Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
kk,
But the production line is still going to have to be re-tooled in addition to the redesign, not to mention the redesign of the CVF to take CTOL fighters. I'm not sure its worth the cash IMO.
Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout
- Thread starter zeven
- Start date
But the production line is still going to have to be re-tooled in addition to the redesign, not to mention the redesign of the CVF to take CTOL fighters. I'm not sure its worth the cash IMO.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Not sure? I'm sure. Sure that it isn't worth the cash.
Let's assume for the moment that the Treasury forces the cancellation of the F-35B buy. The RN is forced to go CTOL, & the UK buys all 232 Typhoons, to escape paying the penalties. Can't export them without penalty, costs a fortune & takes a long time to redesign to Sea Typhoon. What to do?
Herewith a modest proposal -
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Once you earmark 72 for the Carriers (6 squadrons of 12), another 12-20 for the OCU, you are talking ~90 Aircraft, leaving 48 left. Those 48 would most likely be used as rotating attrition replacements to increase airframe life.
Basically, and feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but enough aircraft have been projected to do either the RN's role or the RAF's role, but not both simultaneously.
Last edited:
PeterCrisp
Member
Call me insane if you like but I don't see the point in pulling out of a project we have already spent £2.5 Billion on. Maybe they will cut the order but I just can't see any point in letting all that much money just go to waste.
Of course there's the cost of training at least 36 pilots if not more for the air wing plus the 4 E2's X2 and all the training for the ground crew for the arrestors and the Cats all of which would be very expensive
If money is tight in the UK do we really need a VSTOL Harrier replacement in the form of F35B? Just make do with the Typhoon.
I hate to say it but it doesnt look like the carriers will be overstocked with F35's in any case.
Does Typhoon have to cost the earth to Navalise? Im a technophobe, but why would it cost so much? Could you stick the radar and engines of typhoon into Rafale? How much would a token 3x12 Rafale buy cost with a joint French OCU, pool some airframes and if a Nato mission why couldnt our carriers carry french Rafales and/or EC2's. I know its french but so is Aster/Sylver etc. Yes Rafale might not be the best but in the next 20-30 years it should be able to deal with expected threats and we already have Typhoon and will have Taranis etc etc. Joint carrier crew training with the old enemy??
You want stealthy Strike? Could they not extend the range of Storm Shadow. Will Taranis do the job of billions of £s worth of F35? I thought the whole idea of the F35 was that it was cheap? If it isnt then we would have been better begging for F22'S.
I hate to say it but it doesnt look like the carriers will be overstocked with F35's in any case.
Does Typhoon have to cost the earth to Navalise? Im a technophobe, but why would it cost so much? Could you stick the radar and engines of typhoon into Rafale? How much would a token 3x12 Rafale buy cost with a joint French OCU, pool some airframes and if a Nato mission why couldnt our carriers carry french Rafales and/or EC2's. I know its french but so is Aster/Sylver etc. Yes Rafale might not be the best but in the next 20-30 years it should be able to deal with expected threats and we already have Typhoon and will have Taranis etc etc. Joint carrier crew training with the old enemy??
You want stealthy Strike? Could they not extend the range of Storm Shadow. Will Taranis do the job of billions of £s worth of F35? I thought the whole idea of the F35 was that it was cheap? If it isnt then we would have been better begging for F22'S.
Catapults are not cheap, nor are arrestor wires, the life time cost of the ship goes up because you have keep repairing them and you would need to train additional crew members on operation and maintenance.
Then you have to train your crews on landing on a carrier and keep them trained, again not as cheap as you'd think.
You'd have to reengineer the wings so they can fold (unless you would be willing to sacrifice the numbers of planes carried on your now more expensive CVF), you would have to add a lot of weight to strengthen the entire plane to take the abuse of a carrier landing, the landing gear would have to be strengthened, adding yet more weight then you'd have to go through the entire process of making the entire thing salt-proof or it will corrode and your electrical equipment would short.
Basically you'd be buying a new plane, a plane that only the UK would be interested in and would have to spend all of its own money on development.
Not without major redesigns.
It is cheap, cheaper than developing a similar program on your own. The article is just sensationalism.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is extremely hard to navalise a land based fighter lie the Eurofighter that was never designed to or even considered to take off from an aircraft carrier. The structure has to be reinforced for the tremendous forces occurring with the use of catapults and the hard landings and sudden stops caused buy arresting wires. The whole aircraft has to have its materials changed to combat corrosion that comes with being at sea. Large wings and control surfaces will also be required to help with the low speed landings. A folding mechanism will be required to be incorporated into the design to lower the spot area of the EF. That with the bigger wing neccecitates a wing redesign to incorporate the heavy wing folding mechanism and large wing. Extra fuel tanks will be required as naval aircraft require greater margins of error in range and emergency fuel, as there airstrip is constantly moving and there is no ground to land on in an emergency.
A navalised Eurofighter will be heavy with more drag from the wings and control surfaces.
All of that was just to make he EF carrier capable. The British then have to add catapults on the their ships as well as arresting wires and extra stations and personnel to help guide and manage the aircraft during take off and landing.
On the other hand the F-35B will have been designed from the outset for naval operations. The RN wont have to change its personnel structure or modify its current and future carriers as the F-35B would operate much the same as the Harrier but with the performance the RN wants. And the F-35B has stealth. Something the EF-2000 will never have no matter what they say about it.
Navalising the EF would be fool hardy and above all expensive.
It would be cheaper to buy the F-35B as it fits within the RN's current doctrine rather then them having to change there doctrine to fit the Navalised version of the EF.
If the EF does get navalised it would stink of the F-111B as far as i am concerned and that aircraft diddn't manage to make it through testing before it was cancelled.
A navalised Eurofighter will be heavy with more drag from the wings and control surfaces.
