The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Yes, the JSF is falling a bit behind, and has been delayed a year. But one should expect some delay in a new program especially with this much new technology involved. Possibly a year or two delay, but I am not expecting several years of delays.
Or several years to fix any problems of the program either. So far the most significant delay has been with the overweight problems with the B versions, which by the way was satisfied within a year quoting the GAO.
The GAO wants to delay the program again, knowing full well any delays will most likely increase the costs. But in the GAO's mind, fixing problems before building solves more economic risk later.
Lately, the testing program has fallen behind, as noted by the GAO. However, Lockheed expects to catch up eventually with using more aircraft for the tests.
I think the program has reached the point where its time to plow ahead, and fix whatever problems when they appear on the go. What do others think?
Its not as if these problems are high mountain peaks, there more like little molehills. This is after all a twenty year program, we won't have to rebuild any fixes with every aircraft.
I haven't a clue whether which will be later, the carrier or the aircraft. They are expected to be finished about the same time, within a year or two. Surely the old carriers and the old Harriers can last just a bit longer.
But you can rest assured that the Lightning II B versions won't fry the aircraft carrier deck. Turned out people's fears were just that, fears. The aircraft has proven to be much safer in this regard than the old Harriers. Wouldn't it be great if both the carriers and the aircraft arrived at the same time, some six months earlier?
Dream on, I ain't holding my breathe. But we can still dream!
Or several years to fix any problems of the program either. So far the most significant delay has been with the overweight problems with the B versions, which by the way was satisfied within a year quoting the GAO.
The GAO wants to delay the program again, knowing full well any delays will most likely increase the costs. But in the GAO's mind, fixing problems before building solves more economic risk later.
Lately, the testing program has fallen behind, as noted by the GAO. However, Lockheed expects to catch up eventually with using more aircraft for the tests.
I think the program has reached the point where its time to plow ahead, and fix whatever problems when they appear on the go. What do others think?
Its not as if these problems are high mountain peaks, there more like little molehills. This is after all a twenty year program, we won't have to rebuild any fixes with every aircraft.
I haven't a clue whether which will be later, the carrier or the aircraft. They are expected to be finished about the same time, within a year or two. Surely the old carriers and the old Harriers can last just a bit longer.
But you can rest assured that the Lightning II B versions won't fry the aircraft carrier deck. Turned out people's fears were just that, fears. The aircraft has proven to be much safer in this regard than the old Harriers. Wouldn't it be great if both the carriers and the aircraft arrived at the same time, some six months earlier?
Dream on, I ain't holding my breathe. But we can still dream!
Last edited:
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,624
you,re totally right, better to delay 2 or 3 years the cvf and get the much needed 7 and 8 type 45,s
Unfortunately, the UK has already stated buying long lead items for the carrier. So why not build them as quickly as possible to keep their price low? Paying storage fees for equipment already built is not my idea of keeping their price low.
Plus its a good idea to stretch out shipbuilding programs, buying a few ship and waiting a few years to buy some more of the same ships. Why not wait a few years to order more destroyers, there is a very good chance there might be a few upgrades developed, which by delaying you will get for free newer models.
The logic of waiting a few years works the same either for the carriers or the destroyers!
Plus its a good idea to stretch out shipbuilding programs, buying a few ship and waiting a few years to buy some more of the same ships. Why not wait a few years to order more destroyers, there is a very good chance there might be a few upgrades developed, which by delaying you will get for free newer models.
The logic of waiting a few years works the same either for the carriers or the destroyers!
Hey all totally unrelated but i thought i would post anyway. I have already applied to the royal australian navy but im also looking into my options with the royal navy as i am eleigible for a duel passport
the few questions that i have is is it hard to get into seman specialist or communications as they are the areas im interested in. Also would it be ok for me as an australian to join. Are there a long waiting list for these jobs?
thanks in advance for any replies
the few questions that i have is is it hard to get into seman specialist or communications as they are the areas im interested in. Also would it be ok for me as an australian to join. Are there a long waiting list for these jobs?
thanks in advance for any replies
Delaying the CVF will most likely increase costs and to much delay and cost increase could see the project cancelled. I would rather push on with the CVF's get them into service and maybe order extra type 45's in a few years time, They may have to operate with only a pathetic number of old Harriers but at least they will be in service and cant be cancelled.
