The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[WillS]

Rik,
The original article unfortunately complicates that hopeful POV somewhat.

Ministers reconsider mothballing carrier - East Hampshire - The News

..."The government will then have to stump up an estimated £1bn tearing the ship apart to fit catapult and arrestor gear – known as ‘cats and traps’ – to enable F-35C jets to fly from her flight deck.

Mr Hancock, who sits on the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, said: ‘If the first one does not have cats and traps then why are we building it?

‘It’s a complete shambles. Why are we spending more than £2bn for a helicopter landing ship?’ " quote ends.

My completely non-technical, ill-informed hunch is that the expensive "tearing the ship apart" bit of the refit applies more to the cats part of cats 'n' traps than the traps bit.

This is never going to happen but ..... could you fit Carrier 1 with arrestor gear relatively cheaply and operate in a STOBAR config, albeit with a reduced take-off payload for the aircraft, until the first major refit?

Can the F35C do STOBAR? After all it's been claimed that both the Gripen(sea) and Super Hornet can.

Of course, one major stumbling block is even if you did complete Carrier 1 as CATOBAR (and I'm sure you could, it's just that the manufacturers smell the possibility of an expensive refit contract), the F35C just isn't going to be ready by 2016. I note that the Aussies are now seriously talking about buying more Super Hornets because they don't think the F35As are going to be ready by time they need to start replacing their Hornet fleet (2018).


WillS

 

[1805]

My completely non-technical, ill-informed hunch is that the expensive "tearing the ship apart" bit of the refit applies more to the cats part of cats 'n' traps than the traps bit.

This is never going to happen but ..... could you fit Carrier 1 with arrestor gear relatively cheaply and operate in a STOBAR config, albeit with a reduced take-off payload for the aircraft, until the first major refit?

Can the F35C do STOBAR? After all it's been claimed that both the Gripen(sea) and Super Hornet can.

Of course, one major stumbling block is even if you did complete Carrier 1 as CATOBAR (and I'm sure you could, it's just that the manufacturers smell the possibility of an expensive refit contract), the F35C just isn't going to be ready by 2016. I note that the Aussies are now seriously talking about buying more Super Hornets because they don't think the F35As are going to be ready by time they need to start replacing their Hornet fleet (2018).


WillS

For the expense and timing, it might have been better to have gone for STOBAR on both. I know the view is that BAe are "flying a kite" with a navalised Typhoon for the Indian Navy, but I could not see it would harm the cause, if the MOD said it would also join a Sea Typhoon project if the Indian's commited to it at the same time.

STOBAR operations may mean having to accept reduced payloads....but then better than were we are now with none?

 

[StobieWan]

For the expense and timing, it might have been better to have gone for STOBAR on both. I know the view is that BAe are "flying a kite" with a navalised Typhoon for the Indian Navy, but I could not see it would harm the cause, if the MOD said it would also join a Sea Typhoon project if the Indian's commited to it at the same time.

STOBAR operations may mean having to accept reduced payloads....but then better than were we are now with none?

Sea Typhoon doesn't exist and therefore would be a bad choice for STOBAR operations.

And why would the MOD make any statement on Sea Typhoon? They have no requirement, no funding and no reason to want it.

I can't see any advantage to completing either carrier to STOBAR standards as the aircraft to fly off them wouldn't be available in any numbers til much later.


Ian

 

[1805]

Sea Typhoon doesn't exist and therefore would be a bad choice for STOBAR operations.

And why would the MOD make any statement on Sea Typhoon? They have no requirement, no funding and no reason to want it.

I can't see any advantage to completing either carrier to STOBAR standards as the aircraft to fly off them wouldn't be available in any numbers til much later.


Ian

Surely you would see an advantage for the UK defence industry (UK generally) if by the UK offering to join India (but only with India) in the development of a Sea Typhoon model, if this resulted in a win for the whole IAF contract?

I am not underestimating the time required to develop a Navalised version or potential interest of India in such. That said they have 8-9 years?

The do have a requirement for something to fly off the CVFs, true no budget, but then neither does the F35...?

 

[StobieWan]

Surely you would see an advantage for the UK defence industry (UK generally) if by the UK offering to join India (but only with India) in the development of a Sea Typhoon model, if this resulted in a win for the whole IAF contract?

I am not underestimating the time required to develop a Navalised version or potential interest of India in such. That said they have 8-9 years?

The do have a requirement for something to fly off the CVFs, true no budget, but then neither does the F35...?

Where did you get the impression that the UK had expressed any interest in a Sea Typhoon on a formal level?