All of that was just to make he EF carrier capable. The British then have to add catapults on the their ships as well as arresting wires and extra stations and personnel to help guide and manage the aircraft during take off and landing.
On the other hand the F-35B will have been designed from the outset for naval operations. The RN wont have to change its personnel structure or modify its current and future carriers as the F-35B would operate much the same as the Harrier but with the performance the RN wants. And the F-35B has stealth. Something the EF-2000 will never have no matter what they say about it.
Navalising the EF would be fool hardy and above all expensive.
It would be cheaper to buy the F-35B as it fits within the RN's current doctrine rather then them having to change there doctrine to fit the Navalised version of the EF.
If the EF does get navalised it would stink of the F-111B as far as i am concerned and that aircraft diddn't manage to make it through testing before it was cancelled.
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I have a hard time beveling that the Tranch 3 non avionic changes would be comparable to navalizing the platform. You do need to make the whole thing corrosion resistant.
Realistically if this option was taken i think off the shelf F/A-18F's would be on the books, rather than "build your own" naval strike fighter. I guarantee it would be cheaper.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #32
Sorry, that i havent posted my persnal opinion yet.
however, my opinion is quite obvious, Stick with the JSF program and purchase F-35B anything els would be foolish, not to mention expensive.
like Aussie Digger says.
adjust a landbased weaponplatform to a naval version, is easier said than done.
the only realistc option except F-35B would be either Rafale M or Superhornet, but i think we all know that never will happen.
however, my opinion is quite obvious, Stick with the JSF program and purchase F-35B anything els would be foolish, not to mention expensive.
like Aussie Digger says.
adjust a landbased weaponplatform to a naval version, is easier said than done.
the only realistc option except F-35B would be either Rafale M or Superhornet, but i think we all know that never will happen.
It is'nt 'extremely hard' to navalize a land based fighter.
Sukhoi did exactly that with Su-27, and voila: a lethal Su-33, the best carrier based interceptor in the world today.
It would have some serious merit to share so much commonality among the nations aircraft.
Sukhoi did exactly that with Su-27, and voila: a lethal Su-33, the best carrier based interceptor in the world today.
It would have some serious merit to share so much commonality among the nations aircraft.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One might wish to take another look at the Su-27/33 Flanker-D and both how that aircraft is intended to operate in the Russian Navy/Naval Aviation and the design gestation.
AFAIK first flight of the Flanker-D was achieved in 1985, but did not enter service until 1994, some nine years later. Granted the political and economic upheaval that occurred in the Soviet Union and then Russia would certainly have delayed the entry into service, but those events still did not happen until about five years after first flight. Also, it would have taken some design work to adapt the Su-27 design sufficiently for the prototype, which means the program would have started prior to 1985. What I have read suggests that the project started perhaps in the 1982-1983 timeframe. In essence, the program from concept to entry into service took about ten years, which sounds about right to me for such an undertaking. Applying that to modification of the Typhoon for carrier service, if that was started now, then naval Typhoons would likely be entering service in the 2018 timeframe. By coincidence, the F-35 JSF is to enter service on or before that time as well...
The other thing to look at, is that the Flanker-D is designed to operate from a Russian carrier with a ski jump, not a catapult system. The effect this has is to eliminate the stresses a catapult system can put onto an airframe, requiring less reinforcement. OTOH by using a ski jump instead of a catapult for a regular vs. STO/VL jet is that the MTOW is reduced until the MTOW is already very low. Effectively the Flanker-D cannot take off from a Russian carrier with a full warload and fuel, therefore restricting operational range and capabilities.
If the RN & RAF did decide to change to using a navalised Typhoon then both the aircraft and ship would have to be redesigned so that the two can operate together.
With that in mind, it would likely increase the programme costs for both the ships and their aircraft complement, as well as delay the in-service dates for both. Some how I do not imagine that is something that appeals to the MoD.
-Cheers
The other problem is that the Su-33 is not a very good airplane at that. It's the equivalent of a baseline Su-27S. Adequate for it's time, it was really a "next-best thing" approach when choosing between it and the MiG-29K (the original MiG-29K). Again the program took a long time, and was probably quite expensive (though probably not as expensive as designing a carrier-based fighter from scratch). And like it's been said, it's operating capabilities are restricted.
John Sansom
New Member
This is a great and illuminating discussion....illuminating for me at any rate. However, my concern is that terms like "least expensive" and "conditionally most effective" are becoming the key criteria in this and other defence expenditures. Gordon Brown and other western leaders are no longer asking questions about "the best bang for the buck" but, rather, are there enough bucks to produce even a fizzle?
a Serchwarter Radar is the most plasterer being mounted from the ramp for the V22 rather than Erieye which would be a bit large
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #39
i'm not so sure, if they go threw with it, take the tranche 3 and convert it for naval use, they will give you quite alot bang too
no, i believe this is all politics.
" October 1, 2008, 11:23 am
Conservative U.K. Leaders Rethinking ‘Special Relationship’ with U.S.
Alistair MacDonald reports from Birmingham, England on politics.
-----------------
In what could be a sign of things to come, one of Britain’s biggest champions for “the special relationship” between the U.K. and the U.S. believes it should be recalibrated.
“It’s got to be a partnership that works. It’s got to have benefits on both sides,” said Liam Fox in an interview at his party’s annual conference in Birmingham.
Fox, the opposition Conservative Party’s defense spokesman, says that much hinges on how negotiations on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter continue.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/1...nship-with-us/ "
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #40
AND
... more bad news
Italy not to join F-35 test phase
According to the Dutch State Secretary for Defence.
http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?id=27948
... more bad news
Italy not to join F-35 test phase
According to the Dutch State Secretary for Defence.
http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?id=27948