Liger30There is also a sovergienty issue. The UK has no capability anymore to train CATOBAR pilots and it would be expensive to create. We would be reliant on the US and France to train FAA pilots in those skills. VSTOL on the otherhand is the RNs area of experties, therefore purchasing F35B gives the UK sovereignty over its naval air capability.
Are we sure of it…? Or the need to save money will mean having the future F35 pilots trained in the US anyway? The USA plan a massive training facility in the US, and it is likely that many pilots of several F35-equipped nations will train in there.
The future pilots of the UK may end up training there anyway.
And then again, is it really so important to avoid training pilots in US or France, when there are suggestions to share tanker aircrafts and even aircraft carriers to a degree?
If USA and France aren’t recognized as trustable partners enough to train pilots in collaboration, it is like saying that they are possible future enemies. This is extremely unlikely. Even if there was a chance of it to be true, they wouldn’t even say it, because it would require an increase in the defence budget. We all know how fond people is, lately, to say that “state-on-state war is no more”.
Besides, several european nations including Germany are already setting up an European Common Training unit for fighter pilots… We may one day see the UK join and have ALL its pilots trained inside a multinational program, like it or not.
Thus i don’t see that pilot training issue being a real problem. If anything, train them abroad may allow substantial savings… and the government may be tempted of it, regardless of B or C anyway.
Liger30What are the differences between the A and C version? Couldnt the program have saved money by using the C variant for land operations as well? With all the extra customers for the C variant, the unit cost would have reduced significantly.
We see carrier foghters operating from land all the time, so whats the problem?
@Liger: Thats what he was saying.
The A is the lighter and simpler version. Its only “up” is to have a mounted cannon, something that C and B lack. They have to eventually used a pod-mounted gun at the middle station under the fuselage. It has a top receptacle for boom refuelling.
C version has larger wings, foldable, and larger control surfaces. Larger fuel tanks and greater range unrefuelled. Foldable fuel receiver. Strenghtened fuselage to resist the catapult-launch stress. Reinforced undergear for the carrier landings.
B version has smaller weapons bay. Smaller fuel tanks and the shortest range of all. In exchange, it has the Lift Fan for the VSTOVL operations. Foldable fuel receiver as well.
The A was meant to be a lot simpler and a lot cheaper than the other two versions. In part, it is, but not as much as it had been hoped. It was meant to be a new F16, but the cost ended up far higher as we all know.
Personally, i’d take the F35C for land based ops at any time over the A. But you need more money, that’s clear.
Liger30Yes, but you’re ignoring the institutional arrangements & politics. Any talk of saving money by fitting catapults on the carriers & switching to F-35C (or Rafale, or whatever) ignores the impact on the cost of operating an additional type.
The UK does not have separate budgets for the army, navy & air force. We have a single defence budget. The F-35B is a single item in the budget, not divided between air force & navy. It doesn’t come under a separate ‘Joint items’ heading, as the JSF does in the USA, because there is no such distinction.
Operating F-35B, training pilots & ground crews, buying spares & weapons, etc. for it are also budgeted for as one lump, with no division between the RN & RAF.
Therefore, any discussion of a separate type for the Royal Navy impacts immediately & directly upon the cost of aircraft for the RAF.
You see? They can not be separated. To say that they can be is like arguing that a married man can discuss where he’ll live without considering his family. Can he save money by buying a one bedroom flat? Maybe, but what about his wife & children? Where will they live?
In fact, at this point, with so little money available, it only makes sense to go either ALL F35B or ALL F35C, and there’s no chance of getting a mixed buy.
Liger30I thought the F-35A already had provision for fitting the same probe as the F-35B & C.
Not sure, actually. I’ve been unable to find evidence of such a possibility, actually. On the Internet it only says top receptacle.
Liger30I am not sure about this. What is the difference in cost between a F35A and F35C. I think its quite a bit.(15-25million$).
