The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

The problem with this argument is historically the UK has only been on high-tempo combat operations with one NATO ally in the last 20 years, and that's the USA - GWI, II & A-Stan. Whilst the RN may train with the likes of Italy and Spain, from a war-fighting and joint operability perspective the US, followed by France represent the two primary maritime partners today and in the near future. Being able to operate off those two countries strike carriers has become the primary driver for the RN.

Sorry but that’s bogus from an operational perspective. The only cross deck requirement for the RN with the USN and MN (FR) is for training and continuity of carrier capability (ie a joint carrier force with France or embedding a squadron in a USN CSG for a deployment a la the USMC). There is no way cross decking on CTOL carriers is going to be anything other than a few safety related one offs (caused by the nature of CTOL carriers). Of course with a STOVL fleet there is no need for training and continuity cross decking because of the much greater flexibility of operation.

What the RN losses from going from STOVL to CTOL is emergency landing on non carrier flight decks and utilisation of LHDs as Forward Arming and Refueling Points (FARP). That is LHDs like a Wasp or a Juan Carlos/Canberra class that is operating as an amphibious assault ship rather than a sea control ship can provide a Lilly Pad for close air support operations. Significantly boosting time over target without reliance on land based IFR but also weapons deliverables.

Whilst continuing with F35B would have given access to European and USMC STOVL platforms, it does not compare to what are considered today as being the tier one asset in a Navies arsenal - that being the conventional Strike Carrier. With the FAA now firmly embedded with the USN flying SH, they can jointly develop doctrine as the F35C's come on-line in a training environment that cannot be duplicated anywhere in Europe.

Only the inexperienced would consider a Queen Elizabeth with 36 F-35Bs as not being a Tier 1 strike carrier. In generation of strike fighter sorties it would be superior to a Nimitz class with their current and planned air wing. It would be able to do so 24 hours a day as opposed to only 12 and in any scalable package from 1 to 36. It would also be able to position itself independent of the wind and much closer to shore without the need to establish safe circuit patterns for recovery.

 

[riksavage]

Sorry but that’s bogus from an operational perspective. The only cross deck requirement for the RN with the USN and MN (FR) is for training and continuity of carrier capability (ie a joint carrier force with France or embedding a squadron in a USN CSG for a deployment a la the USMC). There is no way cross decking on CTOL carriers is going to be anything other than a few safety related one offs (caused by the nature of CTOL carriers). Of course with a STOVL fleet there is no need for training and continuity cross decking because of the much greater flexibility of operation.

I'm sorry I have to disagree, you are talking about today's current practice not tomorrows. The RN wants to work closer with the USN with regard to maritime aviation operations, dark blue with dark blue. We need to draw the line between USN and USMC.

The current UK FAA exchange programme was always with the USMC driven by platform commonality. In future, again driven by platform commonality, FAA pilots will be working and training side-by-side with thier USN counterparts, developing a common operational doctrine to maximise the F35C's capabilities.

It 'was' quite common for UK Harrier pilots to spend 2+ years embedded with USMC Naval aviation flying both training and operational missions (if required). With the decision to switch from F35B to C that close working relationship will be transferred to the USN as the primary operator. I will bet you my house that in the future once the 65kt QE is up and running you will see FAA & USN F35C pilots flying off each others carriers on a more regular basis, not just during long-look exchanges but in operational scenarios off the Gulf . The QE represents a step-change for the RN because it's the first time in 40 odd years that the UK and US will operate a near identical aircraft from comparable platforms (65k tonne vs 100k tonne). This means common servicing and maintenance requirements for the aircraft, easing the problems of basing (does not apply to French Rafi's unfortunately).

The driving factor for buying F35B over C should not be motivated by the number of Naval platforms one can land on in an emergency. I'm actually finding it difficult to find any statistics pertaining to how often this has actually happened?

Finally let's not delude ourselves, the RAF want a piece of F35C because of its better deep strike performance, they would have stuck the knife in time and time again had F35B carried on. Inter service politics played an important role.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm sorry I have to disagree, you are talking about today's current practice not tomorrows. The RN wants to work closer with the USN with regard to maritime aviation operations, dark blue with dark blue. We need to draw the line between USN and USMC.

