benroethigThe USMC has already switched from all B to a mix of B & C, reducing the number of Bs. The Cs will be flown from carriers, the Bs from LHDs & shore bases. I don’t see it going any further along that road, since it wants to be able to deploy LHD-based aircraft ashore, & operate from short land strips in expeditionary warfare, & that means B. The Cs are purely for carrier ops, & might as well be USN-crewed as USMC.
Depending on how things go budget wise, you might see the Naval component of JSF cut entirely in favor of upgraded Super Hornets. Boeing’s International roadmap kit fits the Block IIs.
benroethigSame reason as we call some of our other transports C-130s, we used to call some of our fighters F-4s, etc. The USA is unusual in insisting on renaming everything it buys from abroad, e.g. M777, AV-8, B-57, HH-65, HC-144.
Doh! I forgot the E-3s! And that the standard fit for the A330 MRTT includes a receptacle.
Phantoms became Phantoms FG.1 and so forth, the E-3D is Sentry AEW.1, and the C-130Js are Hercules C.4/5. Using the US military designations were colloquial. The C-17 were leased USAF aircraft originally, but its really unusual they were officially inducted as Globemaster C.1.
Would the addition of a boom require major structural modifications or is it just a case of bolting it on?
Adding ARBS should be rather simple considering all the other conversion work would be done. Qantas is doing the boom installation for the RAAF in Oz.
benroethignow that the US Army isn’t getting its C27’s:(, maybe BAe can sell some to the Yanks for the same role;)
Not going to happen. The relationship between the Army and Air Force is pretty much akin to the RAF and the FAA. They Air Force will operate some missions vital to the Army just so the Army doesn’t have fixed wing aircraft, then try to retire or cancel the program every chance they get.
benroethigBasically when it comes down to it, they don’t want to play i this space, but they don’t want their old mother service to do it either.
benroethigNo chance of them entering service BEFORE 2020.
The government would already be happy if the 2020 date was effectively met: there are worries that it might not be met. This, at most, could be the concern.Meanwhile, i’m trying to get an idea of costs of the B and C. I’m writing an article on the F35 issue for my blog right now, and here are some of the considerations i’m dealing with:
The problem with the B is the engine: judging from LRIP 5 contract, a single STOVL propulsion plant comes at 129 million dollars or more against 27 for the engine of a C.
The airframe of the C costs more.
However:
– these contracts are confusing like hell
– the contract includes unspecified instrumentation peculiar to test and development
– LRIP 5 includes just 3 B engines to spread costs upon, distorting the dataThe 3 F35B the UK has already ordered cost 389 million pounds, some 129.6 million pounds each all inclusive, in 2010. That made for 632 million USD at the time.
LRIP 5 costs are estimated at 235.8 USD million for a C and 291.7 USD millions, with the engine of the B being the main cause of the difference in cost, but both figures are heavy with the costs typical of pre-production aircrafts.
The A in LRIP 5 costs 172 millions, but LM has promised to Japan that in 2015 they will pay 126 USD million for their own F35A.
That’s a very substantial difference, and the other two variants should also see their cost dropping significantly.The problems are:
– I fear no one has a clear idea of which variant will cost more to run through life. Probably the C, looking at the current balance of cost between CATOBAR, the naval aviation of who’s got money, and STOVL operations at sea. But by how much will the C eventually overcome the B’s cost?
Actually, I’d say the B would cost more during its lifespan. The C takes a pounding landing, but the B has a lot of complex moving parts that are going to require a lot of maintenance to keep it running.
benroethigMy own feeling is that if we go back to F35b then the carriers will never see another fixed wing aircraft on deck, they will be scrapped as soon as F35b goes out of service with no chance of them ever being converted.
Agree about the MOD not wanting to pay costs upfront, it’s why we’re saddled with FSTA! this is a similar situation; pay the money out in smaller bundles on aircraft instead of spending it up front on the carriers.
Yep, you’ll see the RAF propose the cheapest solution of all, abandon carrier strike. (of flying F-35A/Cs from land bases will cost far more in tanking, but the British political class isn’t smart enough to be able to factor in associated costs)
Of course the conversion cost covers a lot of voices, not just catapults themselves and the work for fitting them, but this, really, makes little difference.
1.8 billion or 2 billions is an amount i hoped would get BOTH carriers converted to catapults.
This not being the case, it becomes a cost unacceptable.This is the real huge elephant in the room. I quote you entirely.
If Labour had not delayed 405 millions of expense in 2008, the carriers would currently cost 1.56 billion less, NAO certified.
I do not think there’s much else to say. The figures speak on their own.This is the real risk and regret.
I don’t think the UK would have bought the US UCAV in any case, but i had hopes for the 2030 Anglo-French UCAV and maybe even for the 2020’s MALE drone to be carrier capable.With a STOVL carrier, this opportunity vanishes.