Ian

 

[1805]

Where did you get the impression that the UK had expressed any interest in a Sea Typhoon on a formal level?

Ian

I didn't say they had, I said they should if it helps the UK win probably one of the largest defence contracts out there?

That said this is a high agenda item for all those involved what did you think BO (before US aircraft were dropped)/DC were doing out in India.

 

[StobieWan]

I didn't say they had, I said they should if it helps the UK win probably one of the largest defence contracts out there?

That said this is a high agenda item for all those involved what did you think BO (before US aircraft were dropped)/DC were doing out in India.

Nope - not if it breaks UK carrier strike, and this will. The timings won't work - F35C would be in service by 2018 and fully up to speed by 2020.

There's no sense at all in the UK becoming involved in a development program for a requirement that's already been fulfilled, and for an order of such a small size. We're in an international program with a 10% workshare of 2500-4000 orders, running for thirty years. I don't understand why the Indians would be looking at any carrier aircraft right now as they've just inducted or began to induct Mig29's for Stobar.

Gut feeling is that if they plump for Typhoon (and I hope they do) they'll decide to strip out any carrier requirements and simply order Tiffy for land use. I think they'd be bonkers to select anything that doesn't exist. Sea Typhoon is a hugely bad idea.

Ian

 

[jaffo4011]

Nope - not if it breaks UK carrier strike, and this will. The timings won't work - F35C would be in service by 2018 and fully up to speed by 2020.

There's no sense at all in the UK becoming involved in a development program for a requirement that's already been fulfilled, and for an order of such a small size. We're in an international program with a 10% workshare of 2500-4000 orders, running for thirty years. I don't understand why the Indians would be looking at any carrier aircraft right now as they've just inducted or began to induct Mig29's for Stobar.

Gut feeling is that if they plump for Typhoon (and I hope they do) they'll decide to strip out any carrier requirements and simply order Tiffy for land use. I think they'd be bonkers to select anything that doesn't exist. Sea Typhoon is a hugely bad idea.

Ian

dont forget tho that our workshare isnt dependant on buying the f35,its guaranteed in any case as bae are a stakeholder in the programme.....

im with 1805 on this one...we have a large order for the typhoon already which cant be reversed,so,if the indians go for sea tiffie,then go with it too and get the best of both worlds with little risk.

 

[StobieWan]

dont forget tho that our workshare isnt dependant on buying the f35,its guaranteed in any case as bae are a stakeholder in the programme.....

im with 1805 on this one...we have a large order for the typhoon already which cant be reversed,so,if the indians go for sea tiffie,then go with it too and get the best of both worlds with little risk.

The timings don't add up and we're already out of our requirement to order more Tiffys as far as I can tell. Right now, to get us back into fixed wing aviation, we need to start standing up something of a capability by 2015ish to match an ISD of a carrier for 2016 or 2018 depending on what happens with cat and trap.

Sea Typhoon doesn't exist other than a fevered dream, it's a 1990's jet in the first place and it's nowhere near as capable as the F35C.We're also ordering a small number, which means that the conversion to STOBAR will be spread across tiny packets. STOBAR remains about the least attractive option for carrier ops as it has the worst of all worlds (substantial risk when landing as an arrested bird, but all the range penalties of STOVL)

Little risk? Redesigning a jet to land on a carrier being described as little risk?

And we're *nearly* there with F35 - Tiffy on a carrier has not even a timetable to hang your hopes around.

Ian

 

[kev 99]

im with 1805 on this one...we have a large order for the typhoon already which cant be reversed

As far as I'm aware it already has been, tranche 3b probably won't be ordered.

 

[riksavage]

According to recent news reports funds have already been earmarked in 2015 for F35C, T26 ongoing work, Rivet Joint, EMALS, Chinook and Amoured vehicles upgrades (FRES SV/Warrior). The chance of buying a marinised Typhoon is less than zip. In a worst case scenario should the F35 series implode the UK would go for SH or at a stretch Rafi.

Going for a marinised Typhoon would be a disaster - the financial risk is too great, plus it's only a concept thrown out there to tempt the Indians.

 

[1805]

According to recent news reports funds have already been earmarked in 2015 for F35C, T26 ongoing work, Rivet Joint, EMALS, Chinook and Amoured vehicles upgrades (FRES SV/Warrior). The chance of buying a marinised Typhoon is less than zip. In a worst case scenario should the F35 series implode the UK would go for SH or at a stretch Rafi.

Going for a marinised Typhoon would be a disaster - the financial risk is too great, plus it's only a concept thrown out there to tempt the Indians.

