The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

bonehead

New Member
the french aim to build a 5th gen version of the rafale for the uae, if the uk whanted it there would be further optons and requirements built into the plane though you are correct it wont be the rafale as we know it. proven yes because its seen operational service and the bugs have been ironed out, and it is far chaeper than the f35 which has already doubled its expected base price in fact its gone past that already, the hourly cost of flying the f35 compared with the f18/ and rafale is also double the cost,the maintenace down time is estimated also to be higher, for countries who whant the big boys toys it will come at a hefty price.

with countries reviewing there numbers down the unit price increses for eveyone else, the USM have revised down already and looking at a larger f18 fleet, the australians have also reduced there purchase to 14, but still not a single confirmed order has been placed for a production aircraft. WHY simple the raising costs and delays.

denmarks desided to extend its f16 fleet to 2015 possible change to f18, norway though still on board is concerned, as is spain, israel has an issue witht he sort code issue and not willing to back down and they could opt for the russian plane, australia has defered further purchases again becasue of the costs, UK sdr is expected to reduce f35 and opt for more eurofighters for the RAF, the RN carrier aircraft issue has still not been confirmed in fact the current goverment only confirmed the carriers will be built but were non commitle on the planes that will fly from them.

the French are very keen to get the uk to buy the rafale with uk mods ect, at a fracton of the f35 costs, in fact they offered them back in 2006 at 3/4 of the orginal price depending on how many we brought. with full support and control over the aircraft something the US is not offering with the f35.

while the f35 claims to offer so much until its operational we dont know what it really can and cant do, and with the bugs still to be ironed out when its fully in service again cant be confirmed, we can buy f35 later if and when we have the money, and if we want it, but we cannot afford for the fleet to have no aircover, the carriers will be operational at least two years before the first production aircraft arrive, then the crews will need to work up with the airwing adding further delays and costs overall. we only have a small budget.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
The QE's will, by virtue of Britain's limited resources compared to the US, end up as oversized Wasp Classes, supporting both CAP/CAS, attack and utility helos for the Commando Brigade, true multi-fuction platforms. In this role I would much prefer to see the UK stick with STOVL, which ultimately means they have to go for F35B's. The versatility and sortie rate of the aircraft can not be matched by either the Rafi or Bug.

Should the F35B suffer financial blowout then I seriously believe the UK would go for the Rafi, simply because they would get such a fantastic deal from the French, and it would allow for UK/French Carriers to cross-post sqns and supporting crews in a cost efficient manner to avoid the cyclic problem of at-sea operating skills erosion. The US Carrier fleets will spend more and more time in the ME & SE Asia as the balance of power shifts East. The UK/French carriers by virtue of geography (West of Suez) will spend a great deal of time in close proximity to each other, unless on global deployment. Should the French decide one carrier is all they can afford. having pilots/planes based on the UK active carrier (assuming both are built) will enable them to remain current. Likewise both French and UK ground crews will be working on very similar airframes.

I would rather see a QE at sea with a full compliment of UK/French CAP/CAS assets than an empty flat-top with just a few F35B's because cost overruns have reduced the purchase to an absolute minimum.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
the french aim to build a 5th gen version of the rafale for the uae, if the uk whanted it there would be further optons and requirements built into the plane though you are correct it wont be the rafale as we know it. proven yes because its seen operational service and the bugs have been ironed out, and it is far chaeper than the f35 which has already doubled its expected base price in fact its gone past that already, the hourly cost of flying the f35 compared with the f18/ and rafale is also double the cost,the maintenace down time is estimated also to be higher, for countries who whant the big boys toys it will come at a hefty price.
What I don't get though is how you can say that a 5th generation development of the Rafale would be proven, less expensive, and less maintenance intensive than the F-35 when a 5th gen Rafale doesn't exist yet?

The development costs would be high, and the modifications so extensive as to render the current Rafale almost an entirely different aircraft - and thus the 5th generation variant would not be proven. And because we have no idea what the development costs would be, nor what the solutions in place to attain the capability would be, how can we comment on the hypothetical aircraft's price or maintainability, know what I mean?
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
A 5th generation Rafale isnt even funded I thought. Plus, 5th generation or 4.5 Generation, Rafale is an orphen airframe.

I've also heard it stated that the current Rafale airframe design is nowhere near VLO. If you wanted a VLO airframe you'd have to start again airframe wise.
 

kev 99

Member
Building Britain's Ultimate Warship - 19.30 31st May (C4)

From the Radio Times:-

"HMS Daring is the first new destroyer built in the UK since 1985 and represents a quantum leap in naval technology. This documentary captures the entire process from construction in 2004 to testing and using the new weapons systems at sea. Interviews with naval experts, engineers and captains help convey the sense of scale and importance involved before the dramatic launch in Glasgow.