If the RAF didn’t want the STOVL F35B the obvious choice would be F35A. Far lower unit costs and hence can be purchased in more numbers.
(If we go by your logic, all customers of the F35A would just pitch for the F35C and drop the F35A).
The RN on the other hand cant use the F35A.
It is not “my” logic. It was RAF’s desire, since their interest was awakened by the longer range offered by the F35C without need for air refuelling.
The users interested in F35A have other needs and requirements and ideas that dictate choosing the F35A, evidently. Not last, the lower cost as you point out.
Besides, i fear that the F35A has only the top-receptacle for boom-style US air refuelling, while we all know that NATO (and RAF first of all) use the US Navy house and drogue method.
The new RAF tankers lack a boom arm entirely. Thus it would have to be fitted for F35A, since it may prove far easier and less costy to integrate the boom (already planned on the airbus tanker anyway) that putting a foldable receiver on the F35A.
Italy buys the F35A, but you must consider that its 4 Boing 767 tankers HAVE a refuelling boom.
For RAF, at that point, made double sense to stick with the F35C that has the foldable receiver from the start.
Liger30Actually, the RAF isn’t such a great supporter of the F35 at all. And i’m not sure about their preference going to the F35B either, since they were said (when money wasn’t so much of a problem) to be considering buying a bunch of F35C to use as a Tornado replacement in Deep-Strike role thanks to their range, stealth and weapon load. (in other words, they wanted them in exchange for the dead FOAS requirement)
This said, the RN is the greatest user for the F35 and it’s the service which truly cares for it. Admirals would be all too happy to get the F35 for the navy and keep the RAF out of it entirely. This, of course, may not happen since the RAF will probably be greedy as always and will not allow the navy to get a true fixed-wing fleet air arm again. (also because the Fleet Air Arm has the greatest score of the post WWII-period, starting with the kills obtained in Korea)
I’m hoping that the RAF will not act with the F35s as it did lately with the Harriers, that have been missing from the Illustrious’s deck for far too long, far too often.
As to the steam catapults, if they are to be fitted, they are going to be bought from the USA without a doubt. No chances of building them in the Uk, and it would not make economic sense.
EMALS would work better, though, and that’s why i hope the tests on the new cat will be more than succesful… It may make more people think about it.
Liger30Alternative tech like EMALS is far more reliable and possibly less expensive to maintain and operate than steam tech.
Has this had any effect on the way the RN thinks apropos the CVF? Its ambiguous, cause there are many factors here:
– Lifetime costs comparing F35B ops to F35C ops.
– Does the CVF have enough power to operate an EMALS system because it wont have a nuclear powerplant(not considering a steam launch system cause its out of production).
– Is the RN ready to let go of the Harrier-centric mindset .
Actually, the QE is being built with space reservation for a steam catapult, but from the start, the adptability concept was more focused on EMALS.
EMALS, though, are still in development, and this is why the MOD is so careful about them and chosen to have the space to eventually fit a well proven steam plant if needed. And this was smart.
Actually, EMALS would work far better, and give a lot less problems, because they would fit awesomely in the All-Electric power plant of the QE.
A steam plant would be less than optimal, because having to nuclear reactor producing the steam, an additional system dedicated merely to produce steam for the catapults is needed (and that’s why there’s space reservation on the carriers)
As to CATOBAR option, that would be the best one to pursue in my opinion, i’m absolutely agreeing with NOCUTSTORAF: i’m certainly in favor of a decise, ultimate switch. Or STOVL, or CATOBAR. Also because there’s no money to buy and sustain two different versions of the F35, with their own unique spare parts and schedules and work.
The money is scarce for a single version already.
It must be decided if the UK truly want to increase interoperability with US and France as they keep saying. If they want to do so, catapults are the way. The EMALS should soon be completed and tested, since they are destined to the new CVN21 already under construction, so the USA will soon enough be able to tell the UK if the new cats work or not.
