Other F35 related news.

Lockheed Martin has agreed to modify the current low rate initial production Lot IV Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft contract to a fixed-price-incentive (firm target). Under the new arrangement, Lockheed and the Pentagon share on a 50-50 basis all overruns topping the F-35’s “target price.” Lockheed would be required to absorb the entire overrun once the price exceeds an upper-limit “ceiling.” Subsequently the company was awarded about $3.5 billion modification covering the procurement of 31 aircraft to be handed over by 2013. This contract represents an average cost of $105-109 million, slightly above the Pentagon estimated rate, as this amount allocates the necessary funding for flight testing, and other developmental activities. The current lot includes 10 conventional take-off and landing aircraft for the U.S. Air Force (31.6% of the cost); 16 short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps (48.4%); one STOVL aircraft for the United Kingdom Royal Navy (3.4%); and four carrier variant aircraft for the U.S. Navy (16.6%).

A 119 USD millions F35B for the UK figures in the contract just agreed by US DOD and Lockheed Martin!!!
Ministry of Defence WAKE UPPPPPPP!!!! Tell LM to switch that to a F35C NOW!!!

The US Marines F35B have a unitary cost of 105,8 USD Millions and the F35C are tagged at 145,25 each, if the % figures are correct.
Not clear what causes the differences, since we do not know how the contract is structured.

Today i also received my cheerished defence magazine here in Italy, and in the news it reports a couple of very interesting news:

The first is, again, F35-related. The Spear Cabality Block 3 seems to have assumed a quite-definitive form in the missile for now known as “Model 100B”: in practice, a miniaturized, 100 kg, 100-Km range Storm Shadow, of which up to 8 could be fitted inside the F35 Weapon Bays.
A mock-up of the missile was shown at Farnborough, as reported in this (unfortunately) french article:
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/sitta/les-salons-precedents/farnborough-2010/farnborough-2010-article

The second good news is more related to the Type 26 frigate, however:

Apparently the Novel Air Capability Vision programme is alive. To refresh my mind, i did go back searching for the news that came out in 2009 about this project:

Three companies are vying to secure an unmanned air vehicle demonstrator contract at the heart of the British Defense Ministry’s so-called Novel Air Capability Vision, but details of their respective proposals for the program are being treated as classified.

BAE Systems, missile manufacturer MBDA and Cranfield Aerospace are understood to have submitted proposals at the end of October. The contract for the selected concept could be awarded early in 2010.

The overall program is intended to run for around three years with the aim of providing a flying vehicle, along with the possibility of an “experimental operational capability” by 2015.

Neither MBDA nor BAE Systems were in a position to discuss their respective submissions beyond confirming them.

The novel effort is being pursued alongside more “conventional” Defense Ministry UAV and unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) projects, its Mantis and Taranis technology demonstrator programs, respectively. BAE Systems is leading the Taranis UCAV and Mantis medium-altitude long-endurance programs, while its Herti tactical system is once again undergoing operational evaluation in Afghanistan.

One aim of the air capability vision is to drive innovation and technology exploration to meet what is a challenging set of “essential and highly desirable requirements.” These include system survivability, maneuverability, payload integration and transit speed.

In discussing the general aims of the capability vision initiative, the ministry describes the effort as intended to “tackle . . . high-risk, high-return” opportunities offering a “step change in planned or future capabilities.”

The program could be of particular significance to MBDA. Expanding into the UAV sector using its guided-weapons expertise is a clear growth path for the European company, though it could place it in direct competition with its parent companies, BAE Systems, EADS and Finmeccancia

MBDA is teamed with Selex Galileo and GKN, with its proposal dubbed Black Shadow.

The outline requirement for the Novel Air System program is to look at development of a reusable long-range strike platform capable of penetrating and operating in defended airspace. A target range of more than 600 mi. is called for; another design driver is that the air vehicle be capable of being launched and recovered from a frigate-size ship. The last requirement would suggest a vertical take-off and recovery design.

The design should also have a loiter capability in the target area to engage the target, carry out damage assessment, and to reengage if needed. The ability for the system to be operated in an urban environment is also required.