What does exchange programs have to do with cross decking of operational carriers? Anyway with the F-35 the RN could easily convert from B to C for exchange and even joint deployments. No different really from non current carrier F-35C pilots working up for a deployment.

With the decision to switch from F35B to C that close working relationship will be transferred to the USN as the primary operator. I will bet you my house that in the future once the 65kt QE is up and running you will see FAA & USN F35C pilots flying off each others carriers on a more regular basis, not just during long-look exchanges but in operational scenarios off the Gulf .

That’s what I call a sub prime mortgage. You can sign your house over to me now because what you are talking about is freakin impossible. I have an Order of the Hook, I’ve gone to sea on carriers (plural) and spent a lot of time with carrier people and written proposals about joint force carrier operations senior USN brown shows have called “gold”.

Casual and frequent cross decking just won’t happen because it turns on the head all of the complex relationships and practises needed to safely operate from CTOL aircraft carriers. It also provides no operational benefit beyond sounding cool to the amateurs or passing a political buck.

This whole discussion is becoming exceedingly pointless. If you haven’t gone through a couple of carrier cycles or don’t even know what that means then you can make NO reasonable contribution to a discussion about the effects of going to CTOL carriers will have on the RN. The government has brought itself a 10 year carrier holiday but at the end of that is going to be a huge outlay. Which of course implies they aren’t serious about it at all…

 

[StingrayOZ]

I'm sorry I have to disagree, you are talking about today's current practice not tomorrows. The RN wants to work closer with the USN with regard to maritime aviation operations, dark blue with dark blue. We need to draw the line between USN and USMC.

I think the USN isn't that happy with operating with USMC personel off CATOBAR, and cross decking with USMC assets. Certainly for the USN and its point of view I don't see a whole lot of benefit not like the relationship with the USMC. While the RN is getting large carrier I don't think they are quiet at the level of the USN, yet. There will no doubt be a relationship, but at the level currently enjoyed by the USMC? T

The driving factor for buying F35B over C should not be motivated by the number of Naval platforms one can land on in an emergency. I'm actually finding it difficult to find any statistics pertaining to how often this has actually happened?

Well to assess a solution you need to look at all the positives. With only 1 carrier, the F-35C will be limited in its use. The F35B had significant capability off a wide variety of ships.
Spain (JC1), Italy (Garabaldi), India (several), Australia (two canberra class), Japan and korean mini flat tops. Thats ships they can train, practice, operate, emergency land, refuel, rearm, lillypad off.

Now with the RN going C that is all out. Harriers have had many crashes and emergency landings (highest in recent time of any aircraft?). Operationally landing them during a emergency (atleast certain types operational or mechanical) is a very minor deal, they just land and don't have to ditch (depending..). Having a plane come back low of fuel and needing to land will stuff up operations compared to units who could have a choice of landings to improve sortie rates.

I think the biggest loss is the influence the RN would have had operating F-35B's off other nations assets. That would have been a bit of a game changer politically. The UK only having 1 or 2 carriers would be a very minor point when it could fast deploy units around the world in hours to operate off allied nations assets. The RN would have easily say worked with the RAN to deploy units on RAN assets while a carrier made its way, or to deter from further aggression.

It it quite hard to move a CSG to unplanned operations, even if the US wants to, but being able to deploy your regular airforce in combination with RN F-35B operating off your assets can be done far quicker. It would have made the UK a real power alternative to the US.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Whilst continuing with F35B would have given access to European and USMC STOVL platforms, it does not compare to what are considered today as being the tier one asset in a Navies arsenal - that being the conventional strike carrier.

Consider that the F-18E/F has roughly the same range as the F-35B. If that's the benchmark, no one has a Tier one conventional strike carrier today.

I think we need to avoid the rhetoric and focus on the objective facts.

And just to reiterate how little communication was made to USMC and the suddenness of the announcement. USMC basing proposal still include UK service members...

http://www.yumasun.com/news/yuma-64892-corps-marine.html

 

[1805]

Finally let's not delude ourselves, the RAF want a piece of F35C because of its better deep strike performance, they would have stuck the knife in time and time again had F35B carried on. Inter service politics played an important role.

