Liger30That is simply indisputable Gabby.
Because you say it?
Sorry, we are just not going to agree.
Non anecdotally, a F/A-18 already last year was landing and trapping at sea on an aircraft carrier without the pilot doing a thing, and F35C at entry in service will have a semi-automated recovery capability.
I question the effective size of the training gap. And i don’t think you have information any more solid than mine, so pardon me if i continue to express my doubts.
Liger30Otherwise how are those CATOBAR skills getting kept up when the -35C pilots have rotated to a shore-base deployment enforcing a no-fly zone somewhere in the back of beyond?. There is nothing simple about this!
In said extreme case, the B is unlikely to fare much better than the C anyway if the number of RAF Harrier pilots qualified for carrier ops in the last few years of Ark Royal are a valid indication.
The number of RAF pilots fully qualified ranged often between 1 and zero. Night deck ops especially saw almost no pilot current and ready.
Liger30The silos behind the Phalanx appear to me to be 3 sets of 4+4 launchers their heightened position would suggest to me that these are strike length which is extremely promising. The question is what are they for?
I’ve yesterday written a piece that provides as much of an answer as it is possible to give at the moment:
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.it/2012/04/type-26-type-45-anti-ship-missiles.html
Liger30I believe Storm Shadow from carriers definitely is a requirement. For the rest, it was bitter irony. I frankly do not need you to tell me what the F35 or Harrier are.
Liger30allowing Storm Shadow to be used as part of carrier strike which I don’t think was ever a requirement.
I hope you are joking on this one.
Do we really want an Harrier GR9 remake that allows the RAF to say ad infinitum in the future “no Storm Shadow from the sea, there’s no bring back margin”…?
I’m more than sick enough with the Harrier GR9 having been bashed and ultimately retired for not having Brimstone and Storm Shadow without living it all over again.
Liger30Illustrious bows out in 2014 and crew moves to HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Ocean might bow out in 2016 or 2018. As Prince of Wales arrives and the fate of QE is decided, the crewing issue will be tackled by then.
Liger30Forgot that they are to replace Ocean as well as Illustrious, didn’t you?
The little issue is that Ocean has a crew of just 283, plus some 180 members of the airgroup, which however do not exactly count.
More manpower is to be gathered up from the rest of the navy in order to crew both CVFs. Transfering the sole Ocean crew is not enough at all.
Liger30Its not like SRL is some mythic new concept thats just sprung up to grant bringback to F-35B.
Might not be new, but validating it for F35B has cost millions of pounds and is a process not yet completed at all.
The NAO estimated the 2011 in-year SBRVL savings at 31 million pounds since activities were terminated due to the switch to C.
A 13 million contracts, among others, for SBRVL activities had been signed in early October 2010, only to be trashed literally a week or two later when the SDSR came out.
Just saying.
The NAO report also says very clearly “Bowman”, integration costed at 4 millions in Planning Round 2008. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/major_projects_report_2011.aspx
A 55 million pounds allocations for SBRVL was made in Planning Round 2007.
In terms of Key User Requirements, the B variant has problems with:
KUR 3, combat radius. At the moment of the switch to C, the B was improving on this aspect and might meet the minimum threshold requirement of the UK, but it is at risk.
KUR 4, carrier recovery. The F35B was not meeting requirement, and even with SBRVL effort ongoing it was still at risk.
KUR 6, logistics. The F35B as of now does not seem to meet the requirement for logistical footprint.
That’s almost 50% of requirements at risk/not to be met, on a plane with 7 KURs.
Nothing about this is easy and granted, and at the moment i’m not at all sure that the B makes that much more financial sense. While i’m sure that militarily, it definitely makes less sense.
Liger30We dont actually have the Fleet Air Arm established to provide the front line squadrons and OCU to support the CATOBAR deployment at the moment and we would need to pay quite a lot upfront to stand up Culdrose or Yeovilton to house even just two frontline CATOBAR sdns plus the OCU.
Actually, you won’t see F35 in a Navy airbase regardless of whatever variant is chosen, as the whole fleet will be on a RAF base, most likely Marham as of now, with Lossiemouth having lost the previous flavor since it got the Typhoon squadrons. So at least the above point does not make any sense.
