nocutstoRAFNot comparable with your F-18E price, I believe. The price of Rafale M in the 2009 French budget was €57.9 mn for the aircraft alone (but complete), excluding VAT.
BTW, one must take care when using budget figures. European ones often include VAT, which is not paid on exports, & US ones often exclude ‘government furnished equipment’, & in some cases that means engines & radars.
Thanks for the tip about comparing fly away costs, I have gleaned various sources (with maybe to much reliance on Wikipedia) to try to get realistic figures. Obviously it would be nice to get robust whole life costings of each option, but I guess that all the information would be commercially sensitive and the only way I would see it was if I worked for the MoD and then I would not be talking about it.
Was your first point about the Rafale that it does not stack up with the Super Hornet? If that was the point you where making then I have to agree, the Super Hornet, even with some development costs appears to be the cheapest realistic option (discounting Russian aircraft) if the carriers are converted to CATOBAR and assuming that the figures I have are correct.
nocutstoRAFAPA is run by a group that wants to modernize the F-111’s and acquire F-22’s. They glorify the Flanker series and do nothing but publish rubbish about the Hornet and the F-35. They do not have access to any classified material for any thing they write (the “calculations they did on the RCS of the F-35 is laughable) and most people who work with in the industry or watch what goes on do not take anything they say seriously.
Don’t get me wrong, the Flanker series is a good aircraft but APA has an agenda publish biased articles to help that agenda.
I figured something like this when I read the article, especially when I have read a number of threads all over the place where there is a vocal group(and possibly a little unrealistic given how protective the US is over the F-22) of Australian defence “fans” who think that their government should try to get F-22.
nocutstoRAF@nocuts: The point of the British deterrent is not to overpower the likes of Russia and China, but to ensure that we always have just enough power to inflict unacceptable damage on them should they ever go too far. We don’t need an arms race for that, that’d only be necessary if they could adequately counter our deterrent, when numbers become more important, which they can’t and aren’t.
As long as you now understand that a nuclear cruise missile simply up to the task of deterrence for Britain then that’s all that really matters, as it only leaves SLBMs really.
I have should have said thanks in my last post 🙂 – At least yours and everyone else’s explanation did not go down the route of one I read on (I think it was) Defence Talk forum, where someone asked the same question and the response started out its a bad idea (no context given) and even the USA has moved away from them and ended up in a nationalistic p*ssing contest which leaves me cold. I have thought about joining several other military aviation forums but they all seem to be dominated by trolls or those with really strong nationalistic stances that make it impossible to discuss anything.
nocutstoRAFOn another point, nice though navalised typhoon is as an idea, there isn’t a realistic F35 replacement if the UK has ambitions to operate advanced fighter sized aircraft at sea.
Apart from anything else BAE has a massive stake in the production of the aircraft.
I cannot answer your question about the Vanguard (which is why I snipped it out of the quote) but……
While I would love to see the UK get the F-35, and I think the RAF really want the F-35, likely in the A flavour as well, for 1st day of war strike mission that the Tornado could do in the 90’s I also think that it is unlikely that we can afford more than £4 billion for carrier aircraft and 40 F-35b’s are a bad idea, IMHO, as the Army will tie them up permanently in CAS from austere airfields. On the other hand if we can some how magically find the funds for the original projected buy of 150 F-35b’s (back in the day when they cost $60 million a jet) without reducing the RN and the rest of the RAF to nothing, then there would be enough F-35b’s to go around.
nocutstoRAFWhen the UK decided to buy the Phantom, it was decided to build it under licence with a British engine, the Spey. It had greater thrust at low level, & better fuel efficiency, so the hope was to get both better performance & range.
Unfortunately, the Spey was rather fatter than the J79 it was replacing. That necessitated a redesign of the rear fuselage. It needed more air, & therefore a redesign of the intakes. That cost money. The fatter engines meant the rear fuselage also had to be a bit fatter, which made the aerodynamics worse. And the Spey had worse performance than the J79 at high altitude.
