nocutstoRAFCutting GR4 squadrons is pretty much in line with what I was thinking.
In respect of F35 that probably means splitting the buy.
My optimism (which I always have in short supply) has just gone out the window reading page 25 of Combat Aircraft Monthly – the summary of the issues facing F-35B/C and the conflict between Congress and Gates made my heart sink!
Still I am hoping the author of the article in Combat Aircraft Monthly is wrong or baised for example he makes refence to this report which suggested the UK cancel F-35B
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/monthly_briefings/reviewing_britain’s_security
Far as I can tell the group that published this is fairly left leaning with regard to defence and therefore unlikely to have much influence on Liam Fox.
The author of the article in the Combat Aircraft Monthly also said
“The JSF’s vaunted ‘stealth’ properties, which many experts are increasingly dismissing as a factor in modern warfare, rely upon the aircraft carrying munitions and fuel only in internally, one result being that the F-35B can carry only two bombs compared to eight or more on an F-15E Strike Eagle”
I leave you to draw your own conclusions!
nocutstoRAFCutting GR4 squadrons is pretty much in line with what I was thinking.
In respect of F35 that probably means splitting the buy.
I have seen lots of different stories saying the RAF have agreed to cut two GR4 squadrons.
I hope it is a split buy of F-35 and I cannot imagine how they could justify getting rid of the carriers as they have already committed the funds. Still I open to any option that keeps the carrier and some sort of fast jet capability!
nocutstoRAFI have seen some op pieces – such as those published by RUSI and Think Defence that suggest that after the RUSI the Navy will be significantly stronger, with an increase in both capabilities and numbers.
Conversely I have seen pieces suggesting that the Army will cut a bit in terms of man power and the fast jet fleet of the RAF a lot.
Just in a couple of months and we should find out.
Just read a piece in the news section August edition of Combat Aircraft Monthly (Page 10) on the SDR they say the cuts will be the GR4 squadrons, and a spot light will be shone on the carriers and the F-35B’s in terms of stamping down costs.
nocutstoRAFI know this is meant to be a board for discussing Military Aviation, but out of interest does anyone know what is going to happen with plethora of vehicles brought for Afghanistan after we withdraw and post the SDSR?
They seem to have a wide range of vehicles, problems with spares, some of them are criticised for being so heavily armoured that it is effecting there performance, will the Army post Afghanistan and post SDSR be required to reduce the number of different types operated down to only a couple different “classes” and if so what types will survive and what will the Army do with its old equipment.
Plus I note while there is a freeze on for all sorts of new programmes during the SDSR the MoD announced today a £500 million programme to build 7 prototype Scout armoured fighting vehicles based on the ASCOD
Finally, does anyone know what is happening with the Stormer HVM’s, MoD says they are taking them out of service, are they going to re-use the Stormer in a different role with new equipment in place of the Starstreak missile?
nocutstoRAFWell IMO a country’s foreign policy along with the security agreements a country has signed up to influences what is required from a countries armed services most. These are some comments from the foreign sectary William Hague has said the UK must have more “global reach and influence” or face decline in a fast-changing world. Surely this will put greater emphasize on the Navy and projects such as CVF and Ocean replacement as well as making sure the FSC project goes through. There is certainly no sign of a major restructuring of the armed forces to a ‘Defence Force’ which I’m very happy about.
I have seen some op pieces – such as those published by RUSI and Think Defence that suggest that after the RUSI the Navy will be significantly stronger, with an increase in both capabilities and numbers.
Conversely I have seen pieces suggesting that the Army will cut a bit in terms of man power and the fast jet fleet of the RAF a lot.
Just in a couple of months and we should find out.
nocutstoRAFOkay – firstly just to say I am not trying to be argumentative – honest!
Why not? 😀
I have been criticised for always wanting the last word (and the first word, and every other word in between) so I was trying to be clear that I was not just arguing for the sake of it.
There are IMO snippets throughout Liam Fox’s speech which make it clear that the shape of the armed forces and the role they will play and what capabilities they will have will not be the same after the SDSR.