In the past Australia bought two River class frigates that looked more liked Leanders than the previous four that looked liked Rothesays. They ordered four Adelaides from the USA than built two more several years later. Its not a bad thing to do, I think it helps stretch out block obsolescence, all of the ships coming to their end at the same time. Stretching out programs seems to give future governments more choice in their replacement. Since Australia bought eight new Anzacs, they had the choice to buy only three or four new air warfare destroyers to replace six Adelaide class FFGs. Notice the flip flop, from six GP frigates to eight FFHs, and from six FFGs to 3-4 DDGs. The new 8 GP frigates are much better than their old six GP frigates, while in the next decade their 3-4 DDGs will be much more powerful than their old FFGs.
So its not a bad idea to wait a few years to complete the class of warships. That is, if there is no hurry to do so with older ships being decommissioned faster than newer ships. While many think the UK has gone down from 12 destroyers to 8 destroyers, I look further back and see their old County class destroyers being replaced by Type 45s. The Type 42s in my opinion were more like FFGs.
Of course, with a large number of Type 23s replacing in my mind Type 42s and Type 21s, it will be interesting what the new class of frigates will look like, because in my warped sense they will be the ships replacing the Type 23s which replaced the Leanders. One thing is for certain, all of the British new amphibious ships are better than previous ones, and the upcoming CVFs will be a marked improvement to the Invincibles.
Frankly, I see good times ahead for the Royal Navy. I agree, its better to get the carriers bought before returning to destroyers, frigates, and submarines. I see the F-2000 designs the UK has exported more than enough to replace a large number of previous frigates. Well, I would like to see the home product just a bit larger than the export models. Maybe they should be called Type 24s or Type 25s. The simple truth, and the USN has confirmed this, in the future there is going to be a need for more littoral combat ships than ocean escorts.
So its not a bad idea to wait a few years to complete the class of warships. That is, if there is no hurry to do so with older ships being decommissioned faster than newer ships. While many think the UK has gone down from 12 destroyers to 8 destroyers, I look further back and see their old County class destroyers being replaced by Type 45s. The Type 42s in my opinion were more like FFGs.
Of course, with a large number of Type 23s replacing in my mind Type 42s and Type 21s, it will be interesting what the new class of frigates will look like, because in my warped sense they will be the ships replacing the Type 23s which replaced the Leanders. One thing is for certain, all of the British new amphibious ships are better than previous ones, and the upcoming CVFs will be a marked improvement to the Invincibles.
Frankly, I see good times ahead for the Royal Navy. I agree, its better to get the carriers bought before returning to destroyers, frigates, and submarines. I see the F-2000 designs the UK has exported more than enough to replace a large number of previous frigates. Well, I would like to see the home product just a bit larger than the export models. Maybe they should be called Type 24s or Type 25s. The simple truth, and the USN has confirmed this, in the future there is going to be a need for more littoral combat ships than ocean escorts.
Speaking of a delay, according to this article the MOD: "will decide this summer whether to equip the Queen Elizabeth-class ships, which were intended to operate STOVL aircraft, with catapults and arresting gear for conventional carrier planes."
Probably a load of bollocks though.
battlensign
New Member
Perhaps a little naiive, but....?
Hey all,
2 questions:
1) Would a CATOBAR configuration for the Queen Elizabeth II class actually be cheaper as a result of the less expensive F-35C variant?
2) Could there be an arrangement by which the CATOBAR configuration be used purely for AEW platform use, whilst still utilising the F-35B STOVL aircraft for the fighter option? (would such a configuration hamper/inhibit/otherwise in anyway affect STOVL flight ops?)
Brett
Hey all,
2 questions:
1) Would a CATOBAR configuration for the Queen Elizabeth II class actually be cheaper as a result of the less expensive F-35C variant?
2) Could there be an arrangement by which the CATOBAR configuration be used purely for AEW platform use, whilst still utilising the F-35B STOVL aircraft for the fighter option? (would such a configuration hamper/inhibit/otherwise in anyway affect STOVL flight ops?)
Brett
Boils down do a cost decision.
If the F-35B cost goes significantly above that of an identical number of Rafale F3 (or F-35C) and catapults/arresting gear, could very well be.
1. The predicted cost of the F-35C is still similar to that of the F-35B. The F-35A land-based version is the cheaper one.
2. Physically possible (one or two catapults on an angled deck), but from what I've heard (note: I have no expertise in this area, I am relaying what seems to be the consensus of opinions from Warships1 on a discussion on exactly this topic) it would cost about as much to build & operate as a full-on CATOBAR carrier, & CATOBAR & STOVL operations would interfere with each other. It would therefore be practical only for low-frequency CATOBAR ops, such as AEW.
