The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

I can't stand that QE Facebook page, it's absolutely full of meatheads who're still moaning that we're not getting 2 CATOBAR CVFs and that we're going to be meaningless as a navy because of the "short range inferior F35B" which is "American Junk".

That's the typical sort of garbage I see on there, that and the whole "We should buy F-18/Rafale/Gripen" nonsense.

The updates are helpful, but it's saturated with people who know nothing.

 

[Cailet]

I can't stand that QE Facebook page, it's absolutely full of meatheads who're still moaning that we're not getting 2 CATOBAR CVFs and that we're going to be meaningless as a navy because of the "short range inferior F35B".

I'm still doing that. From my (admittedly amateur) perspective, while the F-35B is an excellent aircraft and the F-35C wouldn't offer any crucial capability upgrade - I get that range isn't everything and we don't use many 2000lb class munitions - we still lose out in several areas.

a) maintenance - the B version's lift fan as I understand it means a significant (not necessarily huge but still notable) increase in hangar time, parts costs and all that fun stuff. For a force with a limited number of aircraft that seems problematic. How it compares with maintaining a CATOBAR rig I also don't know, maybe the costs and risks actually mitigate in favour of the B version but I can't imagine either wins by a large margin.

b) gold-plating - the RAF doesn't need the STOVL capability but they're still stuck with the STOVL version and shouldering the maintenance burden to no real benefit in their role or the UK ends up with a split fleet with the RAF going for A's instead, losing the FAA/RAF synergy and splitting a small fleet of aircraft. Again, hardly ideal.

c) future carrier aircraft for the UK must now be STOVL unless we want to build another set of carriers or conduct big expensive refits. We may not be limiting our current options too badly but any future design must factor in the inherent limitations (payload, maintenance, etc.) and essentially we have to hope the USMC wants the same types of UCAV as we're interested in at any given moment or we have to do expensive, short-run productions of bespoke platforms to fill the decks.

Fundamentally it feels like we've painted ourselves into a corner. The C seems like it was a more flexible aircraft in terms of how we would be able to build our future forces around it and better suited to building a joint fleet with the RAF as we did with the F-4 in former times.

As I say, this is entirely amateur speculation but if I'm wrong I'd at least like to know how and why.

 

[t68]

I'm still doing that. From my (admittedly amateur) perspective, while the F-35B is an excellent aircraft and the F-35C wouldn't offer any crucial capability upgrade - I get that range isn't everything and we don't use many 2000lb class munitions - we still lose out in several areas.

a) maintenance - the B version's lift fan as I understand it means a significant (not necessarily huge but still notable) increase in hangar time, parts costs and all that fun stuff. For a force with a limited number of aircraft that seems problematic. How it compares with maintaining a CATOBAR rig I also don't know, maybe the costs and risks actually mitigate in favour of the B version but I can't imagine either wins by a large margin.

b) gold-plating - the RAF doesn't need the STOVL capability but they're still stuck with the STOVL version and shouldering the maintenance burden to no real benefit in their role or the UK ends up with a split fleet with the RAF going for A's instead, losing the FAA/RAF synergy and splitting a small fleet of aircraft. Again, hardly ideal.

c) future carrier aircraft for the UK must now be STOVL unless we want to build another set of carriers or conduct big expensive refits. We may not be limiting our current options too badly but any future design must factor in the inherent limitations (payload, maintenance, etc.) and essentially we have to hope the USMC wants the same types of UCAV as we're interested in at any given moment or we have to do expensive, short-run productions of bespoke platforms to fill the decks.

Fundamentally it feels like we've painted ourselves into a corner. The C seems like it was a more flexible aircraft in terms of how we would be able to build our future forces around it and better suited to building a joint fleet with the RAF as we did with the F-4 in former times.

As I say, this is entirely amateur speculation but if I'm wrong I'd at least like to know how and why.

I was unaware that the RAF was getting their mites on the A version, would make $$ sence if you only get 72 B for the CV all for the FAA.With the RN only getting the 2 CV and 1 available at all times if the 2015 SDR has its way.

I believe the STOVL aircraft was the way to go. Yes the C model will give you more range and higher load out and the flexibility to pick and chose which AEW platform you wished. But the CV will also be your main staging platform when Ocean retires, in future years a combination of F35B/UCAV and helicopters the CV is a good multi role platform with aircraft able to perform differently from they way the RAF operates.

The maintenance aspect is an interesting one which would be more cost effective in the long term, but the flexibility of the aircraft might outweight the negatives compared to a cat and trap set up in a doctrine analysis.

 

[ASSAIL]

I was unaware that the RAF was getting their mites on the A version, would make $$ sence if you only get 72 B for the CV all for the FAA.With the RN only getting the 2 CV and 1 available at all times if the 2015 SDR has its way.

I believe the STOVL aircraft was the way to go. Yes the C model will give you more range and higher load out and the flexibility to pick and chose which AEW platform you wished. But the CV will also be your main staging platform when Ocean retires, in future years a combination of F35B/UCAV and helicopters the CV is a good multi role platform with aircraft able to perform differently from they way the RAF operates.