Well of course, he is hardly going to say “nah, its all fine, what I said in the election was a load of horse waste, nothing will change.” It is the nature of politicians to change things, it justifies their existence, it would be the brave minister (in any field) who said they were going to let things just run for a while because it looks fine.
I may be gullible but Liam Fox strikes me as the first Defence Secretary for a while that looks like they know what they are talking about and think the first one to be brave enough to do something radical. My only hope is that we are not (UK and globally) heading to repeat of the 1930’s and going to be caught with our pants down wanting to fight the last war!
Realistically the F35 is not the best thing since hovis picked up a knife BUT it is going to be the best thing around which we will be able to get our hands on, anything else will be second best and given the size of our armed forces we can’t afford to by second rate.
– There I fixed your comment 😀
nocutstoRAFOkay – firstly just to say I am not trying to be argumentative – honest!
With regard to partners – I think you can view the different parts of the US government and armed services as partners in the F-35 Programme. They may all be American but they clearly have different agenda’s – this has to be the explanation of why different official sources have such wide slants on the progress of the F-35. I get the impression for example parts of the US Navy want to minimise the purchase of or even cancel F-35C so that they can get funds for the proposed 6th Gen fighter programme they want from 2025ish.
There are IMO snippets throughout Liam Fox’s speech which make it clear that the shape of the armed forces and the role they will play and what capabilities they will have will not be the same after the SDSR.
I was playing devil’s advocate a little with the suggestion that the carriers might be tasked with a different role but that does not make it any less true that when Liam Fox says “But we must be clear that this does not mean we must be able to do all things at all times. We will need to be smarter about when and how we deploy power, which tasks we can do in alliance with others, and what capabilities we will need as a result.” or “…after 12 years without a defence review, over a period where our Armed Forces have been at times overstretched, with some current equipment overused and out of date, with legacy programmes from the Cold War that are of less relevance today, and in a terrible economic and financial circumstances, we cannot afford to delay.” that wholesale changes are more likely than not even if what he is saying is bleeding obvious.
Finally just to mention that by inclination I am a pessimist but one grounded in what I think is realistic assessment of what might happen, that makes it hard for me to be universally enthusiastic about anything including the F-35, the reason I do not post in the F-35 news thread is that if you post in it you seem to be sucked into one of two camps, either the F-35 is the best thing since sliced bread or the F-35 is rubbish camp, and one is too sunny and optimistic for me and the other is not realistic enough.
nocutstoRAFAny idea of what timescale we’re looking at for the SDR? I know there will be more departmental news on each individual budget in October.
The uncertainty cannot be doing those building things like CVF any good, though I guess we’ll get some idea as there are bound to be press leaks before anything is actually announced.
I read in the paper the other day that the Army top brass is getting a bit snotty with Fox thinking he is too pro-Navy.
I had read September but cannot find the link (again! sorry!)
nocutstoRAF#4 Taking the Typhoon Avionics and Engines and building a VLO Carrier capable airframe around it.
Think about it this way. The airframe is the easy (quick and rather cheap) bit, the expensive bit is the development of the electronics.
I do not know enough about designing aircraft to be sure but I thought that there was significant cost in writing the source code for the fly by wire system and this code would be specific to the air frame so that it would not be all that cheap and easy to build a new airframe around existing avionics and engines.
nocutstoRAFQuite a long reply to my long post so I cut a fair bit –
Originally Posted by nocutstoRAF
UK has already procured one fighter that was over budget, over time and looked fairly high risk at times (I bet if I look at the discussion on the Typhoon before it entered service they would pretty similar to the current F-35 thread) – while I am aware this is the nature of cutting edge programmes it is also the nature of programmes with too many stakeholders each trying to influence the outcomes and just mudding the waters- can you honestly tell me that the F-35 programme is not suffering from this as well?
Originally posted by pjhydro
Since the dawn of time this has been the case in defence procurement. Its not right but its not easy to fix if you want a piece of kit that fits what you want it to do. You could let private industry provide solutions entirely in isolation without government input in the same way you and I buy cars (ie we don’t tell Ford exactly what you want and they build it, you shop around for a best fit) but you would have to deal with more compromises (like when you buy a car).