Novel Air Capability is one strand of the U.K.’s Defense Technology Plan that was unveiled last February. The driver behind the novel air capability element of the overall research effort was to examine a “more cost-effective means of achieving the effects currently provided by manned aircraft and cruise missiles by using new concepts in [UAVs and] unmanned combat air vehicles,” according to the technology plan.

Discussing the concept further its adds: “The specific effects under consideration are the delivery of novel payloads over remote hostile territory and, specifically, within the urban environment.”

The interest in “novel payloads” may be partly responsible for the sensitivity surrounding the effort. The use of this rubric likely indicates the air vehicle would be intended to deliver not only conventional weapons, but also radio-frequency and possibly laser packages.

The U.K. has been exploring high-power microwave (HPM) warheads for two decades, and technology and trial work are ongoing. The studies include design and development of an HPM payload suitable for delivery by a cruise missile, and whether such a package could also be applicable UAVs.

The air vehicle design will also have to be low-observable given the requirement that it be able to penetrate and loiter in defended air space.

While the British have enjoyed the ability to operate UAVs with near-impunity in Afghanistan, there is no expectation that this will always be the case. Air force officials have previously suggested that the generation of tactical platforms now being operated would fare far less well in an environment where the airspace was in any credible way contested.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,205560,00.html

Now, as i said, my magazine reports french-originated rumours that tell that MBDA is working on an informally-named “Black Shadow” missile-drone for naval use as part of the Programme of the Ministry of defence after being contracted and funded by the MOD.

Clearly targeted for use on the Type 26, the Black Shadow is indicated in a Storm Shadow-derivative cruise missiles for naval surface-surface attack capability.
The idea sorta reminds me of the IKARA, but it is a lot more impressive: the missile-drone has a range of 1000 Km, and deploys a “warhead” (hopefully a range of different weapons for a range very ample of targets!) to the target, loitering in the area to asses the success of the attack, and then travels back to the frigate to be recovered, probably landing on the water i’m guessing, if we are looking at a “missile” derived from Storm Shadow more than the (astronomically expensive, undoubtedly) VTOL drone the above article suggested.

The concept is great, and depending on the “warhead(s)” designed for the system, it might give the Type 26 a formidable offensive power against a whole range of targets, from other ships (allowing for the retirement of Harpoon) to land targets.
If the warhead was powered itself, the range might equal or even overcome the TacTom’s reach.

It is hard to imagine a cancellation of the F35B… But it sure isn’t having an easy life, and the proposals to kill it… well. They are too many and too frequent to be counted, already, and this new, nasty find is going to be the hardest blow to the programme from when the B variant failed to meet its range and payload requirements and the Weapon Bays had to be shortened.

By the way, Reading Navy News of November, you make some interesting discovers, too:

HMS Illustrious and HMS Ocean apparently will both survive for now. One will be “active” but the other won’t be decommissioned, but put into extended readiness “until Queen Elizabeth enters service.”

Considering that HMS Illustrious soon will come out of refit, i think the plan might be to have Lusty serving for a year or so as Commando carrier, while Ocean undergoes her own 2011 Refit as planned. When Ocean comes back into service, Lusty will be put in extended readiness, and finally written off when Queen Elizabeth goes operative.
This based on the fact that HMS Ocean is undoubtedly “the better platform for helicopter assault operations” (you don’t need a study to know that, anyway…) and its OSD was reported being 2022 in Minister’s responses in 2008 or 2009, with a OSD for Illustrious of 2016.
One has to hope that, although Ocean is not aging as well as we’d like because of how she was built, the OSD was planned with considerations on the state of the two ships.

