The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Palnatoke]

@Hambo

Assuming that you can upgrade the typhoon to a sea typhoon at a reasonable price:

Not that I think the sea typhoon is a good idea, but the price on one could be substantially lower than the the price on a typhoon.
IF one considers the investment in R&D etc. in the original typhoon project as a sunken cost (after all those money are spendt) a sea typhoon could be sold at "upgrade cost of a sea typhoon" + "marginal cost of a typhoon"+ profits.

So to speak, a sea typhoon could be a spin off project, where you sell the typhoon design again, add a little extra, but don't pay for the R&D that went into the original typhoon project. Such a construct will ofcourse not improve the economy in the original project who's owners might demand their share of the spin off... (it could also be a biatch to tell your electorate that while they paid full price, we are selling the same stuff to the indians at 2/3 the price, and others might call it goverment subsidies)


The F-35, as far as I know, are projected at a programme cost at $330bn, with 2440 planes that works out to around $135M each. I don't know what the chances are that 2440 planes are getting built with an European-American debt crisis that is a clear and present danger to life as we know it. And somebody might get the idea that 2000-and-something F35s is unneeded, and less could do. In which case the price per plane will jump.

So there could be room for alternatives (not that I think that sea typhoon is necessarely a good candidate for that)

 

[Hambo]

@Hambo

Assuming that you can upgrade the typhoon to a sea typhoon at a reasonable price:

Not that I think the sea typhoon is a good idea, but the price on one could be substantially lower than the the price on a typhoon.
IF one considers the investment in R&D etc. in the original typhoon project as a sunken cost (after all those money are spendt) a sea typhoon could be sold at "upgrade cost of a sea typhoon" + "marginal cost of a typhoon"+ profits.

So to speak, a sea typhoon could be a spin off project, where you sell the typhoon design again, add a little extra, but don't pay for the R&D that went into the original typhoon project. Such a construct will ofcourse not improve the economy in the original project who's owners might demand their share of the spin off... (it could also be a biatch to tell your electorate that while they paid full price, we are selling the same stuff to the indians at 2/3 the price, and others might call it goverment subsidies)


The F-35, as far as I know, are projected at a programme cost at $330bn, with 2440 planes that works out to around $135M each. I don't know what the chances are that 2440 planes are getting built with an European-American debt crisis that is a clear and present danger to life as we know it. And somebody might get the idea that 2000-and-something F35s is unneeded, and less could do. In which case the price per plane will jump.

So there could be room for alternatives (not that I think that sea typhoon is necessarely a good candidate for that)

Wouldn't $135 dollars equate to £100m pounds presently, or thereabouts? The problem with the budget at the moment is that if you only need a small buy of 50-60 airframes, most options would come in around the £100m mark, eg Rafale, Super Hornet or the preferred F35. All would give varying degrees of excellence without having to sink an as yet unknown sum into developing Sea Typhoon. I just can't see how you can make even minor changes to structure, landing gear, engines and nozzles, test all that and find any change from £2 billion.

£2 billion would buy some Hawkeye, or some off the shelf MPA, 6 frigates, 2 astutes or anything else you fancy rather than boosting BAe profits for a small number of planes that even if India buys a few, would have limited sales potential. if at all, it might have been an option to start a decade ago but now would be a waste of cash IMO. Not that we seem to have a spare £2 billion at present.

 

[1805]

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

I don't see how the words, "we will fund if you do" will cost anything? It ony becomes an issue if they say...yes ok?

If they did go down this route and we did, the production is likely to be 80-100?

However, I do not favour ST or F35, I doubt stealth is anything las effective as claimed. I for one would not be volunteering to flying anyway near a Type 45 in stealth anything.

The future looks like the mass use of long range cruise missiles and small (yes stealthy) UACV that be built at lower cost than man craft and we don't mind lossing to many.

Incidently its a pity they could not build a VSTOL UACV based on the Pegasus and max take off weight about 30,000lbs?

 

[jaffo4011]

I don't see how the words, "we will fund if you do" will cost anything? It ony becomes an issue if they say...yes ok?

If they did go down this route and we did, the production is likely to be 80-100?

However, I do not favour ST or F35, I doubt stealth is anything las effective as claimed. I for one would not be volunteering to flying anyway near a Type 45 in stealth anything.