The small number of F35s realistically means one owner, although no doubt it will be branded a “joint” unit.

As one would hope that if they are Cs they remain with the carriers, whereas the Harriers have hardly seen the carriers for some time (ok understandable reasons)

We can obviously not guarantee to avoid action with landlocked countries in the future, but we should be out of Afghanistan by the time these aircraft come in.

The combination of the above will ensure the RAF is equally hostile and actively opposes either type. The overall reduction in total fast jet numbers means that if the RN was to be seeing all the action (even if most of the pilots where actually RAF) it would threaten the continuation of an independent air force.

You right the RAF will be desperate for a bomber and they may come to regret the Tornado decision themselves. They will need expensive refits and older kit is always more vulnerable. Future cuts will get them. They are unlikely to find any other countries to participate in a big Euro bomber project although BAe would be a powerful ally, the money will just not be there.

They would be better off focusing on a developing something light like the Hawk 200 and merging it with future UACV, (common engines etc)

 

[riksavage]

They would be better off focusing on a developing something light like the Hawk 200 and merging it with future UACV, (common engines etc)

Taranis uses the latest Hawk engine, so lets hope this approach (tried and tested product) doesn't lead to unacceptable cost blowouts. One of the primary criticisms of Government is that they are generally crap at negotiating favourable contracts. Hopefully these new embedded chiefs of industry will sort that out, the MOD couldn't possibly get much worse!

Once the C model is in service and JLF is created there will IMHO be no going back. The RAF will have no choice but to endorse it and order more (if the funds are released).There's no way another deep strike manned platform will be selected after F series, so the generation after that will comprise a Taranis type platform for high threat missions, which should prove much more cost effective simply because you have no pilot to keep alive.

 

[riksavage]

That’s what I call a sub prime mortgage. You can sign your house over to me now because what you are talking about is freakin impossible. I have an Order of the Hook, I’ve gone to sea on carriers (plural) and spent a lot of time with carrier people and written proposals about joint force carrier operations senior USN brown shows have called “gold”.

Let's agree to disagree, you have your opinion and I have mine. I can only assume from some of your comments that you are either a former serving USN/USMC operative or stowed away aboard an active carrier

I will summarise why I think the switch to F35C was the right: move regardless of the holiday period, as follows:

1. The RN has decided to sacrifice sortie rates for a longer range strike aircraft with a greater payload;

2. The UK's immediate commitment/priority is to the A-Stan conflict until at least 2015, which will eat-up resources and funds, which would otherwise be committed to getting the UK's carrier strike up and running;

3. The F35C model will fit in with both FAA and RAF requirements, whether operated on land or sea and negate the need to select a 3rd type for RAF strike (cost savings associated with sticking to just two manned variants - Typhoon and F35C);

4. EMCAT brings variable launch technology to table allowing for future medium/heavy UAV/UCAV use;

5. UK can still invest in Merlin/pallet mounted radar to replace SeaKing to ensure base level coverage and STILL host US/French Hawkeye;

6. 50% of FAA or near abouts are now flying SH out of the US and are developing cat & trap doctrine lost in the late 70's (note they are not flying USMC AV8B's);

7. The QE Class can and will cross-deck (as stated by the UK PM & Defence chiefs) with the UK's two leading maritime partners - US & France and still maintain the ability to host Italian and Spanish STOVL. The fact that the USN/UK model is identical means resident ground crews can provide support with little supervision, and

8. In the event of a NATO or European action, UK or France can deploy the designated strike carrier, leaving Italian and Spanish vessels to act in the traditional LHD/P role supporting a combined European Commando / Helo (find, attack, carry) Force creating a 'mini-me' version of a full-on US Carrier Battle Group.

On a slightly related issue the French have redesigned PA2, with a numbr of suprising changes:

Single Island, not two, stream lined hull, only one gas turbine and tonnage dropped to 60K - all cost saving measures I suspect.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4977422&c=EUR&s=SEA

 

[1805]

[/I]

Taranis uses the latest Hawk engine, so lets hope this approach (tried and tested product) doesn't lead to unacceptable cost blowouts. One of the primary criticisms of Government is that they are generally crap at negotiating favourable contracts. Hopefully these new embedded chiefs of industry will sort that out, the MOD couldn't possibly get much worse!