We got an aircraft with better take-off performance, better performance at low level, especially acceleration, better fuel economy (though not as good as hoped), but worse performance at high altitude, including lower top speed. And it cost a lot more than unmodified Phantoms.
F-15 & F-16 have been re-engined successfully, & the F-15 is offered with a choice of engines. Buccaneer was re-engined (with the Spey!) & was greatly improved by it. There have been others. It all depends on the engine, & the airframe.
About your original post.
1) Such a wholesale re-equipment would cost a great deal to develop. Spread over only 80 aircraft, that would make each one very expensive.
2) The Vixen 500E is a small, lightweight radar for armed trainers & light fighters. It would be a downgrade for the Su-33. Consider this: the Vixen 500E has only 500 transmit/receive modules, & (all else being equal), the more T/R modules an AESA radar has, the better. The ES05 Raven/Vixen 1000ES radar for Gripen NG has 1000 T/R modules. Su-33 has a much larger nose than Gripen NG, & could take far more.
Thanks Serve this is a great response. While I read an article on http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html that said pretty much the same about radar’s (the Flanker can fit a larger more capable array) I was taking it with a pinch of salt as they were obviously part of the camp in Australia who want the Raptor as they think the JSF does not provide enough of a capability gap against the proliferation of Flankers (especially later models) in the region. Good to get a second opinion on this.
nocutstoRAFSorry to put a downer on it but I wouldn’t bother to even attempt such a conversion for all sorts of reasons. It would be politically unpalatable on both sides, lets face it relations between the UK and Russia have never been great and are not exactly at one of thier high points now.
The Su33 would not be right for the intended role either, its not particularly stealthy or netcentric so would not make a great first day of war strike platform – a role the QEs and F35s are intended for.
It is also a little “patronising” (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) to suggest a russian aircraft needs to be westernized, as if all western kit is automatically brilliant and superior and russian kit inversely so.
Save your development money and continue to purchase the F35 which we have already spent millions on and helped design so it is tailored to our needs and requirements. Its going to be a great aircraft and one the FAA will be able to really do the business of building a proper strike force with.
1) I agree with the politics comment- Russian would unlikely sell the Su-33 to the UK.
2) Politics is why we would need to westernise the plane, as otherwise we would be in a tricky situation – needing to buy spares and the like from Russia who could withhold on a whim, plus they are noted for being slow to release spares. Plus on top this Su-33 is not up to the same spec as later Flankers, and Russia would never agree to produce Su-33 variant incorporating all their latest goodies, so we would have to westernise to bring it up to spec against later model flankers the Russians have been selling successfully all over the place.
3) After politics, I think the biggest barrier is what happened (or is alleged to happen) with Chinese built Flankers and their violation of the licence agreement putting the Russian aero manufactures off licensing deals. Plus the apparently not happy with lots of the Eastern European air forces modernising their planes using third party companies (I wish I book marked the story about the Israeli company that took some flak for modernising Mig-21’s for one of the former Soviet countries).
nocutstoRAFIgnoring all the other posts that address that quite silly idea: so if we were to limit our deterrent possibilities to a select few nations, what outcome would that have? Certain nations feeling more targeted and working harder to eliminate that threat, either through nuclear acquisition ala Iran, NK, or simply buying an anti cruise missile system, which I believe Iran is also trying to do. At the same time those nations we can no longer threaten are free to do as they wish to us, you never know how the strategic situation may shift over the next 25 years. In 1980 who honestly thought the Soviets would be gone in 10 years?
The counter-argument to this is – while it is accepted that for the most part we do not predict who we are going to fight, the whole point of a SDR is to work out what your most likely threats are and what you need to do to counter them. With limited resources you cannot cover every contingency.
If you target all countries, including those who are fairly responsible then all do is continue a nuclear arms race, which given our resources we cannot win with China, and any nuclear war with Russia is a losing proposition. However if we target countries we know are likely to consider using nukes against us, and those countries likely to get them, and have an adequate deterrent then they are going to think twice before attacking us.