Just thought you would all like to know ;)
 

Falstaff

New Member
What I don't get though is how you can say that a 5th generation development of the Rafale would be proven, less expensive, and less maintenance intensive than the F-35 when a 5th gen Rafale doesn't exist yet?

The development costs would be high, and the modifications so extensive as to render the current Rafale almost an entirely different aircraft - and thus the 5th generation variant would not be proven. And because we have no idea what the development costs would be, nor what the solutions in place to attain the capability would be, how can we comment on the hypothetical aircraft's price or maintainability, know what I mean?
I'd like to hint to the point that this might be a misundertanding, as a Rafale F4 actually would be a 5th generation Rafale without being a 5th generation combat aircraft, The Rafale A being the 1st generation and variants F1 - F4 representing generations 2-5.
A Rafale for the UAE would probably be a further iteration of the Rafale, not a fundamentally new aircraft. I think that's what bonehead meant. Or is it?
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'd like to hint to the point that this might be a misundertanding, as a Rafale F4 actually would be a 5th generation Rafale without being a 5th generation combat aircraft, The Rafale A being the 1st generation and variants F1 - F4 representing generations 2-5.
A Rafale for the UAE would probably be a further iteration of the Rafale, not a fundamentally new aircraft. I think that's what bonehead meant. Or is it?
I'm not sure, it could be - in any case I wasn't aware there had been four iterations of Rafale and so hadn't even considered that possibility Falstaff, thanks for pointing that out and providing another perspective on things :)
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
I'm not sure, it could be - in any case I wasn't aware there had been four iterations of Rafale and so hadn't even considered that possibility Falstaff, thanks for pointing that out and providing another perspective on things :)
Current production Rafale's are to the F3 standard I believe.
 

bonehead

New Member
I'd like to hint to the point that this might be a misundertanding, as a Rafale F4 actually would be a 5th generation Rafale without being a 5th generation combat aircraft, The Rafale A being the 1st generation and variants F1 - F4 representing generations 2-5.
A Rafale for the UAE would probably be a further iteration of the Rafale, not a fundamentally new aircraft. I think that's what bonehead meant. Or is it?

you are correct
 

bonehead

New Member
I'm not sure, it could be - in any case I wasn't aware there had been four iterations of Rafale and so hadn't even considered that possibility Falstaff, thanks for pointing that out and providing another perspective on things :)
sources came from defence news as well as janes defence
 

1805

New Member
The QE's will, by virtue of Britain's limited resources compared to the US, end up as oversized Wasp Classes, supporting both CAP/CAS, attack and utility helos for the Commando Brigade, true multi-fuction platforms. In this role I would much prefer to see the UK stick with STOVL, which ultimately means they have to go for F35B's. The versatility and sortie rate of the aircraft can not be matched by either the Rafi or Bug.

Should the F35B suffer financial blowout then I seriously believe the UK would go for the Rafi, simply because they would get such a fantastic deal from the French, and it would allow for UK/French Carriers to cross-post sqns and supporting crews in a cost efficient manner to avoid the cyclic problem of at-sea operating skills erosion. The US Carrier fleets will spend more and more time in the ME & SE Asia as the balance of power shifts East. The UK/French carriers by virtue of geography (West of Suez) will spend a great deal of time in close proximity to each other, unless on global deployment. Should the French decide one carrier is all they can afford. having pilots/planes based on the UK active carrier (assuming both are built) will enable them to remain current. Likewise both French and UK ground crews will be working on very similar airframes.

I would rather see a QE at sea with a full compliment of UK/French CAP/CAS assets than an empty flat-top with just a few F35B's because cost overruns have reduced the purchase to an absolute minimum.
This makes a lot of sense and you’re right we would get an amazing deal. It would be a huge boost to the fortunes of the Rafale and I’m sure would help to tip the scales in other export competitions. But there would be something surreal about the UK buying Rafale. Nothing for me would demonstrate more the hopelessly uncoordinated amateurish approach to the UK's stratergy for its defence procurement/industrial complex.

Mind It would be good to understand the cost of conversion to cats at this stage. I can’t believe it would be anyway in the £500m/ship as Hambro suggested?
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This makes a lot of sense and you’re right we would get an amazing deal.

I take it from the 'WE' part you mean the FRENCH ?


...It would be a huge boost to the fortunes of the Rafale and I’m sure would help to tip the scales in other export competitions.