Once the C model is in service and JLF is created there will IMHO be no going back. The RAF will have no choice but to endorse it and order more (if the funds are released).There's no way another deep strike manned platform will be selected after F series, so the generation after that will comprise a Taranis type platform for high threat missions, which should prove much more cost effective simply because you have no pilot to keep alive.

I do really like Taranis, the commonality with Hawk and hopefully joint development of both would reduce cost and encourage exports/production runs. With the need for munitions to be smaller and more accurate. I not sure there is a need for large numbers of deep strike aircraft other than the RN operated F35c (or for that matter the RAF), much of this should be done by cruise missiles?

It would be good to see Taranis or similar on the CVF(s)

 

[swerve]

But Taranis is just a technology demonstrator, not intended for operational use. A real, operational 'Son of Taranis' is very likely to be bigger, & therefore need a more powerful engine (e.g. a non-afterburning EJ200).

Agreed, a carrier-capable 'Son of Taranis' would be a great thing to have.

Despite what Taranis is meant for, I still wonder what an operational Taranis UCAV would be like, & suspect it could be damned useful.

 

[kev 99]

But Taranis is just a technology demonstrator, not intended for operational use. A real, operational 'Son of Taranis' is very likely to be bigger, & therefore need a more powerful engine (e.g. a non-afterburning EJ200).

Agreed, a carrier-capable 'Son of Taranis' would be a great thing to have.

Despite what Taranis is meant for, I still wonder what an operational Taranis UCAV would be like, & suspect it could be damned useful.

A non carrier capable 'Son of Taranis' would be bloody stupid in my opinion, but then I suppose it depends on who is controlling the programme within the MOD and I suspect it's what we will actually end up with.

 

[1805]

But Taranis is just a technology demonstrator, not intended for operational use. A real, operational 'Son of Taranis' is very likely to be bigger, & therefore need a more powerful engine (e.g. a non-afterburning EJ200).

Agreed, a carrier-capable 'Son of Taranis' would be a great thing to have.

Despite what Taranis is meant for, I still wonder what an operational Taranis UCAV would be like, & suspect it could be damned useful.

I do hope any production development does not get to big and expensive. I do feel they need to stay inexpensive and expendable.

That said I would love to see a UCAV based on a Pegasus engine that would be very Sci Fi?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Despite what Taranis is meant for, I still wonder what an operational Taranis UCAV would be like, & suspect it could be damned useful.

One would test how one operates.

Field test graphic:
Mission Command - BAE Systems

Considering that there's only 1 raf sqn (39?) operating predators, I doubt if numbers will exceed 1 sqn worth.

 

[swerve]

Very different role. Reaper isn't meant for deep strike against heavily defended targets. 'Son of Taranis' is, & a developed Taranis could be used for that role, & others, giving it a much bigger niche than Reaper.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Did not mention that reaper is a deep strike UCAV. In fact, off the top of my head, I think the only equivalent program J-UCAS was cancelled so there isn't any operational deep strike UCAV. If Taranis does succeed, there would be potential demand than just the UK.

Nevertheless the reaper is a UCAV and there's only 1 UCAV sqn right now with little plans to expand. I seriously can't see the force structure expanding beyond 1 sqn for Taranis.

 

[StevoJH]

Did not mention that reaper is a deep strike UCAV. In fact, off the top of my head, I think the only equivalent program J-UCAS was cancelled so there isn't any operational deep strike UCAV. If Taranis does succeed, there would be potential demand than just the UK.

Nevertheless the reaper is a UCAV and there's only 1 UCAV sqn right now with little plans to expand. I seriously can't see the force structure expanding beyond 1 sqn for Taranis.

Son-of-Taranis would be a Tornado capability replacement, not a Reaper/Predator capbility replacement.

 

[swerve]

Nevertheless the reaper is a UCAV and there's only 1 UCAV sqn right now with little plans to expand. I seriously can't see the force structure expanding beyond 1 sqn for Taranis.

