While I think it is unlikely that it will happen (i.e. UK to buy the F/A-18) I cannot help but think that the RN might be agreeing to F/A-18 now as it knows it will not get F-35B anytime this decade under current circumstances and hope that they can sort the issues out further down the line – hell they may even hope that this decision is being driven by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition and that if they agree now that the next Government will embrace F-35B and that next Government might be elected hell of lot sooner than 5 years time.

I have read the transcripts of the speeches by various key people in defence and one of the common themes was the UK needs to move to a “good enough” approach rather than buying gold plated solutions – I took it to mean no more high spec UK only kit when you can buy something of the shelf which is nearly as good – but I can see if the cuts are towards the top end that it might also extend to buying the cheaper option when it comes to carrier strike as well (especially as through life costs means very little to the public).

I think the UK is going to go down the “Generation 4.5” route with the RAF with Typhoon (5 Sqns + OCU) and the Navy with F-18E/F (3 Sqns + OCU). The RAFs STOVL capability will be ditched as not essential and Stealth will be in the “Nice to have if you can afford it” catagory and will wait for a mature UCAV for the RAF and maybe the Navy so possibly a common platform there. Until at least 2020 the UK will not plan for all out high intensity operations or at least that is what the NSC seems to be moving towards in preparation for its briefing of the MoD as to the UKs future role.

I also think the Army is going to get its fleet of medium vehicles mainly to provide a common platform to replace a large number of existing platforms (FV432, CVR(T) for example) that are well past their sell by dates and are increasingly expensive to maintain. In return they are going to lose much of their heavy equipment and related manpower.

Interesting – has the NSC released a draft of their recommendations yet or is this a case of another senior source in the press? A total 10 squadrons of fast jets is quite a cut from 14 currently (including FAA) is there any chance that the cut will not be as drastic as four squadrons (as it is clear they will cut at least 2 squadrons whatever happens).

the constant bashing of the F35 programme is a little tedious now (particularly as it is being framed in economic terms).

The idea that the UK would be better of with the Hornet is terrible. I can’t believe that its even being suggested to replace the Tornado….

Obviously the F35 is going to be an excellent system and one which the UK should support wholeheartedly. Its not going to be the “destroyer of worlds” that some suggest but its a massive jump forward for the UK both industrially and operationally, and will complement the Typhoon in service.

The f18 is about as exciting as the 747-8 is in airliner terms…

Well technically I suggested replacing the Tornado with the SH but it was meant to be in the context of the rumours emerging from the SDSR which is Harrier kept until the new carrier squadrons are on line, Tornado gone by 2015, all earliest Typhoon’s retired and Tranche 3B cancelled, and the purchase of small number of F/A-18’s for the carrier – treating these rumours as being potentially real I wanted to know if you can switch SH from carrier to air base and back to carrier using simulators to keep the pilots carrier qualification – not an unreasonable question because if they retire the Tornado early and Typhoon is stretched to there limit just to provide air defence what are we going to use for strike missions when we cannot afford to anchor an aircraft carrier and it’s escorts in theatre for months on end.

Still think F-35B is better choice even if it will end up costing a lot more than the UK originally budgeted for per plane against a budget that will be a lot smaller than expected – but at the same time I think it is worthwhile looking at how feasible the suggestion of buying F/A-18 E/F is and try to see if it makes sense.

As an aside just read the latest issue of Air Force Monthly and they have an article on the F/A-18 E/F and in it notes the out of service date in the USN is 2030 for the F/A-18 E/F which shocked me as I assumed it would start retiring from early 2020ish as soon as they started LRIP on the NGAD

16 Phalanx 1B costed 57 millions. A few more could be updated. The RN should have at the very least 20 Phalanx around. Upgrade them all would have costed in theory around 70 millions.

