The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

The problem is that when we get Dave-C we then have to wait some more whilst we train the pilots to fly them from scratch... We need to try and keep a squadron flying in the interim, even if it is from a US / French carrier.

We can't afford to - if we could, we'd have kept Harrier in service - it's paid for, we had service contracts, personnel and trained pilots on tap plus carriers already capable of flying them.

We've already got a dozen FAA pilots working through carrier qualification with the USN, we'll be taking delivery of 2-3 F35B or C as LRIP aircraft in the next year or so.

It'll have to do, there's no money for anything else and if there were, we should spend the money elsewhere. Rafale would be a pointless diversion,

Ian

 

[jaffo4011]

I would be very surpised if the French didn't jump at the chance to build Rafales for the RN if the opportunity existed. I am sure they would do almost anything to win more orders and extend production. I think that comment shows an element of commercial naivety

I struggle to see the value of a CVF without cats; I agree it would fall victim to a defence cut quite quickly. It would be better to sell early and get a good price.

bae are atating that the sea typhonn they are offering the indian navy,wont need cats as its ptw ratio allows it to use the existing carriers ski jumps......food for thought as we already have apparently spare tiffies on order that we are compelled to buy(wise thinking by eurofighter) so why not use them and ditch the f35...

 

[1805]

bae are atating that the sea typhonn they are offering the indian navy,wont need cats as its ptw ratio allows it to use the existing carriers ski jumps......food for thought as we already have apparently spare tiffies on order that we are compelled to buy(wise thinking by eurofighter) so why not use them and ditch the f35...

It's an interesting thought, we would still need arrest wires but that is probably nothing like as expensive. I would have thought it would cost less to construct a Typhoon to a naval than fitting the cats, and it would enable both ships to operate them. If it could be done maybe the best solution, particularly if it helped with an Indian order.

 

[Hambo]

bae are atating that the sea typhonn they are offering the indian navy,wont need cats as its ptw ratio allows it to use the existing carriers ski jumps......food for thought as we already have apparently spare tiffies on order that we are compelled to buy(wise thinking by eurofighter) so why not use them and ditch the f35...

Its all very well BAE offering something thats unfunded to India, hoping they will take all the risk, but thats a far cry from having a working product, with the necessary strengthening, new landing gear and some way of overcoming the visibility issues on landing.

The F35C model isnt that many years away and I would rather have commonality with the worlds largest navy than putting my eggs in a small number of unproven airframes. Besides BAE also has a substantial stake in F35. F35 gives the UK stealthy strike, typhoon doesnt, its far too late to go along those lines, 232 Typhoons isnt that many, especially if the next 20 years has anything like as many conficts as the last 10.

 

[vbombv]

But if they represent the threat in an environment, they must be dealt with. It's not a matter of building the ship to be a "skiff hunter", merely of building a ship that has the capacity to effectively and with the greatest possible economy address likely targets in the environment in which it is operating. There is every chance these targets will comprise of multiple smaller vessels (the old "asymmetric threat" line gets trotted out here a lot) in the future as opposed to major surface combatants.

I agree with you in that if you used such an expensive vessel to exclusively address these threats, it wouldn't necessarily be cost-effective - but it was my impression that these vessels were supposed to be general-purpose, and it's reasonable to assume that dealing with small, numerous threats may be a part of that.

You got me there, the T26 should be an all rounder and be able to deal with all threats, but if we are going to get 12 then costs will be tight and sacrifices made so the dedicated Harpoon SSM is not needed on all of these vessels, as it is not an economical way of dealing with smaller targets (Harpoon at over a million a piece) and unproven against modern warships.

With regards to the economics, the costs of deploying a Daring or F100 vessel on pirate duty are enormous and are complete overkill. Although the pirates are not the "die for a cause" type, they do like to fire off a bit before throwing their weapons in the water, but there still is the risk of some lucky shot of an rpg taking out a helicopter or some suicide type doing even more damage and that is an expensive risk for a vessel costing so much.