Reaper isn't used as a UCAV by the RAF. It's ISR & target designation only.

We only need a small number because it's not suitable for use in heavily defended airspace, or high intensity warfare, & for COIN & the like we have enough.

The different role of 'Son of Taranis' would need greater numbers to fill.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Let's agree to disagree, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Its not my ‘opinion’ mate its hard, cold fact.

1. The RN has decided to sacrifice sortie rates for a longer range strike aircraft with a greater payload;

False. Additional range is only available for mission planning when land based. Applies to the RAF but not the RN.

2. The UK's immediate commitment/priority is to the A-Stan conflict until at least 2015, which will eat-up resources and funds, which would otherwise be committed to getting the UK's carrier strike up and running;

Sure but you could apply the same financial argument to anyone of underutilised British defence assets: Trident and Tornado come to mind. The carrier force is far more flexible and responsive to either of those.

3. The F35C model will fit in with both FAA and RAF requirements, whether operated on land or sea and negate the need to select a 3rd type for RAF strike (cost savings associated with sticking to just two manned variants - Typhoon and F35C);

The very same argument applies to the F-35B.

4. EMCAT brings variable launch technology to table allowing for future medium/heavy UAV/UCAV use;

Not really. The only source of cat n trap UAV/UCAVs in the world at the moment is the USN and they are planning around steam catapults. These are all long distance projects. You can fly most TUAVs quite effectively off a ski jump carrier today.

5. UK can still invest in Merlin/pallet mounted radar to replace SeaKing to ensure base level coverage and STILL host US/French Hawkeye;

I would think a bird in hand is worth two in the tree… Sea King AEW provides an over the horizon look today, tomorrow and for some time. Much better than trying to beg the US or French to not just lend a platform but the crews for national only operations.

6. 50% of FAA or near abouts are now flying SH out of the US and are developing cat & trap doctrine lost in the late 70's (note they are not flying USMC AV8B's);

They aren’t developing ‘doctrine’ they are keeping up naval fighter skills since the FA2 was withdrawn. They aren’t flying with the USMC Harriers because that is not the mission of naval fighters. Any carrier currency they have they lose when rotating back to the UK. There is a huge, enormous difference between having some recently carrier qualified pilots and being able to operate your own CTOL flight deck.

7. The QE Class can and will cross-deck (as stated by the UK PM & Defence chiefs) with the UK's two leading maritime partners - US & France and still maintain the ability to host Italian and Spanish STOVL. The fact that the USN/UK model is identical means resident ground crews can provide support with little supervision, and

LOL. Are you taking the face saving arguments of politicians seriously? And as for ground crew support that isn’t the issue. It’s being able to safely land on a carrier.

Like I said at the start, opinions are worthless when they fly in the fact of facts. You can believe any shit you want, like some old desert cave hermit flew a 12 legged horse from the Hejaz to Judea 1,400 years ago and that is somehow important to our lives today. But that doesn’t make it remotely true.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Remote-controlled RAF Reaper targets the Taleban - Times Online

RAF bomb the Taliban from 8,000 miles away - Telegraph

EXCLUSIVE: RAF's Reaper UAV conducts first air strike-04/06/2008-Flightglobal.com

MoD's DPOC projects also includes reaper-class UCAVs eg Mantis ATD. The assumption that Taranis is the sole deep strike UCAV project does not gel with the reality.

As to Tornado replacement, again MoD has only floated the possibility of a UCAV as a potential replacement under DPOC. There is nothing confirmed including the type. In fact, Tornado infrastructure was lucky to avoid the recent SDSR cuts and if the axe had fallen...

It cost £143 m just to build 1 Taranis demonstrator. The cost will have to be at least halved to even fall within consideration. And with current costs, "greater numbers" is only a pipe dream whatever the role.

 

[StevoJH]

It cost £143 m just to build 1 Taranis demonstrator. The cost will have to be at least halved to even fall within consideration. And with current costs, "greater numbers" is only a pipe dream whatever the role.

A one off custom/hand built prototype does not give an accurate indication of what a production airframe built on a mass production line would cost to procure.