The maintenance aspect is an interesting one which would be more cost effective in the long term, but the flexibility of the aircraft might outweight the negatives compared to a cat and trap set up in a doctrine analysis.

I haven't heard or read of any cost benefit study on the difference between the B for CV ops and the C with cats and wires.
I do imagine that the initial cost of installing cats n' wires is not inconsequential x 2 and the ongoing costs of arrester crews/machineryand wire maintenance and catapault crewing and maintenance over the life of the ships could possibly outweigh the extra maintenance costs of the f 35B

 

[Cailet]

I was unaware that the RAF was getting their mites on the A version, would make $$ sence if you only get 72 B for the CV all for the FAA.With the RN only getting the 2 CV and 1 available at all times if the 2015 SDR has its way.

I don't know what version the RAF will ultimately get, only that if they do get F-35 (and why wouldn't they?) the B version is unlikely to be their ideal choice. It depends how badly they want it but they've got more space to make a public argument against the B than they would have against the C.

I'm presuming here that the planned way forward is to have the RAF and FAA co-operate closely with their aircraft fleets able to be switched from land to carrier operations as the need arises. If the FAA are going to have 70+ B's and the RAF gets a large number of A's then maybe it works out fine but I was expecting the UK collectively to have a relatively small fleet (~100 is a number I'm sure I've seen somewhere) that would swap between ship and shore to maximise their use.

 

[1805]

I don't know what version the RAF will ultimately get, only that if they do get F-35 (and why wouldn't they?) the B version is unlikely to be their ideal choice. It depends how badly they want it but they've got more space to make a public argument against the B than they would have against the C.

I'm presuming here that the planned way forward is to have the RAF and FAA co-operate closely with their aircraft fleets able to be switched from land to carrier operations as the need arises. If the FAA are going to have 70+ B's and the RAF gets a large number of A's then maybe it works out fine but I was expecting the UK collectively to have a relatively small fleet (~100 is a number I'm sure I've seen somewhere) that would swap between ship and shore to maximise their use.

Why do the RAF need any F35, if the initial fleet is c48, it makes sense for them to stay with the FAA. To maximise the value of the "B" the RN should look at forward basing (similar to what was do in Afghanistan)

I think the RN should also look to finance a small fleet of say 6 P8s (with Storm Shadow or like) from maybe giving up 2-3 type 23/26. But it should operate them in the FAA....otherwise the RAF will just drop them the next time there is a threat to their fast jets.

 

[swerve]

The FAA doesn't have the manpower to operate 48 F-35. It would need a transfer of personnel from the RAF. Nor do I think it has a base it could operate them from, without expensive works.

Ditto for P-8. The FAA would have to start from scratch.

The RN does not have the budgetary control to cancel a couple of Type 26 & spend the money on P-8s. That is determined at MoD level.

I don't know what version the RAF will ultimately get, only that if they do get F-35 (and why wouldn't they?) the B version is unlikely to be their ideal choice. It depends how badly they want it but they've got more space to make a public argument against the B than they would have against the C.

I'm presuming here that the planned way forward is to have the RAF and FAA co-operate closely with their aircraft fleets able to be switched from land to carrier operations as the need arises. If the FAA are going to have 70+ B's and the RAF gets a large number of A's then maybe it works out fine but I was expecting the UK collectively to have a relatively small fleet (~100 is a number I'm sure I've seen somewhere) that would swap between ship and shore to maximise their use.

The highlighted part is correct. The original planning assumption was 150, later reduced to 138. That hasn't been publicly dropped, but may not be achieved. The current public figure is an initial buy of 48, with an unspecified additional number to be bought later.

The plan is (& has been, for many years: there is no hint of it being reconsidered) for there to be a joint F-35 force, as there was a joint Harrier force. All the aircraft will be the same type: otherwise a joint force makes no sense. Since we are getting STOVL carriers, they must be F-35B. There should be a core of fully-skilled naval aviators, able to be reinforced aboard ships by RAF crews, as in the Falklands. Carrier qualification is meant to be relatively easy for F-35B, easier even than Harrier.

 

[StobieWan]

I'd read that the permanent under sec for defence had stated "three figures" at some point - and F35 will be in production for decades so it's certainly possible to buy more.

WRT to giving the B to the FAA alone, they'd then have to find the ground crew to maintain and repair them or fork out for RAF staff. The reason JFH made sense before was that the FAA is a small organisation with little staff and it was easier to get RAF staff embarked on board to work on the aircraft than have two training streams etc.

Basically for the size of the fleet involved, it's hard to justify the RN dishing out stacks of cash to duplicate a capability.

 

[RobWilliams]

In regards to the mixed fleet, one of my frequent FOI request I sent off, I asked about the potential of the buy and the reply I got the following

1. The UK continually reviews its capability requirements. The UK has committed to the F35-B programme to deliver the aircraft component of its carrier Strike capability. It is possible that future combat air requirements/needs may be delivered by different variants of the JSF.

