nocutstoRAF😮 Two of the Bay class, I thought their acryonm was LSD 😮
nocutstoRAFI’m not with you on this. If the British governments position is non-intervention unless interests are directly threatened I can see the loss of a couple of LSD’s and Ocean as a trade off for CVF
Over on Rum Ration there is basically a thread saying exactly that, serving RN personnel (I doubt their officers) saying if your choice is CVF and carrier strike or LSD’s and Ocean then carrier strike is going to win everyday. There is even the suggestion that the RM have re-skilled for Afghanistan that they have lost their focus as marine force and instead become much more a premier light infantry force (strangely I thought the two where not mutually exclusive but that is not the way they where seeing it on Rum Ration).
nocutstoRAFwhat are you on about ?
we paid ~$54m for fa-18 and are paying ~$60m for f-35a
i wouldnt say 6m is significantly more expensive
Hence my use of the phrase “appearance” this means that at present given the easily digestible information that the man of the street can understand the F-35B looks very expensive, not helped by opposition politicians in various countries saying as much and throwing their toys out the pram. As I have said in previous posts there is a political element and at the moment where there are headlines over how much a government department spends on sandwiches if the MoD can make the public think they saved significant money by buying the F/A-18 instead of the F-35 and they can make the Treasury think that as well then it’s going to at least be considered.
In an ideal world politics would have very little to do with procurement but we all know that this is not case.
nocutstoRAFWell a lot of people seem to think that the MoD cannot make any sensible procurement decisions 😀
I quite like the F-35 (especially A and C flavours) my main issue is that it has the appearance of being significantly more expensive than the F/A-18 (or the F/A-18 appearing to being significantly cheaper) and the F-35B in particular is in that awkward stage where problems keep cropping up. I suspect a lot of people have taken appearance of being expensive to mean that the F-35B will be a budget breaker.
Plus there a lot of people who (rightly or wrongly) think that the F-35B is the wrong plane, some prefer the F-35C, others think that the UK does not need a gold plated solution and I suspect others just want BAE to start up a Sea Harrier production line again 🙂
nocutstoRAFI understood that Boeing’s strategy was to get its overseas customers to pay for the integration costs for the engines and the IRST and then offer them to the US. Its questionable if the UK needs conformal fuel tanks and a centreline weapon pod but I cannot judge if the two together would improve the performance of the F/A-18 sufficiently to justify the additional cost.
I a side note I think that if the UK went with F/A-18 they would want the more powerful engines as I am pretty certain I read on this forum that Boeing reckoned that an F/A-18 with a more powerful engine could be operated of an Indian carrier (configured for STOBAR) which helps to mitigate any risk of not having EMCAT ready in time (gives us the option of STOBAR).
nocutstoRAFNot really related to Israel – and apologies if this is old news – but US is developing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator a 30,000 lb bomb for the B2 to be used to destroy deeply buried bunkers – quoting the article “The reality is that the world we live in is one in which there are people who seek to build weapons of mass destruction, and they seek to do so in a clandestine fashion,” he said. “And this has been a capability that we have long believed was missing from our quiver, our arsenal, and we wanted to make sure we filled in that gap.”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mopping-up-the-usas-30000-pound-bomb-03172/
nocutstoRAFI got the idea from one of the British Military Service rumour forums – all three (ARRSE, E Goat and Rum Ration) where running a UK to buy an F/A-18 thread. One of the forums they discussed buying 2 squadrons worth of F/A-18’s plus OCU of F/A-18 (plus attrition spares) for the FAA and then the RAF looking at getting a sizeable chunk of F-35’s at a later date when there was more cash and when other priorities where met.
I appreciate that the FAA and RAF would end up with three different FJ to support (as they do currently) and this is against their plans to move to two fast jet types between them but I was wondering if it would be feasible, particularly since the more I read on this subject more I am of the opinion that any F/A-18 purchase would be less about actually saving money and more about the MoD and the Government appearing to save money (i.e all about bloody politics).
nocutstoRAFThe idea as to what threats are credible sounds like a good idea for this thread to discuss to help focus the discussions.
Brainstorming threats –
Low level threats – piracy of the coast of Africa (persistent), drug trafficking in the Caribbean (persistent), the risk of weapons smuggled into Iran or North Korea (policing of the seas/ISTAR), natural disaster requiring sea or air lift (sadly rather relatively common)
Medium level threats – state on state naval/aviation skirmishes in the Antarctic and Artic regions over resources (likely short duration followed by diplomatic solution), instability in Southern hemisphere countries leading to collapse of the Government resulting in humanitarian crisis or risk to embassy/British Nationals (typical short duration intervention followed by diplomatic solution or the African Union providing peace keepers), troubles in the Balkans leading to conflict (increasingly likely due to recent events, will be tackled by EU or NATO intervention), Argentina attempting to retake the Falklands (unlikely), state on state conflict by non-conventional means i.e. cyber attack or economic warfare (quite likely but I cannot see the UK being the prime target for this sort of warfare anytime soon).