The future looks like the mass use of long range cruise missiles and small (yes stealthy) UACV that be built at lower cost than man craft and we don't mind lossing to many.

Incidently its a pity they could not build a VSTOL UACV based on the Pegasus and max take off weight about 30,000lbs?

agreed,stealth and very other tech moves on.......

re the indian naval typhoon(which links in nicely to british reqs)as i understand it,eurofighter and specifically bae are offering the indians the opportunity to develop a sea version themselves as a full partner,which may then lead to much reduced development costs to the british.........a further win win,esp if you utilise trenche 1 aircraft updated to later specs?

 

[Palnatoke]

@hambo

$135 dollars equate to £100m pounds presently, or thereabouts?

I quess, but going with day to day exchange rates is uncertain. The dollar is weak for the moment which makes the JSF look cheaper, though the interesting rate is the average exchange rate over the years in which a customer pay for the deliveries.
If we think that the dollar will strenghten and f.ex. become equal with the euro, those $135M dollars will be felt...

I agree with you on the sea typhoon, and add that this none-existing airplane would have to compete with rafale and SH

I find it difficult to judge the price tags. One figure, that we might deduce something from is the danish acquisition of new fighters. until it was put on sleep, the budget was at 40bn dkr (about £4.8bn) and for that it seems that they thought they could get around 40 units or about £120M a piece.

Since it's quite obvious that the JSF was the (unofficial) preferred choise and given the budgetting practize in the danish state, it's a fair quess that those £4.8bn was the best quess, at the time, of the danish MOD of what it would cost to get the target of 40 JSF perhaps it includes initial investments ( but not running costs, since those, logically, should be in the budget of the air defense, and not in this special acquisition budget) so I fear that £100M for a JSF is on the low end,,.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The future looks like the mass use of long range cruise missiles and small (yes stealthy) UACV that be built at lower cost than man craft and we don't mind lossing to many.

Really? thats not what we're seeing coming from all our partners - and we are planning out 20-30 years ahead.

nobody is looking at mass cruise missile use except for those militaries that are stuck in a cold war mindset -

I'd add, that the notion of unmanned UAS is also being misrepresented - we're all looking at co-operative warfighting systems - and replacing one with the other ignores all the work and forward vision planning currently underway.

Some have a fundamental misunderstanding of what manned/unmanned does and can do - even out to 2030

 

[Palnatoke]

Really? thats not what we're seeing coming from all our partners - and we are planning out 20-30 years ahead.

nobody is looking at mass cruise missile use except for those militaries that are stuck in a cold war mindset -

I'd add, that the notion of unmanned UAS is also being misrepresented - we're all looking at co-operative warfighting systems - and replacing one with the other ignores all the work and forward vision planning currently underway.

Some have a fundamental misunderstanding of what manned/unmanned does and can do - even out to 2030

While completly automated systems are futuristic, the use of automated robots (f.ex. cruise missiles and other weapons) to attack air defense installations and other stationary targets is a reality of the day. And if I am not much mistaken such robots are used against high value, well defended targets in the initial phaze of conflict.

Remote controlled robots (uacv/uas) are also being put to use on the battlefields, and these have a different potential than the automated systems.

Certainly there are constraints, but allready now it appears that these robots can do a lot of the work that the stealthy planes were designed to do (f.ex. deep strike against key facilities) and they can do it cheaper and with less risc to own personale.

And what possibilities does the future hold?

 

[StobieWan]

I don't see how the words, "we will fund if you do" will cost anything? It ony becomes an issue if they say...yes ok?

If they did go down this route and we did, the production is likely to be 80-100?

What do we get out of it then? You started this out by saying you thought it'd be a good idea to buy and operate ST with the carriers in STOBAR mode as it'd be better than the nothing we have right now.

Two pages later, you're saying you don't think we should get ST and that we shouldn't fund it, unless the Indians go ahead with it. At which point, where does the money come from and what do we get for it? Total conversion costs appear to range from 1-2 billion USD so we'd be looking to throw the equivalent of converting both carriers to cat and trap or standing up an entire E2 capability. Have a solid think about that..

Numbers for the MMRCA Naval deal vary, they be non-existent in fact. Maximum right now, 64.

Link below:


India’s M-MRCA Fighter Competition

 

[StobieWan]

Certainly there are constraints, but allready now it appears that these robots can do a lot of the work that the stealthy planes were designed to do (f.ex. deep strike against key facilities) and they can do it cheaper and with less risc to own personale.