I think the EMALS will be tested and validated well before it comes the time to eventually mount them onto the QE… As to switching from a version to another of the F35, i don’t think it would be too much of a political problem: sure, with less F35B built, the US Marines would have to pay their own Bs a lot more, but the US navy in exchange would see the cost of F35C going down. They shouldn’t bitch too much about it.
And Rolls Royce can still have all its work: it wouldn’t be able to built lift fans for UK F35B, but the UK MOD could compensate by mandating the GE-RR F136 engine for its F35C.
So, all things considered, a balance could be most likely found.
The cost of fitting catapults is the problem. The Navy does not dare to advocate too loud for them because it fears the consequences of proposing spending more money for fitting them.
But if the F35C could prove itself considerably cheaper… I guess we’ll have to wait up to 2015 to see either the sky-jump or the cats fitted, since they should be one of the latest components to make their way onto the ship. So, there’s still time.
I think to remember that, to start with, a final decision on what F35 to buy was waited not before 2012, even if i’ve not a source at hand at the moment… so i guess it is not a dead argument.
Liger30Full speeches by Nick Harvey, Minister of State for Armed Forces and Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, First Sea Lord from RUSI Martime Conference which have been quoted in the press today
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C3469BA71A88/
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C3465CAB573C/
As far as I can see their speeches are a ringing endorsement for aircraft carriers and the importance of naval power.
With regard to the various stories about fitting PoW with a catapult and flying F-35C’s of them I think it is either a misunderstanding by the papers on what is being discussed or part of the on-going sniping at the carriers which seem an easy target in these financially constrained times for newspapers and former Army officers to take a pop at (alternatively it is all a cunning plan by the MoD to switch to CATOBAR while making it sound like they are doing it save money)
I would be surprised if someone was able to find valuable arguments against the aircraft carriers.
I don’t think that anyone is in the position to do that. Carriers have proven invaluable from 1918 onwards, and there’s no way in hell that you can say that carriers are not strategically important. In fact, they are pretty much vital for UK’s interests… and the QE, once active and equipped with planes, will be better deterrence than even Trident.
What’s unfortunate is that, with politicians’ stupidity (and the stupidity of flocks of people and press as well, admittedly), we’ll have to hope that they do NOT deter enough during their life. Otherwise, soon or later, we’ll have another “let’s sell the Invincible”.
At times i sadly consider that the future of the UK’s marittime security is at such risk that the only way to save the RN is to have a second Falklands crisis.
Too much peacetime illudes people and makes them akin to drop their shields.
It happened before the I WW, before the II WW and before the Falklands as well.
In fact, the only conflict that never exploded was the Cold War, the only one the UK was truly prepared to face.
But anyway, i’m still not sure the carriers are safe. The fact they are strategically vital does not save them automatically from politicians and their wishes to cut, cut, cut on the military and on the RN maily. I hope they’ll both come along.
As to the CATOBAR solution… i actually think it is not so absurd to assume it may lead to some savings, despite the cost of catapults.
Buying F35C on top of the US navy ones would further lower the unit cost of the plane, already destined to be more numerous in USA than the B version.
And i keep thinking that, lacking all the doors, the lift fan, the transmission, the VTOL jets… the F35B will require not only a lot of spare parts more than the other versions, but lots more mainteinance as well. And that is life-cycle cost that makes up a lot of the final price of a weapon system.
I may be wrong, of course… but i think there are some interesting points to evaluate about all that.
Liger30The F35B wouldn’t be able to operate well from CdG. It could, but the lack of skyjump would make it far harder to take off safely with the heaviest loads.
But even so… why the frenchies would let the Uk use the CdG without getting anything in exchange? So, demented an idea it remains.
Make the F35B cat-launched is feasible, but useless and senseless. You would end up almost building an F35C, but with less range, less weapons, more mechanical complexity and sky-high cost. It has no sense at all.
It would be possible, if rather unpractical, to fit CVFs with sky-jump and a single catapult plus arresting gear at once. But for the UK, there would be no advantage at all in buying a bit of F35B and some F35C.