High level threats – Argentina, in alliance with other South American countries attempting to retake Falklands, state failure in Middle East requiring NATO intervention, Russia launching attack against one or more of the new EU member states requiring EU response (possible but I imagine that they will not do so without provocation and this gives us an out), state failure in Pakistan requiring NATO response, major state on state warfare requiring NATO to provide peacekeepers/stabilisation force (China/India, South/North Korea, major Middle East conflict likely started in response to Iran, Russia/China, Turkey/Greece) and finally major conflict between NATO and any major power up to and including nuclear war.
Any others threats anyone can think of? I have addressed what I have perceived as the level of threat with the UK needing greater capabilities to deal with the medium and high level threats but any proper risk assessment should also include likelihood and to be honest I think most of the high level threats are very unlikely for the foreseeable future and many of the medium risk threats would likely only occur once or twice a decade. Given the risks, the shape of our alliances, what sort of force structure/levels do we need in the circumstances?
nocutstoRAFSurely any price comparisons between the F/A-18 and the F-35B are further hampered by the fact that the UK would likely be expected to pay for the integration and development costs for the upgraded engine, and the nose mounted IRST system and possibly even some of the costs for the new cockpit? Even worse they might get stung with covering the costs of developing and testing the weapon pod and conformal tanks and then suffer the indignity if the US goes for a 4th multi-year buy of not getting the F/A-18 when they need them as the US will get first priority (at a cheaper price) than the UK (as I am sure Boeing knows where their bread is buttered).
However the F/A-18 gives the impression of austerity and being a cheaper choice and that might make it more acceptable politically! After all we all seen the quote about TSR-2.
Still is there a possibility that the UK is maybe looking at a small F/A-18 buy around 2015/6 for the carriers and then a larger buy of F-35 (of whatever flavour) to be in service around 2024/5 in conjunction with a new UCAV to deal with any emerging threats from PAK FA and top flight SAM systems?
nocutstoRAFI am not sure how it can be a choice between the F-35B and the F/A-18 (or anything else for that matter) if it is left for several years – surely by then it simply will be to expensive to make modifications to the carriers and the F-35B will be a foregone conclusion (assuming that there was any choice being made and it is not all groundless rumours).
nocutstoRAFSo it will be impossible for the MoD to make any informed decisions as part of the SDSR over a proposed switch to F/A-18 as they do not have solid data on the F-35B?
I guess that it means that if this story is true any such change will be political – i.e. based on the appearance of austerity rather than based on a demonstration of being able to make savings. Still it’s not the end of the world if they do go for F/A-18.
nocutstoRAFCareful analysis of the MoD telephone bill suggests before wikipedia they phoned Psychic hotlines for advice and before that they used to ask the tea ladies :diablo: – which is why the MoD is not so efficient nowadays as they sacked all the tea ladies to save money!
nocutstoRAFWhile I get your point Sens do you know if the MoD can get a meaningful price for F-35B from LM and F/A-18 from Boeing in time to make a decision as part of the SDSR or is all of this thread a bit of hot air as the MoD has about as much information as we all do (I can imagine some round table discussions at the MoD where they are all on the net googling Wikipedia to get a price or read the various blogs to see someone has the answer 🙂 )
nocutstoRAFIf you had to guess does the MoD have reliable enough cost figures for the F-35B to make a reasoned choice at this point on numbers of F-35B to be purchased and/or to decide if the F-35B is still the way to go?
Also do you know how reliable ARRSE, E-Goat and Rum Ration (as I only encountered these forums recently) is in reflecting the general opinions of the Army, RAF and RN, and how much attention would the MoD pay to their opinion – as it seems that universally they seemed happy with the F/A-18 over the F-35 with not much positive said about it (I think I saw two pro-F-35B posters when I looked at all three sites)
nocutstoRAFRemember, the role of the B is to support Marines on the ground, not to go out and play fighter jock. AS long as ti’s reasonably survivable if enemy aircraft approach, the Marines are happy. They actually don’t need all the air-to-air built into the F-35, or even its supersonic capability.
Well the US Marines might not need its supersonic speed and A2A capability but the RAF and FAA certainly do, as do the Italian’s which is why I more than happy that the F-35B has both. 😉
Sign In
