the army lighter and more manoeuvrable.
I thought the armoured vehicles were to be re-capitalised? Well I take it you are right there. With regard to artillery I think that the Army is eyeing up single module GMRLS systems on a lighter tracked vehicle which has a shared chassis with one of the FRES utility options, or maybe something like the Turkish 70mm rocket system, along with mobile howitzer’s like NEMO, to emphasise air transportability – I think this will be the mantra of the future can you get it on A400M or a C-5 to get it in theatre quickly – if not then bin it.
No disrespect to the Ghurkha’s but they now cost nearly as much as UK regiment and rather the preserve the number of UK regiments and if this means an end to the Ghurkha’s then this is better than say the loss of 1 or 2 battalion’s of the Rifles.
While vehicle mounted Starstreak have been phased out I have not seen anything to suggest the man-portable system is in danger, and while it leaves a capability gap it is one they are planning to fill with CAMM – unless you have seen something that counters this.
Finally (as I running out of steam writing such a long response) – I think that if Afghanistan has resulted in the requirement for armoured vehicles to become larger and heavier (certainly this is what I have seen with the requirements for FRES) then it is possible that the C-130J will not be able to cope with the larger and heavier vehicles and it would make sense to sell them while we can get a good price for them to help fund the A400M purchase.
nocutstoRAFNocuts,
Dont forget that a component of ‘joint force lightning’ would still be the naval strike wing. Keeping the current squadron structures work fine for an initial capability at least.
Not trying to be all pessimistic but what happens if the Naval Strike Wing is the price the RN pays for keeping the carriers and RAF ends up with all four squadrons of F-35B’s? The reason I raise it is that it was certainly one of the throw away lines in a recent newspaper story (the Times I think) on the SDSR. Now at this point it is conjecture, but it fits with everything I have read that the RAF would like cut the FAA out of the fast jet game.
EDIT: Just seen your post Jonesy, on the otherhand if next week if the Telegraph confirms STOL then we will have to find something else to talk about 🙂 and you get to say told you so to everyone 😀
nocutstoRAFNo, I think Liger is VERY pro-UK forces & not at all bothered about some UK/Italy rivalry. But I don’t think he’s living in the real world atm.
While I do not disagree with the direction of Liger’s comments – that the cuts appear to be targeting useful capabilities – GR4, Ghurkhas, amphibious assault, IMO Liger unfortunately cannot see what everyone else can is that cuts are coming regardless, nothing anyone says here will make a difference, and the forces as usual will make do. Personally I think that the cuts being suggested are the best of a bad bunch.
nocutstoRAFTake a look at the Typhoons history, LCA started out as a European light fighter, its had British, French and Swedish involvement. The LCA has changed somewhat, but the basics are still quite similar 🙂
Whilst an alternative aircraft instead of JSF may be cheaper, we won’t be getting more of them, don’t be under the illusion that budget saved is budget kept….
Not more worried about them agreeing to cut the GR4 on condition of getting JSF, then JSF get trimmed down anyway?
Not sure why I keep defending the LCA, it is nice aircraft for the role it is meant to fill – replacement of Mig-21’s and Sea Harrier’s in a Hi-Lo mix, but I did not think it is a particularly good choice for the FAA as it is too light, especially if they use it like the Indian’s plan to, of STOBAR carrier.
However since a lot of what goes into buying military aircraft is political there is an argument that if you ignore capabilities that the LCA makes sense (between UK business, use of LCA purchase to guarantee a Typhoon buy for MRCA and improved military and industrial ties with India, I am surprised it has not been considered by the MoD).
My premise is that if they do not come up with a way to buy 50 – 70 aircraft within a certain budget they will can the whole purchase along with the carriers, and I think to get even this level of purchase the RAF and the RN will have to make a lot of sacrifices.
EDIT: If the Telegraph story is correct the debate will be over next week as the NSC is expected to “rubber” stamp the move to CATOBAR – if it happens the thread will become F-35C versus F/A-18 E/F
nocutstoRAFI cannot but worry that if the RAF agree to can their GR4’s to guarantee a buy of F-35B’s, buy all the F-35B’s out of their budget, that they are going to want to control them, shut out the FAA, and treat the carriers as mobile airstrips that they deploy from only when they have to (i.e. when they have no bloody choice). This seems likely if the initial buy of F-35B’s is only sufficient to stand up two or three squadrons in total.
I wonder if you are the RN with a pro-Navy Secretary for State for Defence what you might come up with to guarantee that FAA gets priority for the new fighters and they get to be embarked and at least one squadron stays embarked at all times.
nocutstoRAFSorry Jonesy they did not say, to sum up the section of ARRSE “UK to buy F/A-18 thread” it went something like this: lots of argument against CATOBAR on cost front (none as eloquent as your explanation), then one of the more frequent posters claimed to have read an MoD the report that said that CATOBAR and STOL had identical through life costs, there were a few more people questioning this, and another poster agreed with the first he had seen the post which promptly killed that particular discussion. I find that there are a lot of people on ARRSE (including the two who posted that CATOBAR/STOL costs are equivalent) who clearly know a lot more than me about defence matters (not hard I know 🙂 ) and it is hard to judge if they are well informed arm chair generals or really have inside information.
Plus I am having to filter everything through a bias towards CATOBAR, not for economic reasons or anything practical, where STOL wins over but because when I was I was a kid I thought the Tomcat was the coolest fighter ever 🙂
nocutstoRAF🙂
The HAL LCA was never considered for front line service with the RAF.
A long, long time ago (thirty years ago) a single engine delta canard in the 6/7 tons clean weight was considered, it was called the P106/106B, there were some talks with Sweden on that subject, but the project never left the drawing board.
Thanks, 🙂 though it does look like the India’s developed the P106B design further than BAE had done.
My favourite looking design from the thread is one of the designs as part of the road to AST 403 (9th post in thread by AEROSPACETECH).
Sign In