It's not an either/or - the two platforms are complimentary - and it's very likely that any deep strike UAS/UCAV will be LO (stealthy in popular terms)

LO isn't an all or nothing technology either - low observables let you get closer to key installations and open up gaps in defences. It's not a case that LO technology has to make you totally invisible to radar to be worthwhile.

(Although it'd be nice..)

Ian

 

[1805]

What do we get out of it then? You started this out by saying you thought it'd be a good idea to buy and operate ST with the carriers in STOBAR mode as it'd be better than the nothing we have right now.

Two pages later, you're saying you don't think we should get ST and that we shouldn't fund it, unless the Indians go ahead with it. At which point, where does the money come from and what do we get for it? Total conversion costs appear to range from 1-2 billion USD so we'd be looking to throw the equivalent of converting both carriers to cat and trap or standing up an entire E2 capability. Have a solid think about that..

Numbers for the MMRCA Naval deal vary, they be non-existent in fact. Maximum right now, 64.

Link below:


India’s M-MRCA Fighter Competition

No I have not said the RN should develop a ST independently. Only if it help secure the wider Indian contract, I would suggest going in jointly with the Indians on a ST instead of the F35.

STOBAR surely means no expensive conversion to CATs? I suspect the arrest wires end is the lower cost part?

Not sure I agree with any of the numbers talked about of converting the Typhoon, but Indian involvement will share this cost and using Inidan resource is likely to reduce the cost.

As for RN & IN numbers agree nothing firm, but 80-100 more likely than the 60 if they plan 3 carriers and we end up with 2?


But I repeat I favour more new built Harriers, followed by Pegasus powered UACV.

 

[1805]

Really? thats not what we're seeing coming from all our partners - and we are planning out 20-30 years ahead.

nobody is looking at mass cruise missile use except for those militaries that are stuck in a cold war mindset -

I'd add, that the notion of unmanned UAS is also being misrepresented - we're all looking at co-operative warfighting systems - and replacing one with the other ignores all the work and forward vision planning currently underway.

Some have a fundamental misunderstanding of what manned/unmanned does and can do - even out to 2030

I am not sure I fully understand your post. I'm not saying the days of manned combat aircraft are coming to an end, but the way we have used UAV so far is a small part of their potential. Lets not forget cruise missiles are very establish and have been in active use since 1944.

If we look at Libya as an example, much of the initial British engagement was with Storm Shadow. I think in the future a lot of the later interdiction/CAS will be done with UAVs directed from ships off shore?

I feel for the RN one of the most important acquisitions must be the capability to deploy far larger numbers of cruise missiles. SSNs or fitting a few deep VLS to Type 45 or Type 26s would not be sufficient or effective.

Let me just define my us of the term mass, (replace the long range strategic part of the air campaign, so maybe 200-300 missiles?)

The RAF looked at non penetrating aircraft to support the mass deployment of cruise missiles. I think the RN needs to look at the maritime equivalent. I would like to see the RN acquire or convert a ship of RFA proportions/build. If this was then fitted with say only 2-3 8 cell VLS, but being able to be reloaded at sea (this would be a first?), drawing from a common logistics facility or maybe a multirole flexi deck, with capability of holding c300 missiles.

As for stealth UACV powered by a RR Pegasus this would give the UK a huge advantage and be ideally suited to the RN.

 

[StobieWan]

No I have not said the RN should develop a ST independently. Only if it help secure the wider Indian contract, I would suggest going in jointly with the Indians on a ST instead of the F35.

Timings don't add up, we'd be lucky to see an aircraft on deck by the mid 2020's as opposed to a full in service capability by 2020. To realise any savings we'd have to commit to the type of build for the carriers in the next 18 months, and then hope that the joint program goes ahead smoothly. No sense at all in that. We also lose the capability to cross deck with allies, lose that flexibility to launch and recover a decent fixed wing AWACS capability, limit ourselves in terms of access to UCAV's - the list goes on.

ST is a blind leap of faith compared to active participation in a real aircraft that works. What do we gain by screwing up our entire carrier program over a pretend aircraft that exists in power point only?