It WOULD, if only the UK were foolish enough to consider it, I personally see hell freezing over 1st ! :p:


...But there would be something surreal about the UK buying Rafale. Nothing for me would demonstrate more the hopelessly uncoordinated amateurish approach to the UK's stratergy for its defence procurement/industrial complex.

Unlike the completley understandable, well intentioned & govt directed support of the French defence Industry?

After all there is nothing wrong with a fully recognised 1st world country selling weapons to the highest bidder, no matter whether they are Friend or Foe, or whether sanctions or imbargos in place, is there ...?


Mind It would be good to understand the cost of conversion to cats at this stage. I can’t believe it would be anyway in the £500m/ship as Hambro suggested?

As ever, a procurement 'expert' critiques the design & engineering phase of a project.

I'm personally SICK of procurement. It's all about squeezing figures to get the best margin & looking good, nothing to do with the engineering practically, or whether the equipment actually works or will integrate with other systems.

Too many times I've seen highly qualified & experienced project engineers being forced to cut away practicality, just so that the inexperienced, degree qualified, younger procurement project manager looks good to the OEM, in detraction to the useability or practicallity of the equipment or system to the end user.

Examples of such 'trimming' are the thru life support contract for operability / maintainablity / spares, or the manuals, or even the capability for the equipment to be upgraded to a newer version/model in the future. Even if the OEM has that very upgrade in the pipeline / development.


While I'm all for getting the 'Bang for your Buck' for the Navy, how can anyone tell, that to redesign something as complex as a carrier (which has, in reality been getting designed since 2003), to tear up all designs & start again, so that it can be converted to 'Steam cats', to provide that technology in a ship that hasn't got the system, or for that matter, an Industry that doesn't have the infrastructure to support it, won't cost £500M per ship ?

Then again, it's all down to the all seeing & knowledgable financial eye of the procurement dept, to determine whether the Design Engineer / Subject Matter Expert is wrong or not....


That IS Surreal !


Rant over !

SA :gun
 

1805

New Member
I take it from the 'WE' part you mean the FRENCH ?





It WOULD, if only the UK were foolish enough to consider it, I personally see hell freezing over 1st ! :p:





Unlike the completley understandable, well intentioned & govt directed support of the French defence Industry?

After all there is nothing wrong with a fully recognised 1st world country selling weapons to the highest bidder, no matter whether they are Friend or Foe, or whether sanctions or imbargos in place, is there ...?





As ever, a procurement 'expert' critiques the design & engineering phase of a project.

I'm personally SICK of procurement. It's all about squeezing figures to get the best margin & looking good, nothing to do with the engineering practically, or whether the equipment actually works or will integrate with other systems.

Too many times I've seen highly qualified & experienced project engineers being forced to cut away practicality, just so that the inexperienced, degree qualified, younger procurement project manager looks good to the OEM, in detraction to the useability or practicallity of the equipment or system to the end user.

Examples of such 'trimming' are the thru life support contract for operability / maintainablity / spares, or the manuals, or even the capability for the equipment to be upgraded to a newer version/model in the future. Even if the OEM has that very upgrade in the pipeline / development.


While I'm all for getting the 'Bang for your Buck' for the Navy, how can anyone tell, that to redesign something as complex as a carrier (which has, in reality been getting designed since 2003), to tear up all designs & start again, so that it can be converted to 'Steam cats', to provide that technology in a ship that hasn't got the system, or for that matter, an Industry that doesn't have the infrastructure to support it, won't cost £500M per ship ?

Then again, it's all down to the all seeing & knowledgable financial eye of the procurement dept, to determine whether the Design Engineer / Subject Matter Expert is wrong or not....


That IS Surreal !


Rant over !

SA :gun
I think you have misunderstood my post about buying French, I agree a disaster for UK defence industry which was my other point (comparable to the mistake buying F4s). I would rather we were flying a Navalised Typhoon but the opportunity is long gone? Mind it does make me laugh a bit that you would happily buy US but do anything to avoid the French.

I assumed they would be US EMALS, not steam. I understood the CVFs where designed to be able to convert anyway.

There is good and bad procurement as with eveything; the problems we face are due to a lack of a formal procurement/industral strategy over many years. The RN will be the loser here if they fall into ridicule for having two expense ships with no aircraft for 4-5 years after they are commissioned.
 

Hambo

New Member
"1805 Mind It would be good to understand the cost of conversion to cats at this stage. I can’t believe it would be anyway in the £500m/ship as Hambro suggested?[/QUOTE]"

I dont know what copy of the Yellow Pages you own but I dont think there are many catapult makers listed, unless you are after a fishing accessory or a kids toy.