I think I did not explain my point clearly – if I want a custom super car that is a one off I will get exactly what I want, if I decide that I cannot afford this then I ask all my millionaire friends to chip in we will get a compromise that is not exactly what everyone wants, worse Lotus (or whoever) has a whole bunch of different people to keep happy and the whole project gets more risky and less clear and likely costs more than it would have if I had been able to cover the whole cost of my super car. The F-35 IMHO is in the same position
Originally Posted by nocutstoRAF
I would suggest that it is an assumption that post-SDSR the UK will be looking to use the carriers for first day of war deep strike mission. What if it is decided that the carriers should primarily used to provide CAP for a task group? What if the UK decides to cut the cloth to fit the money available, and that the priority is to procure replacements for the GR4 around 2020ish by purchasing mature versions of the F-35A than it is to get a Fifth Gen carrier planes and they can make do with a Gen 4.5 CATOBAR fighter? Not saying any of this will happen or should happen but it could.
Originally posted by pjhydro
If we decide that then the CDS will have really lost the plot. Why would we plan to build a carrier of this size to fight a blue water only defence game? The whole point of the carriers is to give the UK the mobile, worldwide strike capability.
I see the situation slightly different, the last SDR 12 years ago identified a need for power projection and the carriers were built in response to this. In a sense they are a legacy of the old SDR. The costs have virtually been paid for so we are not going to sell them. However, the SDSR will decide the shape of defence in the future, and to quote Liam Fox:
“The Foreign Secretary has set out the new Government’s distinctive British foreign policy that has at its heart the pursuit and defence of UK interests, recognising that our prosperity and security is bound up with those of others.
This will require the enhancement of diplomatic relations with key partners, using Britain’s unique network of friendships, bonds and alliances, working bilaterally as well as multilaterally.
Britain should shape the world, not just be shaped by it.
But we must be clear that this does not mean we must be able to do all things at all times.
We will need to be smarter about when and how we deploy power, which tasks we can do in alliance with others, and what capabilities we will need as a result. “
As you can see we are not necessarily going to be possessing all the capabilities we have now post-SDSR
This means that it is possible that they will use the carriers in a different way to planned and this will be reflected in what they will fly off them. I do not think it is likely but you cannot rule it out if it makes sense in the future defence strategy.
Originally posted by pjhydro
….. If at anytime since 1979 you had offered the RN a bigger, faster aircraft if they binned the Harrier they would not have hesitated.
To use the car metaphor again – if you imagine the RN as a bunch of sales men, and they have been using Vauxhall Astra’s as their company car, and originally someone offered them Vauxhall Insignia’s to replace their Astra’s but then they change the plans to decide to buy Audi A6’s then the are going to prefer the A6 but lets be honest the Insignia would have done the job!
nocutstoRAFThey had the various levels of competition, Boeing and McDD lost out and while I was a fan of the BAe/McDD offering the F32 was one of the ugliest airframes to have been assembled.
Well they did it with the F15 and 16 and they basically did the same with the F4 so they have a good track record, we did it with Tornado and Typhoon. Name me a cutting edge programme that isn’t high risk, nature of the beast.
I think the USMC/RN are more desperate that the USAF, Harrier has not got a great deal of airframe life left.
The RN needs F35 if its to be relevant. buying any of the alternatives will be fine but won’t give them the first day of war strike capability the UK is looking for. The carriers are intended to be multi-role platforms but as the RN can not afford to buy EW platforms and seperate fighter and attack platforms they need to buy the highest spec, stealthy, most networked platform on the market, otherwise they will end up as purely a support carrier for US carrier groups, relying on USN Growlers etc to launch strikes. F35 gives the RN independence of action by not requiring seperate and expensive support aircraft.
Buying F35A would mean never deploying to carriers, the small size of the UK forces demands the flexibility of a VSTOL airframe.
Not clutching at straws – honest, but surely the F-35 was billed as a lower cost, lower risk platform in comparison to the Raptor – and so far this is not the case. (Still it bodes well for a serious lack of peer opposition, as if the US with a big budget and a proven track record in fifth gen fighter tech is unable to keep to budget and time it is hard to see how the Russian and Chinese fifth gen programmes will deliver before the 2020’s).