500 Royal Marines are going to be lost in the next five years.

ALL Sea Kings, and it includes the ASaC specifically, will bow out within 2016.
I highly doubt MASC will come that soon, so we are probably going to see a gap of four years at best before an AEW platform for the new carrier is acquired.
Just as i had imagined.
No idea of what will replace the Junglies.
In the interests of the Navy and Marines, and for the future of the LPH itself, i suggest finding the pennies and take the 8 not-updated Merlin HM1 and the 4 storage airframes, remove sonars and everything from them and put seats for Marines into them. 12 Merlin, fully navalized, to transport marines, to equip a single Squadron absorbing the current HC4 formations, to be able to equip the LPH before the UK is left in the laughable position of having not just carriers without planes but amphibs without helos too.

For the MASC, in time, the Hawkeye can be considered again and hopefully funded. It is not much a matter for choice, after all (that’s easy done) but of getting funding. First Sea Lord please take note, and exploit the Frenchies and the climate of “collaboration wanted” to get something nice for once!

The SAR work seems to be going away from the MOD and towards the Ministry for Transports, so hopefully the money for the new choppers will also come from civvys, and not from the MOD…
Of course though, this means that RAF and Royal Navy are going out of the SAR business by 2016, with closure of squadrons such as 203 RAF. Fate of 84 Squadron (SAR for RAF in Cyprus with Bell 212) is at this point even more uncertain, and the two Sea King SAR in the Falklands also are a mystery. Will they be replaced? How?
And is it feasible to have a Navy and Air Force totally out of the SAR work…?
Almost every one (hell, even Italy’s Air Force) by now has a squadron of choppers for C-SAR duty. RAF and RN… nothing.
Another thing that, like the loss of Nimrod, makes eyebrows arch.

A 2018 date for retirement of Sandown and Hunt is indicated, but i will say myself that they will undoubtedly serve MANY more years in reality. (no money to seek replacements, that is)

HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark will “alternate” in High Readiness (and Flagship role, until the CVF arrives). Bulwark is coming out of its refit, so we can safely assume that the current flagship HMS Albion is goint into “very low readiness” as Navy News tells, as soon as Bulwark is back in service.
HMS Albion would come back into action the next time Bulwark will be out for refit, alternating into service and reserve.
For now, HMS Albion is the Flagship of the navy, and recently staged exercise Wet Raider, interesting because the PACSCAT prototype landing craft was used in the exercise and thus tested very hard. The Marines are reportedly very happy of it, and it handled the Vicking vehicles as planned.
The PACSCAT is going to be tested at Instow soon to see how it handles the Challenger II.

My personal comment is that, if 10 PACSCAT can be acquired (LCU MK11?) to equip training unit, Albion and Bulwark, the 10 LCU MK10 can cover the Bay LSD(A) and push finally out of service the remaining LCU MK9, also those used by the Royal Logistic Corps.
I hope the PACSCAT story does not end in misery because of the damn budget…

One Bay class LSD(A) is, as we know, bowing out.
Why can’t Uk quietly follow the italian example for once and use part of the “International Aid” budget to keep the amphibs going…? Here the Navy gets money to build amphibs from the Aid Department since they are the vessels that are then used to bring help to disaster-struck locations and such.
Can’t the UK Department of Aid “adopt” Largs Bay…? 😀 It is such a shame to lose her…

Similarly, here projects such as the F35 procurement are not financed just my the Ministry of Defence: Italy’s government finances such programmes (Typhoon too, and many others) with Industry Support funds in light of the great effect such programmes have on High Technology industry and because of how many jobs they create…
That’s how Italy’s ministry of defence buys so much good kit despite the Military Budget being surprisingly small.

Time for Liam Fox to get inventive and fight for a share of money for his department too. 😀 Instead of paying for SAR helos that the military will never touch and that will work (and gain visibility every time someone is saved) for the Ministry of Transports…

The DS30M might not be available even with the ships that retire. I don’t remember, the Type 22s were refitted with them already or have they still the older mounts…?
If there are DS30M mounts available, of course those should be used first.

As to the Phalanx… 5 x 2 from the Type 42 are already earmarked (in my mind at least, but i think for the navy as well) to move to the Type 45s as soon as possible as the Type 42s retire.

Then we get the 3 from Ark Royal. 2 could go for the sixth Type 45, so all of them would (finally!!!!!!) be fitted with CIWSs.