It would be far better to simply move to the F35C once and for all, and if not, stick to the F35B.
But the F35C, for a fact, has longer range. No lift-fan to maintain. Larger weapon bays. And it will be built in higher numbers since the US navy is the client.
Apparently, the higher number of planes built and the lack of lift fan should make the F35C version cheaper than the F35B.
The cost, of course, would be in fitting carrier with catapults and re-organize training for a method (catapult and wires) that the RN was FORCED to abandon long ago.
But sincerely, i keep hoping in a miracle, and a switch to the C version.
It could be one of the very few (if any) good news coming out of the defence review.
Liger30Back to the main CVF focus… i saw on today’s press that speculation continues on pooling carriers with the french. Can someone tell the reporters that the french couldn’t fly their Rafales from the QE’s decks just as the F35B wouldn’t be able to operate from the CdG…?
Because to “share” carriers as they say, the point comes always down to catapults. If capatapults aren’t fitted to the ships, there’s no possible sharing to be made.
Anyway, i read the statements of the First Sea Lord at RUSI, and he made an excellent point reminding another interesting data, the fact that most capital towns in the world are within 150 miles away from the sea and that soon 65% of the world people will live in this coastal area as well. This fact alone widely justifies the aircraft carriers.
Liam Fox keeps talking about “forces” less focused on heavy and more on firepower… What the hell does he mean, it’s very unclear to me. But in my eyes, these statements all but justify the funding of the carriers. In particular, the famous “not wars of states, but wars of people”… with 65% of the world’s population living near the sea, carriers are the key.
Thus, i hope that the press is widely wrong when they constantly say the second CVF is at risk. It would have no sense at all to scrap it.
And it would make no savings. Not in the next few years. It would merely make the single QE as expensive as the new USS Gerard Ford without being as capable. It would be demented over any limit.
Liger30Ah, I see. Thanks for that: I’d missed it when I read the article.
As I understand it, BAe expects its UAVs to be monitored in flight by an operator at all times, but not flown by a ground-based pilot.
We’re saying the same thing. The operator must be there, so the need for someone capable to pilot the drone still exists, and it can’t just be dropped.
I guess that the operator monitoring the flight may be a part of the team for the exploitation of the intelligence data coming from the drone’s sensors since the Mantis is so automated… But he will still need to be trained in fling the drone if it is needed, at least basically.
Already a step forwards, of course… And i’m pretty sure that the drone could be entirely autonomous already, but it is not just because of law implications. After all, you certainly saw the hostility of certain think tanks and press against the “assasinations” made using machines.
Can you imagine how they would react to a plane flying autonomously on a war mission or even just across an air trafficked area? The MOD would be crucified immediately and they would all be depicted by the press as crazy, reckless teppists risking to crash a “evil weapon” against a civil airplane or some other idiocy like that.
Because the MOD is full of defects, but the Press and lots of people just love to lash out at the Ministry and the Military in wider sense.
Liger30I believe the ground station does fit in a container, as with the Herti ground station.
Controlling from the UK would require a worldwide high bandwidth communications system we don’t yet have, akin to the US system used for Reapers.
Can Mantis fly at 50000 foot? That seems very high for a propellor driven aircraft.
From BAe’s press releases, it seems that the BAE philosophy of UAV operation is that the machine flies itself. The operator (not a pilot – waste of pilot training) watches, & intervenes only to give such instructions as ‘Fly home’, ‘Change to search pattern B’, ‘Zoom in on the indicated spot’, or ‘Bomb that target’.
Bae states 36hr endurance and 50.000 feet flight for a production-standard Mantis.
So it also reported in this article: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/30/343880/bae-hails-mantis-uav-success-nears-taranis-roll-out.html that also announces that the Taranis should soon roll out, and it will be very interesting to see it, since it is one of the most ambitious drones ever.