My fear is that the T26 will cost too much, will be built in too few in numbers to do anything much more than be a carrier escort anyway so without a low cost policing vessel to get out there and make a presence we will have to reduce our international duties further, reduce our ability to patrol our overseas teritories & reduce our value to our allies. I will get shot down for this but I would go for less T26 hulls and for policing duties I think we need dedicated, small, low cost, low crew platform possibly with UAV assets bolted on. Varous of these could be had for the cost of 1 T26 and be in more places at once.

 

[t68]

F-18's arent available, deliveries are already behind the original schedule due to the USN allowing the RAAF to steal 24 build slots.

I was under the impression that at the time the RAAF ordered Super Hornet, USN were receiving their aircraft faster than were planned. The RAAF build acted like a pause in the USN production run without the physical stoppage.



Unless the RN will not have the F35C till after the Queen Elizabeth arrive in service, I don’t see the need to order Super Hornets as a stop gap measure. But on the other hand if HM government delay the JSF order for cost constraints ordering 36 Super Hornets with 12 growlers, HMS Queen Elizabeth could consist of 12 F/A18F plus 6 EA18G, with enough aircraft to rotate either between deployments or man both carriers with a minimum amount of aircraft, JSF can round out numbers later on when able to do so.

If RN/RAF does get F35C as the mainstream multi role fighter what will you do with the 3 F35B you will be getting in a couple of years?

 

[StobieWan]

bae are atating that the sea typhonn they are offering the indian navy,wont need cats as its ptw ratio allows it to use the existing carriers ski jumps......food for thought as we already have apparently spare tiffies on order that we are compelled to buy(wise thinking by eurofighter) so why not use them and ditch the f35...

*sigh*

The navalised Typhoon is powerpointware - there's been a study done and that's about it - wheras the F35C exists, and appears to work.

F35 is a generation on from Typhoon, it's got a much more advanced radar, it's VLO, has sensor fusion beyond anything even the F22 can bring to the table. STOBAR = worst of all possible worlds.


Ian

 

[1805]

I was under the impression that at the time the RAAF ordered Super Hornet, USN were receiving their aircraft faster than were planned. The RAAF build acted like a pause in the USN production run without the physical stoppage.



Unless the RN will not have the F35C till after the Queen Elizabeth arrive in service, I don’t see the need to order Super Hornets as a stop gap measure. But on the other hand if HM government delay the JSF order for cost constraints ordering 36 Super Hornets with 12 growlers, HMS Queen Elizabeth could consist of 12 F/A18F plus 6 EA18G, with enough aircraft to rotate either between deployments or man both carriers with a minimum amount of aircraft, JSF can round out numbers later on when able to do so.

If RN/RAF does get F35C as the mainstream multi role fighter what will you do with the 3 F35B you will be getting in a couple of years?

d up p

My guess would be they will end up as Museum pieces, The switch from b to c might have been adanced warning of the b's cancellation

 

[Bonza]

You got me there, the T26 should be an all rounder and be able to deal with all threats, but if we are going to get 12 then costs will be tight and sacrifices made so the dedicated Harpoon SSM is not needed on all of these vessels, as it is not an economical way of dealing with smaller targets (Harpoon at over a million a piece) and unproven against modern warships.

Agreed that you're not going to go around shooting Harpoons at small boats, that's not what I was suggesting. I think we agree in this regard but we're just using different words to get there.

Might want to check your numbers re Harpoon costs though, I haven't heard any price tags quoted at anywhere near a million dollars...

EDIT: I did some quick looking around for what costs are publicly available, and there are indeed some sources stating unit cost is around 1.2 mil. However there are also sources stating less than half that, so I'm not sure... maybe one of the other, more learned guys in here could give some insight.

 

[fretburner]

You got me there, the T26 should be an all rounder and be able to deal with all threats, but if we are going to get 12 then costs will be tight and sacrifices made so the dedicated Harpoon SSM is not needed on all of these vessels, as it is not an economical way of dealing with smaller targets (Harpoon at over a million a piece) and unproven against modern warships.