At a unitary cost of 7/8 million dollars, a further 32 Phalanx would cost 256 million.
Total cost (possible) of fitting phalanx on every ship expected to use it would thus be in the region of the 326/330 million dollars. Not a little amount… but at least the Type 26 should be fitted with the CIWS from the start.
With Harpoon, radars, CAMM, sonar and torpedoes to come from the Type 23 going out of service, the Phalanx would be one of the very few pieces of combat system that would have to be bought for the new frigates, including (hopefully) the 155/39 gun upgrade on the MK8 gun mount and eventually 16 MK41 strike lenght canisters with Tomahawk missiles. I think that 16 US million dollars to arm a frigate aren’t such a frightening amount, considering that most of the weapons fit of the new vessels will not be new, but just moved from old to new hulls.

Seriously, the Type 26 should be quite economic a warship (it’ll better be, or the RN won’t be able to get them), all things considered.
The Phalanx coming from the Invincibles and the Type 42 should be enough to refit CVFs and Type 45s, and this would give a well protected fleet.

If Type 26 comes in at the same sort of price as FREMM – in the region of ~ £250 million then I would be happy but I read yesterday that the Type 26 will be closer to £500 million. However if they want to export the Type 26 it got to come in at the lower end. The cost of fitting phalanx across the board is more like the cost of three maybe four OPV’s (using the Spanish BAM as an example) than a couple of frigates – I still think that if the RN has the money to fit Phalanx across the board they would be better off buying the OPV’s than fitting the Phalanx.

Making a few rapid counts:
4×2 = 8 Phalanx for the Bay class.
2×2 = 4 Phalanx for the Wave
2×4 = 8 Phalanx for the Fort class
6×2 = 12 Phalanx for the Type 45
(3×2= 6 Phalanx for CVF)

Ideally, the RN of the immediate future would need to get, between new buy and upgrades, a total of 32 Phalanx 1B if i’m not wrong.
Again, the Type 26 is expected to have a couple of Phalanx herself, so
10×2 = 20 another 20 Phalanx

CAMM, just like Seawolf, is a missile designed for self-defence of ships at sea. Point defence against planes and missiles as well.
However, every graphic of the Type 26 shows a couple of Phalanx fitted to it for true last-ditch defence, so no. The CAMM, just like Seawolf, would be complemented by Phalanx.

However, the Type 26 may end up fitted with Sea Ram, more than Phalanx, since Phalanx is getting outdated, and several years have still to pass before the first Type 26 comes out. Since Sea Ram was expected already for Type 45, i’m assuming that the Type 26 truly will get it.

So we are easily looking at cost of a couple of frigates to buy or upgrade all the Phalanx’s and install them on every ship – I think that the RN might plumb for the ships 🙂

I still think a lot of the time they will have either CAMM or Phalanx and not both, with a space left for the other system, especially as the post you put up earlier with text from Navy Matters seemed to suggest that reduce radar cross sections improve the functionality of soft kill systems – and the MIDAS programme is also about improving soft kill systems so taken together soft kill (decoys and the like) might be how RN plan to deal with most missile threats.

I do not know much more about the MIDAS programme that what I have said about as all my information is from this article on Jane’s http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr100727_1_n.shtml

I thought the UK operated a pool of Phalanx and fitted them to the ships that needed them as and when needed. After all a task force sitting in the Gulf Sea will likely get them, but a frigate patrolling the Caribbean is unlikely to need them – still not an ideal a way of doing things fitting them based on perceived risk rather as standard.

Does anyone know if the reference in the above post to: “Each ship will rely on six main electrical generators that together can generate 80MW of power”, is referring to the 2 gas turbines and 4 diesel generators or is reference to them install 6 diesel generators.

The reason I ask is on the RN website the power output of the 2 gas turbines and 4 diesel generators is 109 MW not 80 MW.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/queen-elizabeth-class/design/

EDIT: I think it is a typo as the electric motors are rated 80 MW according Navy Matters and the 4 diesel generators were meant to provide around 40 MW but I would be grateful if anyone has a definite answer.