3 more would come from Ocean if (may God ensure this does not happen!) she is decommissioned in favor of HMS Illustrious. Otherwise, since Lusty has the Goalkeeper, we are back to starting point.

There would be 1 left at this point, plus eventually a few others in storage: for example, the Fort ships carry two, but are kitted out with Phalanx only sporadically for what i can understand, which means the navy keeps a number in a pool and fits them for deployment only.

A number (how many…???) of Phalanx mounts ex-navy (most likely coming from decommissioned Type 42) were sent in America to be mounted on land systems and become the Centurion C-RAM guns that were then leased and used in Iraq.
For the life of me, i can’t find on the internet any information about how many Centurions were leased and used by the British Forces, nor what destiny the Centurion batteries have had after the end of the Iraqi operations, since, for what i know, they are NOT used in Stan’.

I don’t know if the Centurion systems were handed back to the US, if they are still in inventory, but i’d say that, whatever the number, those Phalanx are lost for the navy, and won’t come back.

Quite possibly, to fit the CVFs, either the Daring class remains without Phalanx mounts (bloody and horribly likely) or 5/6 new Phalanx mounts will have to be ordered.

But what the hell has been bought for STOVL operations???

Deck lifts are no “STOVL”, they are “aircraft carrier”, simple like that, needed regardless of the style of operation you choose.
And sections of the deck might have been started, but not the sky jump either, and that now won’t be ordered for obvious reasons. That was the STOVL main element, and it would have come later on, since we are talking about some of the very last parts of the CVF ships.

And your point is anyway weak. Even in the case, that i keep considering unlikely to say the least, that the Jet Blast Deflectors could have been avoided with a STOVL operations style, now the mode of operation is CATOBAR.
If you want to demonstrate that a CATOBAR configured carrier is more expensive and needs more componenets, you can save the effort, since everyone already knows that.

Point is: we know for sure that the F35C will be better performant than the F35B, and we are told it is going to be significantly cheaper.
We also know that the latest “suggestion” in US parliament commissions about scrapping the B variant is at the most two weeks old, and we also know the F35B is still lagging in troubles of various nature, delays and cost overruns.

Even with the benefit of doubt about how much cheaper the F35C will be in the end, point is that it makes completely sense to spend a bit more on the ship(s) if a lot more can be saved with aircraft procurement and later with aircraft running cost.
In the balance of things, the cost of ships, even at more than 3 billions each, is the smallest part in the Carrier Strike system of systems, the plane being the most expensive part.

The F35C decision is far less demented than scrapping the Nimrod when you learn things like this:

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) for what costs his Department is liable in respect of redundancies for (a) BAE systems employees, (b) military service personnel and (c) civilian personnel arising from the cancellation of the Nimrod MR4A programme;

(2) which components of the Nimrod MR4A his Department owns; and what the monetary value is in each case;

(3) what the (a) current and (b) projected annual costs are for storage of the Nimrod MR4A airframes and components;

(4) what stage of completion the remaining Nimrod MR4A aircraft have reached.

The response is pretty eye opening

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Following the Strategic Defence and Security Review announcement on 19 October 2010 we have begun discussions with BAE Systems to terminate the contracts for production and support of the aircraft. Until these negotiations are complete I am unable to comment on the likely costs or the impact on personnel employed on the Nimrod MRA4 programme.

To date the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has taken delivery of: the training simulator and building (approximate value £150 million); one production standard aircraft (approximate value £90 million); various rigs (approximate value £100 million) and various spares (approximate value £10 million).

In addition, the MOD has funded the design and development programme, which produced three trials aircraft, and work under the production contract including the purchase and manufacture of components for the production aircraft. Ownership of components funded under these contracts is with the MOD, however, as they are an integral part of the overall contract it is not possible to individually identify the components and their current values.

Storage costs cannot be separately identified in the current Nimrod MRA4 contracts. Any future storage costs associated with the termination of the contract will be a matter for negotiation with BAE Systems.

One Nimrod MRA4 aircraft has been delivered, three aircraft are over 90% complete and the remaining five aircraft are over 40% complete.