Interesting read on navymatters home page about the CVF airgroup. It says the UK order for F35 could be postponed till 2018 and Israel may pick up our aircraft this is obviously just a rumor at the moment. It also points out that if the order for Typhoon Tranche 3 was changed to 150 F-35C this would give more pool for the CVF and airforce but looks like the MOD is locked into Typhoon as they would have huge penalties £1 billion has been reported.
Why the RAF wants the F-35C is beyond me (A models i could understand). And given that we are being forced to buy the full wack of Typhoons, I cannot understand why we do not operate more of them so at least some of the money is not wasted.
If 138 F-35Bs are bought, then we could operate 6 Squadrons of Twelve plus an OCU and still have 30-40 spare. 6 Squadrons because the RN wants to operate three squdrons on each carrier, so there is enough if we ever have to operate both CVFs at the same time. (I am led to believe the plan is to operate one carrier at a time and task the other Squadrons elsewhere for RAF duties.)
I cannot understand why Navymatters thinks that there will only be Squardons of 9. We won't postpone out F-35 buy. The Harriers will ne knackered by then and the Tornados won't have many years left either.
If 138 F-35Bs are bought, then we could operate 6 Squadrons of Twelve plus an OCU and still have 30-40 spare. 6 Squadrons because the RN wants to operate three squdrons on each carrier, so there is enough if we ever have to operate both CVFs at the same time. (I am led to believe the plan is to operate one carrier at a time and task the other Squadrons elsewhere for RAF duties.)
I cannot understand why Navymatters thinks that there will only be Squardons of 9. We won't postpone out F-35 buy. The Harriers will ne knackered by then and the Tornados won't have many years left either.
The way i see it is that there are lots and lots of bugetes under pressure and there are still options open. but i can't see any less 138 planes.
I wonder when the 1st info for the MARS tanker will be releced as after the carrier they the most critical
I agree jst posting what it says on navymatters. In a perfect world the RAF would get its Typhoons and its own F35, And the Fleet Air Arm would get its own order of F35b/c. But cash is very short at the moment.
The way I see it as long as 138 F-35 Bs (or Cs if the B model goes no where), then the RN will have enough for its Carriers. Its just a PITA that the Tornado is being retired the same time that our budgets are being squeezed and the 138 will be too thinly spread. Hence I see a more cost effective solution would be to put more Typhoons into service (say 180-200 out of 232 rather than 144) than to try and thinly spread the new F-35s away from their carrier work.
(Although the Typhoon cannot completely replace the Tornado as far as i am aware.)
(Although the Typhoon cannot completely replace the Tornado as far as i am aware.)
F-35 and other mumbles.
I ideally belive there should be more aircraft ordered and that the Fleet Air Arm should have their own aircraft and the same for the RAF. Each force uses the the aircraft diffrently the RAF will use it as ground atack and air support whereas the navy will have to use it as both ground attack and air superiority. I have never liked the joint force harrier as it leaves the RN without the FA2 for air defence and when at war the harriers cannot be deployed on a carrier as they are needed by the RAF.
I think the ideal number of aircraft would be around the 200 mark, 100 for the navy so that each carrier always has 36 and then there is 28 spare from the navy pool of F-35's which can be used for training or in maintenance. But then again we have to think that even although 2 carriers might be build one will probably be mothballed or sitting at port.
It would be nice for the politicians to wake up and grant more funding but it is more the fault of the public than anyone else, The reason it's not a vote winner as the general population would rather have more dole money or a better NHS.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
The Newbie, Admin: Text deleted. It's your choice, but you should avoid using your real full name on the internet. There are too many whackjobs that lurk around (as well as the usual security reasons)...
I ideally belive there should be more aircraft ordered and that the Fleet Air Arm should have their own aircraft and the same for the RAF. Each force uses the the aircraft diffrently the RAF will use it as ground atack and air support whereas the navy will have to use it as both ground attack and air superiority. I have never liked the joint force harrier as it leaves the RN without the FA2 for air defence and when at war the harriers cannot be deployed on a carrier as they are needed by the RAF.
I think the ideal number of aircraft would be around the 200 mark, 100 for the navy so that each carrier always has 36 and then there is 28 spare from the navy pool of F-35's which can be used for training or in maintenance. But then again we have to think that even although 2 carriers might be build one will probably be mothballed or sitting at port.
It would be nice for the politicians to wake up and grant more funding but it is more the fault of the public than anyone else, The reason it's not a vote winner as the general population would rather have more dole money or a better NHS.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
The Newbie, Admin: Text deleted. It's your choice, but you should avoid using your real full name on the internet. There are too many whackjobs that lurk around (as well as the usual security reasons)...
Last edited by a moderator: