Good point. The fact the carrier design also takes Rafale into consideration (for the French navy) would also count in its favour.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
im not sure about that as the UK is contractually obliged for 232 planes all those deals can only delay the orders [making them cheaper as run increases]
If other nations can reduce their buys for the Typhoons and/or Lightning IIs, the United Kingdom should be able to do so too. Of course, by dropping out a penalty should be awarded to the other nations, as their price per plane just went up. How can anyone make future procurement plans when nations drop out and reduce their planned buys? This shoe should fit every nation.
Has anyone actually done that yet?
I think all "reductions" so far were planes deferred to other nations (e.g. Germany to Austria).
Other countries can't reduce their buys for Typhoons. Everyone is bound in by penalties which make it unaffordable (no saving over just taking the aircraft & storing them), not least because the UK was afraid of other countries wanting to cut their numbers. The shoe does fit every nation.
IIRC the original arrangements didn't include such heavy penalties, but they were introduced after Germany cut its requirement, to prevent further cuts impacting negatively on non-cutting partners.
Just going back to an earlier point Swerve. This morning I happened to come across in this month's edition of Air International Commander David Hobbs RN (Retired) arguing the merits of the Super Hornet for the Fleet Air Arm.
He makes some interesting points, namely the fact that like Rafale, the F/A-18 E/F would be ready to deploy with the carriers in 2014 (as compared with the JSF's current estimated introduction in 2018). I may have to change my view again and agree with his belief that Super Hornet represents the most cost-effective option.
spsun100001
New Member
That's exactly the situation Swerve. Avoiding the penalties needs all partner nations to agree to waive them and most countries (including us) would rather use their defence budgets for job creation than defending the nation.
Fine if you're Germany and don't intend to take part in any 'hot' conflicts. Not so good if you're the UK where it leads to inadequate equipment quality and procurement priorities set to suit BAe Systems or Augusta Westland rather than military needs.
I'm just wondering....
With the cost of an F/A 18E/F at $55million versus $90 - 100million for the F35B, if the RN went for the Super Hornet they could potentially realise savings minus catapult costs of several billion dollars. This money could be used to purchase a 3rd CVF which would allow the RN to have two operational carriers and one in maintenance at all times with two carrier wings of F/A 18E/F's.
With the cost of an F/A 18E/F at $55million versus $90 - 100million for the F35B, if the RN went for the Super Hornet they could potentially realise savings minus catapult costs of several billion dollars. This money could be used to purchase a 3rd CVF which would allow the RN to have two operational carriers and one in maintenance at all times with two carrier wings of F/A 18E/F's.
spsun100001
New Member
Plus they could put a proper AEW platform on the carriers like the E2D rather than a toytown helicopter based system.
A third CVF will not be bought. However, you are right, the potentially saved money from a Super Hornet or Rafaele buy could be spent elsewhere-more likely on buying some much needed Surface Warfare capablity (whether that be destroyers, frigates or corvettes) than a third CVF. (you have to remember that the RN is hoping to do away with long refits for its Carriers every couple of years with the CVF buy.)
The UK Ministry of Defence is struggling to fund a purchase of 138 F35's, the bare minimum realistic number recquired according to many. As everyone knows by now there are rumours circulating (such as those on Beedall's Navy Matters website) that as few as 80 F35B might eventually be bought. (to stay within the allocated budget)
If a cheaper plane such as Super Hornet or Rafale were to be bought, any savings would obviously have to be used to boost the number of airframes procured, so that the magic number of "138" or thereabouts can be reached.
So sorry guys.. way too little money would be left over for MASC, or even to build a third carrier!!!?
If a cheaper plane such as Super Hornet or Rafale were to be bought, any savings would obviously have to be used to boost the number of airframes procured, so that the magic number of "138" or thereabouts can be reached.
So sorry guys.. way too little money would be left over for MASC, or even to build a third carrier!!!?
Hi, first time post here.
Have to agree with KiwiRob. The same (or very similar) carrier to the French and buy Rafale’s since these are likely to be compatible with Meteor & Storm Shadow.
Granted my military knowledge is nowhere near advanced as the majority who post here but aside from ‘stealth’ and STOVL technology what does the F-35B bring to the party?
Have to agree with KiwiRob. The same (or very similar) carrier to the French and buy Rafale’s since these are likely to be compatible with Meteor & Storm Shadow.
Granted my military knowledge is nowhere near advanced as the majority who post here but aside from ‘stealth’ and STOVL technology what does the F-35B bring to the party?
But the Lightning IIs are supposed to be four times better, whatever that means. And the British are expecting them to arrive around the same time as their first Queen Elizabeths. If there is a slide of a year or two with the aircraft, surely the Harriers can hold on until replacement. And its the same the other way around, surely the Illustrious and Ark Royal can hold on a couple of years also if the carriers are late. They are not going to drop dead at the same time, a fudge factor is included.
Fair point Sea Toby, I just fail to see why the Royal Navy (and for that matter the RAF) really want the F-35B. Do the Royal Navy really need an aircraft that is 4 times better than Rafale or Super Hornet, especially given the advancement of precision weapons plus launch and leave tactics? Heck, do we need a STVOL Lightning II? Why not just go for the 'C' version, it would have saved a heap of money developing lift-fans and trying to shed weight on the aircraft!
I just have a horrible feeling that once it’s in service it’ll be heavy on the maintenance/cost side...and still lag behind the capability offered by the F-35C.
I just have a horrible feeling that once it’s in service it’ll be heavy on the maintenance/cost side...and still lag behind the capability offered by the F-35C.
windscorpion
New Member
Both the FAA and RAF have had a few decades of V/STOL fighter bomber usage and i suppose they just like the flexibility of being able to fly fighters off container ships, from forest clearings et cetera.
That’s the point though, the Harrier was designed during the cold war. Logical thinking dictated that the runways/airfields were going to be hit, so they design a strike fighter that can take off and land vertically, hide it in the German forests and wait for the Russian tanks to come rolling across the hills…that scenario never happened.
I can’t recall a single Harrier mission (Falklands/Desert Storm/Kosovo/Afghanistan) where a Harrier has used this ability in an operational sense, it’s always used a runway or a short run-up on one of the Invincible class carriers. It has to if it wants to carry a half decent weapon load. I'm sure it'll be exactly the same for the Lightning II.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not slating the Harrier (always had a soft spot for the Sea Harrier since the Falklands) or the F-35. I’m just of the opinion if we’re finally going to get a decent sized carrier, then let’s do it properly. Let’s get decent aircraft that is not going to potentially get compromised by lift-fans, weight, range or anything else.
I can’t recall a single Harrier mission (Falklands/Desert Storm/Kosovo/Afghanistan) where a Harrier has used this ability in an operational sense, it’s always used a runway or a short run-up on one of the Invincible class carriers. It has to if it wants to carry a half decent weapon load. I'm sure it'll be exactly the same for the Lightning II.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not slating the Harrier (always had a soft spot for the Sea Harrier since the Falklands) or the F-35. I’m just of the opinion if we’re finally going to get a decent sized carrier, then let’s do it properly. Let’s get decent aircraft that is not going to potentially get compromised by lift-fans, weight, range or anything else.
windscorpion
New Member
Yeah but you don't specify a weapon system just for the current tactical situation, or you shouldn't anyway. They have to think ahead until the 2040s at least we could very easily be in a new cold war situation by then.
But actually i do think they should have gone for CTOL for the F-35s for both arms.
But actually i do think they should have gone for CTOL for the F-35s for both arms.
More or less as Windscorpion says. The Falklands War still resonates. The RAF were able to deploy Harriers on container ships, with pilots who'd gone through very little training for carrier ops, & when they got down there, use them effectively. They flew off the container ship, landed on Hermes, & successfully operated from her with RAF pilots. More RAF Harriers flew from Ascension, directly to Hermes.
The first of those is impossible with a CTOL aircraft, the second would probably be suicidal for land-based pilots flying CTOL aircraft (iffy even with Harriers - one RAF pilot broke his aircraft landing it), & impossible for CTOL aircraft not designed for carrier operations.
The MoD love the idea that the entire STOVL force is carrier-capable - though unfortunately it's used as an excuse to cut dedicated FAA numbers.
The RAF also like the rough, short, close-to-the-front strip thing.
Actually during the early stages of Enduring Freedom Harriers (USMC in this case) were the only fighter aircraft able to use the tattered runway at Kandahar. (even though as you said, they did not take off vertically. They used a short take off)
Harriers when taking off vertically are so limited in terms of payload carrying, that this really never was practical.