There will only be one F35 base, and it won’t be a navy base. It never was on the cards at all to base them on navy structures, not even with 150 B planned.
massively overbudget already, owing to government incompetence, and adding another 30% to the build costs upfront is going to make the picture even more disasterous for those in the anticarrier lobby.
This is true, but somewhat balanced by the officially higher costs of the B variant and, moreover, balanced by the political gains with France and US.
Liger30Pretty meaningless unless you can show details.
Think how meaningful are your rolleyes and “let’s buy Rafale” based on thin air, then.
And there’s links in my post that talk of the components added to Tornado and Harrier for Bowman. And you’ll find Bowman integration listed in the F35 page in the NAO Major Projects report too. That’s more detail than you have been able to provide about anything, sincerely.
Liger30@SNAFU352
I can’t agree on a single thing.
How much and if that is enough to make it un-viable is not known.
Weaponry integration on a modern jet costs millions.
For example not sure why you mention Bowman radios? It is not kit that is on any UK fast air at present, so why would it be required?
I’m sure that Bowman-compatible communications are definitely fitted to at least some of the RAF airplanes. They might have been part of UORs for Afghanistan, and Bowman components and compatibility is also mentioned in the NAO Major Projects report in the F35 page, because, you know, it is nice if the troops on the ground can talk to the airplane above them.
http://www.stratpost.com/general-dynamics-to-exhibit-airborne-compatible-bowman-bms
http://www.ainonline.com/node/12798
Ripping avionics out would be just the type of stupid thing the Brit MoD would do
They are called “operational requirements”, and while at times too many are brought forwards, changes tend to be necessary to ensure that the airplane can REALLY work with the rest of your armed forces.
There is also a quesiton as too whether it would be necessary to integrate Brit kit. If the French version works why change it?
So you are willing to buy horrendously-expensive ASSM bombs, and save the production line that France is otherwise closing, or finance them the integration of AASM guidance kit on MK80 warheads so they can gain some more on the export market thanks to british money? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Frances-AASM-Precision-Guided-Bombs-06200/
All this while being unable to use the stockpiles of Brimstones, SPEAR to come and Paveways, Paveway IV included? And buy DAMOCLES pods on top of Litening? But why would you ever do that…???????? It’s absurdity at its best!
Two very similar airplanes (Typhoon and Rafale) which however have NOTHING in common, so no commonality savings on mainteinance or anything, and ALSO two wholly different arsenals, one for each plane.
Good luck selling to the british public the order of billions of pounds in french figher jets AND weaponry!
Good luck in finding the money too.
Now that would be a true **** up. But France would love you forever, that’s for sure.
F35, if produced in sufficient numbers, may have a unit price equivelent or lower than the Typhoon or Rafale
As it is, even the pre-production F35B ordered by the UK as part of LRIP 3 are ALREADY NOW less expensive than Typhoon, since the Typhoons on order, once all costs are factored in, are priced by NAO at 126 million pounds each.
Besides, the UK Research and Development money ceiling is at just 2 billion. That pretty much ensures that only a monumental ****-up in development, (unlikely at this stage) could tip the balance against the F35. Such a monumental **** up would pretty much kill the program entirely, and that would be another story entirely in that unlikely case.
Still, F/A-18 would make more sense than any Rafale option.
Liger30I don’t see the RAF needing the F35 as much as the Navy does….
If only we could get the RAF to think in the same way, the Navy would be able to really rebuild naval aviation.
Of course, i actually expect the RAF to be as greedy as always in controlling the F35, carriers or not.
Liger30Some good stuff on Navy News today: http://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/4171
Liger30Cheaper not by much. And definitely not enough to rival F35. Even the F35B, while expensive, is actually LESS expensive than Typhoon, and probably less than Rafale.
Also, please note that, save for Meteor, that France is also adopting, and Storm Shadow, there is not a single british/US weapon ready for carriage on the Rafale.
No ASRAAM, no Paveways, no AMRAAM, no Brimstone, no Litening targeting pod, no anything.
Part of the avionics would have to be ripped out and replaced, Bowman radios installed, and all weaponry integrated from scratch. Differently from India who has stuff already due to the Mirages, the UK does not use french weaponry at all.
The costly integrations and modifications would throw to hell any eventual saving.
At that extreme point, better to try and navalize Typhoon for real. Makes more sense.
Liger30Are all politicians really as stupid as they seem?
No.
They can also happen to be even more stupid than they seem.
Sign In