The strongest thing in your argument, IMHO, to explain why we are not looking at nuclear cruise missiles is the fact that countries like Iran are acquiring cruise missile defence technology – this only leaves a like for like replacement.
I personally felt the points made by the other posters clearly already closed the door on the subject.
Finally one thing I like about this forum for the most part is that everyone is polite as this thread has not broken down (as I have seen on other forums) to name calling
nocutstoRAFIf you really want to go for conventional aircraft on carriers just get the Rafale off the shelf, it’s ready now and we could even pool training with France.
A crazy thought – if we purchased Rafales, might the French accept the T3 Typhoons as payment? 😀
I think the short answer is no – not when the French are so busy marketing the Rafale as being better than the Typhoon.
While it might make sense to buy Rafale’s, the SH is cheaper and I think that if there is a realistic chance of getting 80 carrier aircraft we need to do it as cheaply as possible and the options are few and far between – doing some back of the envelope calculations from figures off the internet you have:
Option 1 – Super Hornet at say $60 million a jet (£42 million at today’s exchange rate), plus the development costs to get them in UK service as they are optimised for USN (say £2 million a plane), plus £0.5 billion for catapults for QE and PoW, say the same again for setting up a training rig to train the pilots and aircrew, plus maybe the purchase of 6 Goshawks (say at £30 million a plane). Give it a price of £4.7 billion for 80 aircraft + 6 Goshawks.
Option 2 – Rafale N at €80+ million a jet as the figure I have is for 2008 (£68 million at today’s exchange rate) plus the other costs quoted in option 1 for catapults, training centre and training aircraft. Gives you a price of £6.6 billion for 80 aircraft + 6 Goshawks.
Option 3 – F-35b lets be pessimistic and assume that €113 million a plane as postulated in the recent review of the programme is correct that is £79 million at today’s exchange rate. 80 planes would come to £6.3 billion
Crazy Option 4 – Mig-29k (I prefer the Su-33 but Russian is not building them anymore but is building the Mig-29k for India). India recently offered a deal of $1.12 billion for 29 aircraft so this works out as $38 million a jet (£26.5 million at today’s price). Let’s say that once we add in the need for western avionics and the ability to build and maintain the engines the cost doubles to £53 million a plane. However as they are designed to fly of STOBAR carrier no need for catapults or the extras of option 1 and 2, so 80 planes would cost £4.2 billion
The only other options are even crazier as they are based on: the HAL Tejas-N which is in effect still in development as it has failed to deliver what the Indian government has wanted, or navalised versions of either the Typhoon or the Gripen NG both which only exist on paper.
So Option 4 is winning the race based on price alone, but price is obviously not the only factor, as you need to consider performance, whole life running costs, and what exactly do you plan to do with your carriers – are they there primarily to provide air defence to your task force, with secondary strike capabilities or are you really expecting to be able to launch 1st day of war deep strikes from your carrier.
nocutstoRAFDetails seem to be coming thick and fast right now. Two defence issues so far:
2) The commitment to Trident has been confirmed, but will be scrutinised for value for money. This seemed like something EVERY program should be doing. BAE will be less than amused at the thought.
I was surprised but happy with the second one. I thought it might be forced into the SDR.
I guess you are keen to keep Trident, but I hoped that while there would be a commitment to maintaining a nuclear deterrent that they would review if Trident was the best way to go or if we could move to nuclear cruise missiles, on the basis that it seems unlikely that we would ever use them against Russia or China who could intercept the cruise missiles and nuclear cruise missiles would be more than adequate to counter-strike North Korea, Iran (or Pakistan should the Taliban ever take over) should they ever launch a nuke at us.
nocutstoRAFTyphoon 3B cannot be cancelled unless the other partners agree to it. So far all they have agreed to is a delay in signing the contracts. Personally I think they’ll get 3B because a lot of airframe hours would be getting run up in afghanistan on GR.4’s etc..
Could we see a move back to think about developing a navalised Typhoon for the Tranche 3 airframes? Assuming my numbers are right – you would save money as long as the development costs to navalise Typhoon was cheaper than the cheapest option of providing the same number of fighters, as you have to buy the Tranch 3 Typhoons regardless of what else you buy. So if you keep development costs below say £4 billion (based on 80 x SH @ £50 million a piece) you would save money.
nocutstoRAFI think you’d have a better chance of buying F/A-18F with EJ200’s replacing the F414’s. Also swap the 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon for the M61A1. AIM-132 ASRAAM replacing AIM-9X Sidewinder. Begin with AIM-120C7 but integrate Meteor at a later date. Support for ALARM, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Sea Eagle, Penguin, etc. The RN would want the AN/APG-79 rather than a domestic kit. Stick with the LITENING III laser targeting pod. Swap the Sargent Fletchers out for the British 1500L subsonic drop tanks and 1000L supersonic drop tanks.
I think that something like this will be what we actually get post SDR (or what ever the Con-Lib government are calling it now).
The area I would see differently is that regardless of what the RAF want (which is obviously as many JSF as they can get their hands on) they will likely be “encouraged” to go with the AESA being developed for the Tornado rather than the one currently in the SH.
My main reservation of the SH is that we cannot afford to waste too much time thinking about if we are going to buy the SH we need to order now, as we need several years post delivery of the first airframes to train the pilots and ground crew in US style carrier techniques and we need operational squadrons when the QE comes on line otherwise how can they check that everything is up to scratch?
nocutstoRAFRR would probably take the Russian engine and rework it with western tech to make it lighter and more efficient
🙂
So that is two problems sorted – easy enough to upgrade the avionics and build newer and lighter engines based on the original design.
Just the issues of cost, political will, value for money and just how effective a Su-33 clone would be in operating off the QE (i.e. could it actually fly with a decent load out of ordnance or is there a reason why so far I have only found just 1 slightly blurry picture on the internet of an Su-33 flying with ordnance all the rest have the Su-33 flying with no ordnance)
PS – and this is a general comment that really warrants its own thread – it sucks to be British at the moment 🙁 – we are in a perfect storm of a recession, a draw out ground war against irregular forces that has convinced the powers to be that they do not need RAF or RN, and the RAF and RN needing to replace lots of their systems – Harrier 2018, Tornado 2025, Frigates ASAP (already overdue), Ocean ~2018, Rapier are just the systems I can name off the top of my head.
nocutstoRAFAs a thought experiment its no more daft than others floated about.
My concern over ‘just’ re-engining was that UK Phantoms were ‘just’ re-engined with Speys and that was a pig of a job (which didn’t actually provide the benefits evisioned. Fast forward and Nimrod’s were ‘just’ re-engined and that was an expensive pig of a job (although performance upgrade seems to have been achieved)
Not read about the UK Phantoms being re-engined (I am off to do a bit of read up) but in your opinion where did it all go wrong – was it poor design or is just hard to re-engine fast jets – are there any examples where a fast jet was re-engined and it proved fairly straight forward?
nocutstoRAFYou are asking way too much..
Do you really think adapting that engine that was not designed to be placed into such airframe, that probably does have the wrong placement for subsystems and cannot be fit in other airframe , with different wiring, different power source for the big systems like a radar, will be easy or even possible?
When I started to think about this I read some posts where it was suggested that you could replace Russian engines on the Su-27 with the engines of the F-16 of course all you had to do was re-position the gear box (just a minor job then!) – As the Su-33 is based on Su-27 I extrapolated from there.
So to extend my thread – could Royals Royce build the Russian engines under licence and leave the rest to BAE to sort (the avionics)?
Or am I just taking this idea to silly extremes?
nocutstoRAFhe’s been told a dozen times with links, this is just one of his wash rinse repeat
:confused: was this in response to my original post?!?!? Has someone asked the same questions – have I stumbled on to a touchy subject (on some of the other forums I have been on the moderators let you know not to ask certain questions as they start flame wars).
Sign In