If the Harpoon is unproven against modern warships, is there any other anti-ship missile which is proven against modern warships? I'm guessing you'd say Exocet?

 

[1805]

*sigh*

The navalised Typhoon is powerpointware - there's been a study done and that's about it - wheras the F35C exists, and appears to work.

F35 is a generation on from Typhoon, it's got a much more advanced radar, it's VLO, has sensor fusion beyond anything even the F22 can bring to the table. STOBAR = worst of all possible worlds.


Ian

Surely the worst case is no aircraft at all; the current situation and for 10 years before you start saying how unlikely it is to get the whole lot canned.

Right now I would be grateful for anything including Harriers, Sea Gripen....etc rather than having to rely on Apache as the only carrier strike capability.

 

[StobieWan]

If RN/RAF does get F35C as the mainstream multi role fighter what will you do with the 3 F35B you will be getting in a couple of years?

The F35's on order were never intended to fly in service - they're low rate initial production units which will be used for conversion purposes, weapons clearance, ground handling practise etc. We're (I believe) attempting to negotiate chopping one of the ordered aircraft over to a C model as it's not been built yet.

They'll do useful work in precisely the way intended, put it that way.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Surely the worst case is no aircraft at all; the current situation and for 10 years before you start saying how unlikely it is to get the whole lot canned.

Right now I would be grateful for anything including Harriers, Sea Gripen....etc rather than having to rely on Apache as the only carrier strike capability.

I want aircraft on the deck asap. Fantasy discourses into designs that don't yet fly and won't manage the mission profiles don't help me with that.

Sea Gripen hasn't even recruited a design team, Sea Typhoon is a design study with some numbers tacked on.

:facepalm: I can't even begin to comprehend why these are even being discussed in the context of the RN.

Ian

 

[kev 99]

The F35's on order were never intended to fly in service - they're low rate initial production units which will be used for conversion purposes, weapons clearance, ground handling practise etc. We're (I believe) attempting to negotiate chopping one of the ordered aircraft over to a C model as it's not been built yet.

They'll do useful work in precisely the way intended, put it that way.

Ian

I've actually seen it quoted that the aircraft were never even intended to land on UK soil, this from someone in the MOD, they were only to be used by UK personnel at the US testing facility.

I'm with you on the facepalm, I just wish BAE would shut up with this whole Seaphoon idea, the whole concept is well past it sell by date. If it were ever a serious idea that we would of operated Typhoon from a carrier in the first place it should of been designed in from the start.

 

[Repulse]

I was originally suggesting just leasing a squadron (~12 a/c) to fly off US / French carriers for the next 10 years. All training / support would be bundled with the lease.

 

[StobieWan]

if we can't afford to run the Harriers we already own, where's the money coming from ? Neither can I see any Hornets sitting available for lease.

There's a very slender chance available in the coming months for a reversal of policy and the Harriers currently sitting in hangars being dragged back into service if the need becomes clear and pressing - more so if the economic policies in force are relaxed.

The staff, experience, spares and pilots are all present. Once that experience is lost, it's not going to be coming back until we get Dave-C.

Ian

 

[Hambo]

I was originally suggesting just leasing a squadron (~12 a/c) to fly off US / French carriers for the next 10 years. All training / support would be bundled with the lease.

The last time the UK did a lease deal we paid £500m to have 4 C17s for 7 years when we could have bought them for £130m each.
What would be the point in leasing Rafale if we arent going to use them longterm? the French only have one carrier that seems busy at present so even if they had spare training capacity sooner or later she will go in for refit.

If you lease an aircraft for ten years and slam it onto a carrier regularly then at the very least you will use up a third or more of its fatigue life so on an £80m jet i would think Boeing/Dassault would be wanting a hell of a lot as by the time an airframe was returned it could be shagged out.

Pluck a figure out of thin air, and by the time you add fuel, training etc i suspect it would be way over £1billion possibly rocketing, thats money we dont have.