We are already up to 350 millions of spare parts, hangars and simulator completely useless. New, and ready to be wasted.
When the Nimrod airframes will be either storaged or cut-up and destroyed and used as the most expensive scrap metal in the history of humanity, a good lot of other precious millions will be burnt.
And then there will be the cost of redundancies, penalties and everything else.

Think that 600 millions will be enough for all of it…?

And this NOT to deliver capability, but to DESTROY it.
Now that was a real smart decision!

But we have the frenchies with their 27 soon-to-be-upgraded Atlantic planes to cover the gap, no…?
Gods, i have no word other than: folly.

Paveway bombs should fit, but i don’t know for sure about that, admittedly. The talk has always been about weights “1000 or 2000 lbs”. For now, only the Paveway II in the 500 lbs format is scheduled for speedy integration, but other formats could follow later.

It’s all a matter of integrating them: the US will give precedency to the JDAMs, and the UK wants the Paveway IV to start with, with the other Paveway models to possibly follow in time as budget becomes available. They might also be cleared only for external carriage, hard to tell.
In certain graphics, the Paveway II in the 500 lbs variant is drawn between the weapons expected for early internal carriage clearance, but the list of weapons to integrate and the timing for doing so has been changed a lot of times as cost-saving measure, delaying and at times cancelling some of the requirements, so it is hard to say for sure.

During SDD phase, the UK will have only Paveway IV, AIM132 ASRAAM and Paveway II but in the sole 500 lbs format on F35. Plus of course the AMRAAM, since it is a basic US requirement the UK will benefit from: if from 2015 the Typhoon will finally carry its Meteor as planned, the F35 will “inherit” the AMRAAM remaining and go with them for some time, until the Meteor is integrated or even until the life of the AMRAAMs lasts.
The UK will have clearance for internal carriage of ASRAAM and for a further two ASRAAM carriable under wings, externally.
2 Paveway IV internally, and possibly clearance for external transport too (if requirement was not cancelled as a cost-cut in the meanwhile)

Brimstone and Storm Shadow will be integrated later, the Storm obviously for external carriage only, the Brimstone for both internal and external.
Then of course there will be whatever comes out from the SPEAR requirement.
There’s not a firm requirement for Meteor for now, but it will emerge at some point.

but no jet blast deflectors, the navy were not going to use them.

Highly doubt it, personally. With a 18000 kg thrust coming out of the engine, it sounds demented to lack jet blast deflectors. It is a way to go for sure trouble on operations.
The fact they are not visible in models and drawings is kind of a weak proof. I’m pretty sure that they would have been fitted in the end.

deck edge lifts, props, fin stabilisers ect ect

Deck edge lifts and such are no VTOL related. Deck edge lifts are normal carrier features. I’m sorry, but i think i’m missing the point here.

I don’t understand this either. How can India buying the CVF fuel an arms race any more than if they build one themselves?

It fuels it exactly as much. That is the point.
My rage is directed at the hopeless people who denies that military spending around the world is actually increasing, and the countries who spend the most are still gearing up for state-on-state warfare.

So who says that state on state war is no more is either the only genius on Earth (extremely unlikely) and the stupids are the ones “wasting money” for “unlikely scenarios”, or is the biggest idiot ever.
Simple like that.
You decide.

There should have been no need at all to point all these facts out for a lot of reasons.
Two over everything else:

Any person even just moderately intelligent can realize that
A) Shipbuilding industry is endlessly better than no industry
B) Thousands of job losses are no good economy stimulous
C) Aircraft carriers shape the world, separating who’s got them and who wish to have them

The only real shame?

The RN has no secure and unbreakable contract with the government to get the money to run the ships once built, and moreover has no contract for the planes to fly off them, and moreover risks not having an aircraft carrier, but a floating airport for RAF-owned and manned planes which will “visit” only when the RAF wants to.
THIS is the shame of the matter.

GOD BLESS BAE’s LAWYERS! They saved the UK from the most demented cost-cutting exercise EVER!