There are probably less than 20 ships worldwide including those in reserve or laid up that possess catapults. I believe there is a single US company that makes them, they provided some to the french but its a pretty specialist field and a massively complex task with a long lead time.

Take a CV, add I assume a GT to provide heat and steam, a water supply to be turned into steam, a pressurised steam system and all the gubgins, then the cats themselves and arrestor gear.

Book that CV into a dockyard for a massive refit for say 24 months labour, cut holes in it on the deck, add cats, wires and blast deflectors, rearrange many of the internal spaces for the equipment. I think the cost would be massive and I think the 500m cost may be from a link to a document on Mr Beedalls site. If done , it needed to be done at the beginning. Maybe in 20years we could afford to but probably not now.

Then add a specialist engineering branch to the RN and servicing costs. It cost a fortune to Phantomise the Ark, it costs a fortune just to do a simple refit on a vessell, so the cost of cats would be anyones guess but not cheap.

Its only worth doing if the cost of F35B is prohibitive. If a SuperHornet/Rafale VS F35B adds 40-50m per airframe then it perhaps makes sense, If the cost of F35b is "only" 20m each more then its worth it for the stealth and growth potential IMO to go with the F35B.

EMALS also looks a massive undertaking with the energy storage, and again with only a dozen or so ships likely to have them at any one time it wouldnt be cheap, what tha cost would be I dont know, but the US has already spent billions developing it.
 
"1805 Mind It would be good to understand the cost of conversion to cats at this stage. I can’t believe it would be anyway in the £500m/ship as Hambro suggested?
"

I dont know what copy of the Yellow Pages you own but I dont think there are many catapult makers listed, unless you are after a fishing accessory or a kids toy.

There are probably less than 20 ships worldwide including those in reserve or laid up that possess catapults. I believe there is a single US company that makes them, they provided some to the french but its a pretty specialist field and a massively complex task with a long lead time.

Take a CV, add I assume a GT to provide heat and steam, a water supply to be turned into steam, a pressurised steam system and all the gubgins, then the cats themselves and arrestor gear.

Book that CV into a dockyard for a massive refit for say 24 months labour, cut holes in it on the deck, add cats, wires and blast deflectors, rearrange many of the internal spaces for the equipment. I think the cost would be massive and I think the 500m cost may be from a link to a document on Mr Beedalls site. If done , it needed to be done at the beginning. Maybe in 20years we could afford to but probably not now.

Then add a specialist engineering branch to the RN and servicing costs. It cost a fortune to Phantomise the Ark, it costs a fortune just to do a simple refit on a vessell, so the cost of cats would be anyones guess but not cheap.

Its only worth doing if the cost of F35B is prohibitive. If a SuperHornet/Rafale VS F35B adds 40-50m per airframe then it perhaps makes sense, If the cost of F35b is "only" 20m each more then its worth it for the stealth and growth potential IMO to go with the F35B.

EMALS also looks a massive undertaking with the energy storage, and again with only a dozen or so ships likely to have them at any one time it wouldnt be cheap, what tha cost would be I dont know, but the US has already spent billions developing it.
Basically:

To go to [steam] Cats-n-traps will require the installation of the third MT30 that is FFBNW within the current QE-class design (IIRC). Add in the required boilers and that will consume space and will (also) consume fluids. Hacking-on the cats - which our Scottish cousins can (I believe) still construct - is the least of our expenses.

The scare about CAT aircraft is the fact that we only have two carriers. Better to deposit our £75-million F35-Bs on a spare (and cheap) flat-top (Ocean2). Only then can we fuel them up to our nearest 'fixed' carrier.

Surely better then to be arrested by the lack of refuelling and support when our 'Glorious' is no more . :sleepy2
 

riksavage

Banned Member
We cannot ignore the fact that (according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), only six of the biggest armed conflicts in 2009 concerned territory with 11 fought over the nature and make-up of a national government, They also report that only three of the 30 big conflicts over the past decade were between states.

Prioritising ones defence budget to the continuing purchase of fast jets, big ships and heavy armour designed for state-on-state conflict at the expense of assets designed to mitigate the asymmetrical threat is at best stupid and at worst a failure to protect the voting public. The recent killing of the number 3 Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan by an unmanned drone (which costs a fraction of the price to equip and operate than a battalion of armoured infantry sitting in the Fulda Gap) is evidence of the changing nature of warfare. It amazes me that whilst countries like Germany (for example) have excellent cutting edge armour, artillery and APC's they continue to have woeful ISTAR assets or a credible attack/recon helo (Tiger purchases put on hold, zero offensive UCAV capabilities). This has to be because the Government is feeding traditional indigenous industries at the expense of dealing with the REAL threat staring the nation in the face?