Mantis is higly autonomous, and the Ground Control SYstem most likely fits a 20 feet container indeed. But legal and security questions may require the drone to be actually less autonomous than it could be: a human pilot will most likely be following the progress of the mission all the time, ready to intervene in all sorts of situations.
Anyway, for what i learned, the Mantis is the first completely fly-by-wire drone, and has large degree of autonomy in flight.
What i like about it is the capability to carry weapons: Brimstone dual-mode and Paveway IV are an excellent load, and they would finally end the need for US-Built Hellfire and Paveway II and other weapons for the Reaper, making the Mantis potentially a true all-british system.
And another factor that is never enough pointed at is the twin-engine configuration, which makes the drone far more reliable and survivable: the Reaper has quite poor reliability, and many are lost in accidents and engine failure (the RAF itself lost at least one Reaper because of engine failure already), and this would happen a lot less with Mantis.
Liger30I actually believe that the CVF has been stated more than once to be capable to operate a mix of aircrafts included UAVs. I don’t know how much take off run the Mantis needs, but i think it is not unrealistic to assume it could take off from the QE’s deck, actually.
It all depends on which UAV/UCAV the UK will choose for its Scavenger requirement (unless it gets cancelled in the budget cuts, obviously): Mantis, Talarion, Reaper and Predator C are all in the game and any one of them could be picked up.
Obviously, the best answer would be Taranis: two engines, 36 hr of stated endurance, british to its bone and ready to be armed as well. But its development is still a work in progress, and without the lately reported interest in a french-Uk collaboration on an european MALE UAV it may be difficult for the MoD to fund the work.
On the other hand, i remind Liam Fox being apparently very fond of the Mantis and very aware of its potential, also in terms of sales abroad… so i have actually pretty good hopes for the Mantis.
And i actually believe it could be a fine platform for AEW work on the carriers, instead… Obviously, it would need a radar fit for the job, replacing the land-focused SAR moving-target indicator radar with a compact version of the Searchwater radar, for example.
The ground control station can’t be any bigger than a 20 foot container, and the CVF are stated to have wide space allocations along the sides of the hangar, so it could be possible to bring it on board… Otherwise, the UAV could be controlled from the UK. After all, the RAF Reapers in Afghanistan are controlled from Nevada, US.
At 50.000 feet above, loitering for 36 hours, a Mantis with the right radar would actually be an excellent AEW asset.
Liger30Er, I wasn’t talking about the Osprey.
Yeah, well then to answer your question, i’d say that either the Russian navy issues a requirement and develops a MIL-based AWACS (and i doubt it will since it has got the AEW Kamov and even developed a clone of the Hawkeye years ago) or a revival of a MIL based AEW plane is not going to happen.
And for sure not in the UK.
And jesus, that thing is twice the lenght of an Hawkeye! How are you going to carry it on a ship, also considering that you normally bring around 4 AEW platforms on a carrier…? Over 30 meters long, no foldable wings, no foldable anything… you couldn’t carry anything else after loading them on board.
So, the MIL V-12 will never make it to ship-based AEW platform. To say it all, the MIL V-12 is pretty much dead after the prototypes were built, and resurrect it would mean almost starting from scrap again, something that no one has the will or money to do.
And anyway, it would be done for battlefield-cargo roles, at the most.
Liger30About the MASC requirement, if the Osprey is unsuitable owing to pressurisation issues what is the feasibility of reviving this project or building something based on it? It would also solve the Russian Navy’s future needs in this area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12
A V22 based MASC has been envisioned already, and the hypothesis never really was ruled out, but it is higly unlikely to happen.
The Cerberus radar suite has some chances to end up on a V22 Osprey only if the american special forces or marines see the Sea King 7 in action as tactical AWACS in afghanistan and find it impressive enough to think about making their own tactical radar planes. Not impossible, but again, unlikely.
Anyway you can learn about that in the awesome Richard Beedal’s Navy Matters website: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm
Sign In