It was done in the same tranche as the one which ended up getting me what munitions the UK expects for the F35B to field when it hits IOC; PW IV, AMRAAM & ASRAAM.

Indeed Stobie, I can't recall who said it, but it was definitely that 100+ were still the numbers being thrown around in the MOD, it'll be one of the many things we'll find out in 2015 :roll

 

[StobieWan]

This could easily go into the RAF or the F35 section but I guess since it's under discussion right now in the RN section, here it is - opinion piece by the ever industrious Anglophile Gabriele on ThinkDefence.

UK Armed Forces Commentary: Combat Air situation: the F35

Covers some of the F35 twists and turns on getting them armed and into service. Ignore the comments section, they make my eyes bleed.


Interesting bit on ASRAAM integration however.

 

[RobWilliams]

Oho, don't mix Gabriele up with the author of ThinkDefence, they don't get along

The whole thing about trying to get quad ASRAAM for internal carriage was bloody bonkers made worse by not actually planning to fund it for the wingtip pylons, thankfully common sense won the day.

But it's interesting to see a more detailed loadout, AMRAAM and Paveway IV internal and AMRAAM/ASRAAM external initially.

Then of course, the issue of the gunpods, don't expect to see any of these purchased for a while most probably.

 

[kev 99]

Then of course, the issue of the gunpods, don't expect to see any of these purchased for a while most probably.

That would be a bloody stupid move fully worthy of the MOD.

 

[RobWilliams]

100% agreed, but they did the same with Typhoon & didn't they do the same with Harrier too? They'll leave it for a while, short term savings and all that.

Considering the sort of roles she's expected to play for the RN, i'm mainly thinking of CAS here, that pod could come in handy, considering I think that's all the centreline station is for?

 

[kev 99]

100% agreed, but they did the same with Typhoon & didn't they do the same with Harrier too? They'll leave it for a while, short term savings and all that.

Considering the sort of roles she's expected to play for the RN, i'm mainly thinking of CAS here, that pod could come in handy, considering I think that's all the centreline station is for?

Yes, as far as I'm aware it can't carry anything else and if you are doing CAS then you want a gun.

Since it's a pd I'm thinking that the MOD could buy just buy a small number and rotate them around the fleet, surely though that would just be too sensible.........

 

[StobieWan]

If you're wanting to go guns on target, I'm suspecting that ringing in your ears is the 1990's wanting their frag plan back.

Seriously, I know it's a very nice 25mm cannon but if you can hang a couple of pods of FASGW rockets off the wings with some paveway, where does guns fit in most days of the week? JFH apparently did a sterling job in 'Ghan with no gun, how much did the Tornado use their guns ? Not at all?

 

[StevoJH]

If you're wanting to go guns on target, I'm suspecting that ringing in your ears is the 1990's wanting their frag plan back.

Seriously, I know it's a very nice 25mm cannon but if you can hang a couple of pods of FASGW rockets off the wings with some paveway, where does guns fit in most days of the week? JFH apparently did a sterling job in 'Ghan with no gun, how much did the Tornado use their guns ? Not at all?

I'd be more interested in the guns for air-to-air work. Missiles don't always hit.

 

[StobieWan]

I'd be more interested in the guns for air-to-air work. Missiles don't always hit.

Neither do cannon shells...given one of the benefits of a gun is that it's "always there" - which won't be the case with the pod, I'd seriously question the point of buying the gun pod, training with it and handling the overheads. Put the money towards meteor integration or buddy buddy refuelling, ASAC, CEC, all the stuff we could seriously use.

 

[1805]

In regards to the mixed fleet, one of my frequent FOI request I sent off, I asked about the potential of the buy and the reply I got the following



It was done in the same tranche as the one which ended up getting me what munitions the UK expects for the F35B to field when it hits IOC; PW IV, AMRAAM & ASRAAM.

Indeed Stobie, I can't recall who said it, but it was definitely that 100+ were still the numbers being thrown around in the MOD, it'll be one of the many things we'll find out in 2015 :roll

I can easily see there being additional orders of F35, taking the total over 100, but at the expense of the remaining Tornados, whether this would then lead to a change in model to the A (which I thought was more in the Typhoon space anyway). I think its time the deep strike role was replaced with missiles.

 

[swerve]

1) The published plan is still for all F-35s bought to be of the same type.
2) There won't be any remaining Tornados. Under current plans, the last Tornado will retire while the first batch of F-35B is entering service.

There is therefore no path to replacing Tornado by F-35A. Tornado will be replaced by F-35B, & integrating the air-ground weapons of Tornado (e.g. Storm Shadow) on Typhoon.

I think we're likely to get UAVs for deep strike eventually.

 

[swerve]

Yes, as far as I'm aware it can't carry anything else and if you are doing CAS then you want a gun.

Fixed-wing CAS seems to be overwhelmingly done from medium altitude with PGMs nowadays. Air forces don't like putting $100 million fast jets down in all the small-calibre gunfire & MANPADS, just to get one small cannon into the fight.