I also believe that the F35B is BOUND to cost more to maintain and run in the long term than F35C, but CATOBAR ops carry a training penality with them, and associated costs. It is for the ministry to look at the data and determine which penalty is going to be financially heavier.
Actually There’s going to a larger training penalty with the F-35B too for rolling landings. Dumping large amounts of fuel and weapons into the sea (it can land vertically with basically a light internal load on no fuel. All external loads would have to be dumped) to do harrier style vertical landings every time would be very expensive and require considerable resources to keep the ship resupplied.
Why are we even talking about the E2?
There’s going to be a bunch of airframes with life left in them available on the cheap with the E-2Ds being all new builds. The oldest block of charlie Hawkeye is a giant leap in terms of capability compared to an AEW Merlin with the newest systems.
benroethigWell of course Japan could amend the constitution. But where would the benefit be? Japan isn’t going to develop nuclear weapons or build large numbers of long-range missiles with conventional warheads. So does the constitution as drafted really limit Japanese defence policy? I don’t know that it does. Sure, Japan sometimes likes to dress things like helicopter carriers up as “helicopter destroyers”, but that’s no biggie.
Of more consequence are the self-imposed rules that Japan has on defence policy, such as how its military should be operated. These are not reliant on the constitution. Previously Japan had a lot of regulations that restricted things like who could order a military response, what that response could be, etc. These have been relaxed in recent times. They might be relaxed again (I’m not sure exactly what they’re like right now).
I think that’s a rather cynical view of Japanese politics/diplomacy. Japan doesn’t need the US’ permission. The issue is that it’s unlikely Japan would feel the need to remove Article 9 unless the US also felt that it was somehow necessary because the two countries are so closely allied.
A more significant roadblock at the moment is Japanese opinion. Plus the simple fact that Japan doesn’t gain anything by amending the constitution and it could just be used by countries like China as an excuse to adopt a more aggressive posture.
Yeah, if the Japanese wanted to get rid of article 9, it would be a non-issue here. They’ve more than proven themselves a trustworthy ally the last six and a half decades.
Any top view pleas.i would like to see lay out.I Don’t like the lay out of the Q.E. Class as it doesn’t allow for launch and recovery at the same time.
That is what happens when inexperienced CVF designers lay out the flight deck. If the bow cat was on the port side, you could launch and recover at the same time. From drawings posted earlier, I do not think the Japanese made that mistake.
Simultaneous launch and recovery is never ever used operationally. Actual carrier ops happen in cycles.
benroethigAnd by 48, its more like the year 48 than 1948. They hated each other well before Judaism and Islam showed up.
benroethigWhy would Japan buy ships from UK when they are capable of building them on their own?
They wouldn’t. They take “made in Japan” very seriously.
So, Japan could convert its F-35 order to C’s and order the Typhoon, or, this might explain the decision to go with the F-35
A) That would add another maintenance chain
B) Buying both F-35As and Cs would make the unit price cheaper
C) Typhoon was rejected because its a 4th generation design. Against the 5th generation designs under development for China and Russian, Typhoon is already obsolete and Japan is right next door to both.
benroethigIt’s about the same length as a CVF.
Its ever so slightly bigger.
benroethigThere is also the possibility for buddy refueling to take some of the strain from the tankers, since only a small part of the air force will actually be in the strike packages.
Not in this case. They don’t use probe and drogue refueling.
benroethigWhat tankers does Israel have?
I don’t think Netanyahu can count on Obama’s support.
4-8 KC-707s.
Several Boeing 707s, bought second hand & modified locally, & some KC-130s.
KC-130s can only refuel helicopters though since the IAF uses boom and receptacle refueling.
benroethighey hey lets not generalize all Euro-partnerships are bad..
The Merlin seems pretty decent, yeah there’s some issues but most operators seem content with it
so too the Turko-Italian Mangusta.. nothing bad yet
or the Haguar!but NH-90 yes.. its not just one thing but i’ve read many things… such as its weight, the door issue, the floor issue, seating issues, price issues..
Tiger, yes.. i hear many things about how late it is, and its lack of integration with weapon systems.
maybe its not a partnership issue in general.. its an issue with partnering with Germans? 😮
I think its more the equal partnerships with no real lead and the european attitude towards defense spending. With a lot of these weapon systems, the partner nations are taking a “if we wait, maybe the other nations will pay for this” approach. As a result, you have some programs that were flawed in their design compromises and other like the Typhoon which have 90s era systems that don’t meet airframe performance.
benroethigNH-90’s problem was two fold
1) It required to major competitors working together
2) It tried to bite off more than it could chew in trying to replace both intermediate like the Blackhawk/Seahawk and the medium helicopters.
benroethigItalian Yak also won in Israel, nice!
Also has a shot at winning T-X (which would go up dramatically if they did a version with F125s)
Sign In