The UK has to think out of the box with the forthcoming SDR, we need to focus on force multipliers, particularly intelligence gathering capabilities with a global reach. These could be launched from the new carriers if necessary. I would love to see a maritime version of Mantis, fulfilling the MASC and Maritime surveillance role capable of firing hellfire or sea skua II. The role of the carriers must evolve to fulfill the function of true floating command, control, ISTAR, CAS/CAP, Helo platforms,basically all things to all men. The pure strike carrier role will diminish, as the need for a floating island capable of supporting low level and high-tempo actions against failed states increases. The RN must hard-sell this future tri-service capability to convince the masses or face losing even more share of the defence budget to the ''poor bloody infantry'.

We can moan and groan about impending cuts, but at the end of the day we have to protect the population against the MOST likely threat, not necessarily the less likely, but worse case scenario. If the latter was the case we would be building missiles to shoot down giant asteroids or preparing to fight off alien invasions!
 
Last edited:

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
While Germany has alot of structural problems within it's army as well as some procurement disasters it is not nearly as bad as you make it.

We operate Heron as our UCAV while Luna, Aladin and KZO act as UAVs for recon purposes. A German version of the Global Hawk is going to enter service.

We also have 5 SAR-Lupe radar satellites in orbit as well as access to the french Helios optical sattelites.

When it comes to mine resistant vehicles for patrol duties the Bundeswehr has several types in service since some time which already saw service in the Kosovo and Bosnia like the Dingo. We didn't need to start some hasty MRAP programs because suddenly we realized that such vehicles would come in handy.

The Tiger program has problems because EADS seems to be to stupid to deliver a working IOC system where the wiring is up to normal quality standards and not because the Bundeswehr doesn't care about this lack of capabilities.

Not that the Leopard II, Panzerhaubitze 2000 and Marder A5 don't show their worth in
Afghanistan...

I don't want to derail the thread any further but I couldn't resist the bait of the comment by riksavage. As if the Bundeswehr would still be sitting on thousands of AFVs waiting to stem the red flood...
 

riksavage

Banned Member
While Germany has alot of structural problems within it's army as well as some procurement disasters it is not nearly as bad as you make it.

We operate Heron as our UCAV while Luna, Aladin and KZO act as UAVs for recon purposes. A German version of the Global Hawk is going to enter service.

We also have 5 SAR-Lupe radar satellites in orbit as well as access to the french Helios optical sattelites.

When it comes to mine resistant vehicles for patrol duties the Bundeswehr has several types in service since some time which already saw service in the Kosovo and Bosnia like the Dingo. We didn't need to start some hasty MRAP programs because suddenly we realized that such vehicles would come in handy.

The Tiger program has problems because EADS seems to be to stupid to deliver a working IOC system where the wiring is up to normal quality standards and not because the Bundeswehr doesn't care about this lack of capabilities.

Not that the Leopard II, Panzerhaubitze 2000 and Marder A5 don't show their worth in
Afghanistan...

I don't want to derail the thread any further but I couldn't resist the bait of the comment by riksavage. As if the Bundeswehr would still be sitting on thousands of AFVs waiting to stem the red flood...
My comment reference Germany was not intended to cause offence, it was simply to reflect how certain countries continue to invest in new and very expensive hardware designed for state-on-state conventional warfare at the expense of more relevant systems ideally suited to the current asymmetrical battlefield and likely future conflicts involving failed states outside of mainland Europe.

Whilst Heron is a v-good UAV, Germany is buying just three units and one ground station. Compare that to the UK's order for 12 intial units, with a final total of 52? Watchkeeper UAV and 13 Reaper UCAV units. The Watchkeepers sensor fit is as good as Heron, though its range is limted to 17 hours without drop-tanks. I'm hoping the UK trials Watchkeeper off a QE class, not sure about the take-off/recovery runway length though? Also Heron can't provide hot & high top cover for troops fighting on ground, only the Tiger or fast air can do that.

I sincerely hope Tiger comes through and sorts itself out, not only the Germans, but also the French are having problems. The latter with wiring issues on the active units in A-Stan.

And lets be honest if Krauss-Maffai Wegmann made UCAV's, Germany would have more in their inventory than anyone else in Europe, but they don't, so hay-ho Germany has ended up with very high-end, excellent APC's designed to fight in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Top