UK has already procured one fighter that was over budget, over time and looked fairly high risk at times (I bet if I look at the discussion on the Typhoon before it entered service they would pretty similar to the current F-35 thread) – while I am aware this is the nature of cutting edge programmes it is also the nature of programmes with too many stakeholders each trying to influence the outcomes and just mudding the waters- can you honestly tell me that the F-35 programme is not suffering from this as well?
I would suggest that it is an assumption that post-SDSR the UK will be looking to use the carriers for first day of war deep strike mission. What if it is decided that the carriers should primarily used to provide CAP for a task group? What if the UK decides to cut the cloth to fit the money available, and that the priority is to procure replacements for the GR4 around 2020ish by purchasing mature versions of the F-35A than it is to get a Fifth Gen carrier planes and they can make do with a Gen 4.5 CATOBAR fighter? Not saying any of this will happen or should happen but it could.
As I see it the main advantage of the F-35 programme to UK is it allows STOL operations which is where the FAA and RN experience lies. I am not sure that either RN or the USMC need the full capabilities planned for the F-35B, I would have imagined had F-35 not been on the horizon that they would have both been happy with increase in payload, range and speed over the Harrier, plus maybe with a reduced IR signature to protect against MANPAD and they would have used thier Harrier replacement in the same role as it is currently used. I might be wrong (typically am) but the F-35B offers a lot more than this.
nocutstoRAFAre we back to the “anything but the F35” discussion again? :rolleyes:
But I guess we will still be having it when all the squadrons are commisioned, its flying off QE/PoWs deck and the pilots are saying “F35? dogs balls mate!”….Why does the public not like it? I don’t think I’ve come across a more hated plane that has yet to enter service.
(Inserting tongue firmly in to cheek) – Personally I find the whole concept un-American :):):) – surely there should be two different Fifth Gen aircraft programmes with three variants running side by side so everyone has a choice on which to buy – it’s all a monopoly and very bad for free enterprise – (removing it now)
On second thoughts actually this is the thrust of my problem with the F-35 -the US put all their eggs in one basket, got everyone else to buy into it and there is no backup plan, so I am never going to be convinced the programme is low risk until the F-35 is in service and the NAO reports back to say that the procurement of it by the MoD was good practice and value for money (there is still a chance that the MoD screw up even if the F-35B turns out great).
Another issue for me is that the F-35 seems a very ambitious project which is currently running over budget and time – Still as far as I can tell (and I have pants track record here) at least the F-35A it is going to be everything that is advertised even if it has a higher sticker price. I am not so sure on the F-35B or C and if I was in charge of the programme I would be concentrating on getting A in service ASAP, and then I would concentrate on B and C.
Also in the context of the UK, the question is does the RN need the F-35? The answer could be no (however I think they are wedded to it, so it is a yes) depending on what you decide the carriers are for. If you ask the RAF they answer is a yes they do need the F-35, but I cannot help but feel that they would be better of with F-35A.
nocutstoRAFF-18E has folding wings, which bring its width down to less than F-35B. Weights are similar. Only the length is greater – and it’s less than a Merlin. No, I think the lifts & hangar should be able to take F-18E.
CVF is supposed to be ‘future proofed’, so I would expect everything to have margins built in.
:o:o:o Thats what happens when you repeat other peoples comments without checking things out you look like a bit of a Rodney!
nocutstoRAFhttp://www.helium.com/items/1442066-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-of-the-royal-navy
Among various other news sources available via googling. Thanks for the clarification. For a 65000t vessel it seems to be an ‘inefficient’ design by the traditional Western standards(1000t = 1 aircraft?).
According the Royal Navy 40 air craft is the maximum expected Air Group
nocutstoRAFAnyone else rather taken with the apprentice electrician?
For an electrician she was certainly easy on the eye – we have a cute carpentry apprentice at work and I always happy when she comes over to work in my building 😉
I suspect that I destined for the course at work on politically correct behaviour!
Sign In