I was not going for a marinised Typhoon as saying we should support BAe however flakey their suggestion and say if the Indians when for it we woudl join.

Actually I agree it is very unlikely they would take up the offer.

 

[StobieWan]

I was not going for a marinised Typhoon as saying we should support BAe however flakey their suggestion and say if the Indians when for it we woudl join.

Actually I agree it is very unlikely they would take up the offer but if they did what

So, we should spend money on propping up a bid for an aircraft we'll never fly?

Ian

 

[1805]

So, we should spend money on propping up a bid for an aircraft we'll never fly?

Ian

I was not suggesting spending any more money on he bid than has already been spent by UK Gov on this area.

I have send it is unlikely at this late stage, that said if the Indians did go down the route how silly would it look to be flying F35 and the Indians ST?

Personally I would stick with Harriers and open up the production line for more. A c100 Harriers and cruise missiles /VLS more useful for the UK?

 

[jaffo4011]

As far as I'm aware it already has been, tranche 3b probably won't be ordered.

the problem for the uk is the penalty for not ordering batch 3 exceeds the cost of buying them....its all in the contracts specifically designed to stop the govt defaulting on the orders........

as such,marinising a quantity of typhoons,which we have to pay for come what may makes a lot more sense........and i dont quite see,why,utilising what is probably the worlds current best air superiority fighter,which also happens to be already used by the raf,is such a bad idea.............

 

[kev 99]

the problem for the uk is the penalty for not ordering batch 3 exceeds the cost of buying them....its all in the contracts specifically designed to stop the govt defaulting on the orders........

No, all the latest scuttlebut says that the contracts guaranteeing that work are more or less null and void due to cost overrums, the other 3 partner nations have also made similar noises, if you have a little hunt around you will find statements from MOD personnel to this effect.

as such,marinising a quantity of typhoons,which we have to pay for come what may makes a lot more sense........and i dont quite see,why,utilising what is probably the worlds current best air superiority fighter,which also happens to be already used by the raf,is such a bad idea.............

Because it's not designed to do the job you want it to and to redesign it to do that job would cost a fortune which we not only do not have but do not have to find either.

 

[jaffo4011]

No, all the latest scuttlebut says that the contracts guaranteeing that work are more or less null and void due to cost overrums, the other 3 partner nations have also made similar noises, if you have a little hunt around you will find statements from MOD personnel to this effect.



Because it's not designed to do the job you want it to and to redesign it to do that job would cost a fortune which we not only do not have but do not have to find either.

well of course that is what they are intimating but its just a ploy to try and force eurofighter to allow the orders to be reduced....everything i have read indicates then contracts are watertight even allowing for cost overruns.........

and where is your information re costs?....i dont believe that buying brand new f35's is going to be cheaper than the marinisation of aircraft already paid for?...after all;

''Being shown in model form for the first time this week, the European type would receive several new features to support its proposed life at sea. These include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and thrust-vectoring control nozzles for its two Eurojet EJ200 turbofan engines. The latter would enable the fighter to approach the vessel at a reduced speed without restricting pilot vision by requiring an increased angle of attack.

Eurofighter says only localised strengthening would be required on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, and to the EJ200. Conformal fuel tanks could also be integrated with the airframe to extend the strike aircraft's range''.....source bae

and in what way would the navy be suffering in terms of performance/ability other than in terms of stealth?(always a technology thats quickly superseded in any case,leaving the core abilities as paramount)

 

[Hambo]

well of course that is what they are intimating but its just a ploy to try and force eurofighter to allow the orders to be reduced....everything i have read indicates then contracts are watertight even allowing for cost overruns.........

and where is your information re costs?....i dont believe that buying brand new f35's is going to be cheaper than the marinisation of aircraft already paid for?...after all;

''Being shown in model form for the first time this week, the European type would receive several new features to support its proposed life at sea. These include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and thrust-vectoring control nozzles for its two Eurojet EJ200 turbofan engines. The latter would enable the fighter to approach the vessel at a reduced speed without restricting pilot vision by requiring an increased angle of attack.

Eurofighter says only localised strengthening would be required on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, and to the EJ200. Conformal fuel tanks could also be integrated with the airframe to extend the strike aircraft's range''.....source bae

and in what way would the navy be suffering in terms of performance/ability other than in terms of stealth?(always a technology thats quickly superseded in any case,leaving the core abilities as paramount)

May not be the definitive answer but quite a comprehensive article that does suggest Tranche 3b doesn't have to be purchased.