We are trickling pilots through the US program, just as the F35 will trickle into UK service, little point training more pilots now at great expense when in ten years they might have left the FAA/RAF in anycase.

Having no carrier is not ideal but there are two being built, with a planned aircraft that is way better than anything we have ever operated, getting insecure just because we haven't got any naval fast jets to bomb libya isnt a reason to waste more money.

 

[Repulse]

The last time the UK did a lease deal we paid £500m to have 4 C17s for 7 years when we could have bought them for £130m each.
What would be the point in leasing Rafale if we arent going to use them longterm? the French only have one carrier that seems busy at present so even if they had spare training capacity sooner or later she will go in for refit.

If you lease an aircraft for ten years and slam it onto a carrier regularly then at the very least you will use up a third or more of its fatigue life so on an £80m jet i would think Boeing/Dassault would be wanting a hell of a lot as by the time an airframe was returned it could be shagged out.

Pluck a figure out of thin air, and by the time you add fuel, training etc i suspect it would be way over £1billion possibly rocketing, thats money we dont have.

We are trickling pilots through the US program, just as the F35 will trickle into UK service, little point training more pilots now at great expense when in ten years they might have left the FAA/RAF in anycase.

Having no carrier is not ideal but there are two being built, with a planned aircraft that is way better than anything we have ever operated, getting insecure just because we haven't got any naval fast jets to bomb libya isnt a reason to waste more money.

You misunderstand my point which is once you have lost a set of skills it is difficult and expensive to get back. It's not about bombing Libya. Why would a good ambitious fixed pilot want to stay in the FAA at the moment? Where will be the experienced officer base in 10 years time? Yes we may keep a little knowledge by training pilots through the USN, but for how long? And what would they do after training? To say there is no money is not true, its down to priorities again. Also, saying that there is not a cheaper / alternative option to keeping the harrier is also not true.

 

[StobieWan]

Why would a good ambitious fixed pilot want to stay in the FAA at the moment? Where will be the experienced officer base in 10 years time? Yes we may keep a little knowledge by training pilots through the USN, but for how long? And what would they do after training? To say there is no money is not true, its down to priorities again. Also, saying that there is not a cheaper / alternative option to keeping the harrier is also not true.

Attracting pilots to the FAA has long been an issue - and the ones that have signed up have often complained of spending more time flying with the RAF. Right now? A pilot with the FAA could spend a fascinating time flying with the worlds premier naval aviation institution, the USN, then take that skill base back to the UK and form the core of a regeneration of fixed wing aviation in the RN, flying one of the most modern attack aircraft on the planet. It's not "nothing for ten years" - it's "no full capability for ten years" - we'll need to be standing up conversion and training for the F35 in a matter of a few years to match the ISD of about 2017.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have something in play right now and I do hope Harrier can be brought back - but I'm not holding my breath. I have no idea what could be cheaper however, nor do I see any alternatives that won't prove a fatal diversion.

Priorities? Okay, what does the RN drop then?

Ian

 

[Hambo]

You misunderstand my point which is once you have lost a set of skills it is difficult and expensive to get back. It's not about bombing Libya. Why would a good ambitious fixed pilot want to stay in the FAA at the moment? Where will be the experienced officer base in 10 years time? Yes we may keep a little knowledge by training pilots through the USN, but for how long? And what would they do after training? To say there is no money is not true, its down to priorities again. Also, saying that there is not a cheaper / alternative option to keeping the harrier is also not true.

We havent had Cat and Trap experience since 1978 so those skills need to be re-aquired in any case. We have made the decision to move to the F35C so keeping the ability to launch of a ski jump and land vertically isnt actually going to help when the F35C arrives as such. I agree in principle the decision to cull harrier seems short sighted but at the same time I wouldnt want £100's m poured into upgrading and prolonging the life of a few dozen airframes if it meant we couldnt actually afford a replacement.

what is the cheaper/alternative option?