Eurofighter Typhoon, understanding the Tranches and Blocks « Fast Air Photography

The figures on navy-matters and other blurb estimated a £2billion cost to develop navalised Typhoon and at anytime in the testing this could change. We don't know the cost of TVC etc just as we don't know the cost of F35C, but we have already contributed a considerable cost to the F35 and should get some workshare back. A small run of 60 Sea Typhoon, surely £100m each minimum? so £6billion, The F35C has a much bigger production run, could it come in at £100m? If so £6billion for Typhoon plus £2billion development means 60 airframes for £8 billion, or 80 F35C as its already pretty much developed. Stay with F35 and you can have the option to buy into future US upgrades.

Im not sure stealth will be superseded anytime soon, even the nations that claim they possess super radars that defeat stealth such as russia and china are rushing to build stealthy airframes, that might suggest they can't easily master stealth detection. F35 gives the UK a capability it now lacks, at this late stage when flight testing is well advanced I can't see why we wouldn't grab it with both hands.

 

[StobieWan]

I was not suggesting spending any more money on he bid than has already been spent by UK Gov on this area.

I have send it is unlikely at this late stage, that said if the Indians did go down the route how silly would it look to be flying F35 and the Indians ST?

Personally I would stick with Harriers and open up the production line for more. A c100 Harriers and cruise missiles /VLS more useful for the UK?

So, what do you mean by "support" if it's not involving spending money?

I'd be all for cutting overseas aid by a chunk to India and then offering the equivalent back up on the table as credit against a UK based design team to do the engineering work - that'd work for me.

For the UK, ST makes no sense, and there's nothing silly about us selecting a purpose built carrier aircraft with bags of 5th generation features and a long production run ahead of it for our purposes.

Selecting a 1990's design, limited to STOBAR ops just makes no sense when we have two large carriers capable of supporting CATOBAR operations, letting us cross deck with the US and French at will, share their E2 and COD capability.

Neither are the timings favourable - India's MMRCA bid will drag on for a long time - their defence procurements always do and their results are often poorly judged. Typhoon is already through the first selection round without any naval variant - which suggests that the carrier requirement isn't so critical to the decision process.

In truth, MMRCA is a mix of requirements for effectively two or three different types of fighter overall and I suspect the final decision will be at least another 2-3 years away - very possibly twice that. Given the changing requirements, it's also possible the entire thing will be rebid again in a while. Remember, this started as a request for a lightweight fighter to replace the Mig21s. They may well all have crashed before that happens.


I suspect full rate production F35C will be cheaper than a navalised Typhoon - Typhoon as it stands is already a substantially more expensive aircraft than many of it's peers, largely due to the shorter production runs.

Ian

 

[kev 99]

well of course that is what they are intimating but its just a ploy to try and force eurofighter to allow the orders to be reduced....everything i have read indicates then contracts are watertight even allowing for cost overruns.........

and where is your information re costs?....i dont believe that buying brand new f35's is going to be cheaper than the marinisation of aircraft already paid for?...after all;

''Being shown in model form for the first time this week, the European type would receive several new features to support its proposed life at sea. These include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and thrust-vectoring control nozzles for its two Eurojet EJ200 turbofan engines. The latter would enable the fighter to approach the vessel at a reduced speed without restricting pilot vision by requiring an increased angle of attack.

Eurofighter says only localised strengthening would be required on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, and to the EJ200. Conformal fuel tanks could also be integrated with the airframe to extend the strike aircraft's range''.....source bae

and in what way would the navy be suffering in terms of performance/ability other than in terms of stealth?(always a technology thats quickly superseded in any case,leaving the core abilities as paramount)

If Tranche 3b gets ordered I'll eat my hat, in the unlikely event that it does then the RAF will be flogging it's tranche 1 fighters anyway so there won't be any spare, so we won't be marinising fighters that are already paid for because they aren't paid for and won't be ordered. None of the partner nations expect to get their full allocations and the RAF certainly aren't.

All those new features that you've listed aren't funded so we'll have to pay for all of that, as per the information that Hambo has posted that is going to cost billions. If this was all as cheap as you seem to make it sound Eurofighter would have funded the development themselves and then we wouldn't be having this conversation, the fact that they havne't rather suggests it's going to be expensive.

and in what way would the navy be suffering in terms of performance/ability other than in terms of stealth?(always a technology thats quickly superseded in any case,leaving the core abilities as paramount)

STOBAR supposedly takes up more deck space than any other carrier configuration and the aircraft will have a more limited payload than CATOBAR.