Ian

 

[1805]

duplicated post

 

[1805]

Timings don't add up, we'd be lucky to see an aircraft on deck by the mid 2020's as opposed to a full in service capability by 2020. To realise any savings we'd have to commit to the type of build for the carriers in the next 18 months, and then hope that the joint program goes ahead smoothly. No sense at all in that. We also lose the capability to cross deck with allies, lose that flexibility to launch and recover a decent fixed wing AWACS capability, limit ourselves in terms of access to UCAV's - the list goes on.

ST is a blind leap of faith compared to active participation in a real aircraft that works. What do we gain by screwing up our entire carrier program over a pretend aircraft that exists in power point only?


Ian

We might be lucky to have any aircraft flying from a carrier in 2020. 9 years is a long time and its been a rough ride so far. When you look what India & China have spent breathing life back into quite old Russian ships, the value of a complete new CVF might not be as low as people have talked about...though nothing like we will have paid for them.

The offer to the Indians would not be open ended, but at this point in time and probably for the next 18-24 months quite safe to have open. First steel was only cut on the POW this May and the QE is not getting cats (or at least at the moment).

Typhoon is an established operational aircraft, agreed much work would need to be done, but not a new aircraft. BTW F35 is actually the one not operational?

 

[1805]

limit ourselves in terms of access to UCAV's - the list goes on.

?


Ian

This is a very good reason for the future UCAV to be VSTOL based on an existing Pegasus.

 

[Volkodav]

We might be lucky to have any aircraft flying from a carrier in 2020. 9 years is a long time and its been a rough ride so far. When you look what India & China have spent breathing life back into quite old Russian ships, the value of a complete new CVF might not be as low as people have talked about...though nothing like we will have paid for them.

The offer to the Indians would not be open ended, but at this point in time and probably for the next 18-24 months quite safe to have open. First steel was only cut on the POW this May and the QE is not getting cats (or at least at the moment).

Typhoon is an established operational aircraft, agreed much work would need to be done, but not a new aircraft. BTW F35 is actually the one not operational?

But why?

What will the Sea Typhoon offer in 2020 that the F-35B/C, F/A-18E/F, Rafale don't already offer or will offer prior to 2020? I just can't see the point, especially if it is a STOBAR only proposition, how will it cross deck to allies carriers?

It sounds like a pretty monumental waste of time and money, that said based on previous UK procurement decisions it may get up. It will be years behind schedule and over budget, then just prior to entering service (in 2033) will be cancelled and the 12 completed airframes (reduced from 50) will be broken up.

 

[1805]

But why?

What will the Sea Typhoon offer in 2020 that the F-35B/C, F/A-18E/F, Rafale don't already offer or will offer prior to 2020? I just can't see the point, especially if it is a STOBAR only proposition, how will it cross deck to allies carriers?

It sounds like a pretty monumental waste of time and money, that said based on previous UK procurement decisions it may get up. It will be years behind schedule and over budget, then just prior to entering service (in 2033) will be cancelled and the 12 completed airframes (reduced from 50) will be broken up.

Yes there is more than a ring of truth in what you say. But my posts on this are not about gaining capability, but selling aircraft to the Indians and maintaining industrial capability in the UK. For they are required to do we should have just stuck with Harriers for another 20-30 years.

But I have to say there is something sadly amusing that the UK is as hopless at souricng aircraft to fly off it's carriers, as the actual carriers themselves....at least they are consistent :-(

 

[StobieWan]

But why?

What will the Sea Typhoon offer in 2020 that the F-35B/C, F/A-18E/F, Rafale don't already offer or will offer prior to 2020? I just can't see the point, especially if it is a STOBAR only proposition, how will it cross deck to allies carriers?

I can't see ST being in service for 2020 to be honest - the MMRCA decision will roll on for another few years and after that there's the development phase. Right now, safest bet, EMALS/AARG - that gives us considerable flexibility in terms of launch weights and recovery of air craft, as both the cats and arresting gear can be tuned on the fly as required.

Best case, F35 works out just fine, we start standing up wings mis 2016 onwards and ideally, the economy has recovered a bit so we can look at a follow on order for sixty or more, split between the RAF and FAA requirements.

If F35 goes TU, we're in a solid position to order Super Hornet as the line will be open for a few more years yet. That gets us back into fixed wing carrier aviation with vengeance and it's all good.

Ian

 

[Volkodav]

Yes there is more than a ring of truth in what you say. But my posts on this are not about gaining capability, but selling aircraft to the Indians and maintaining industrial capability in the UK. For they are required to do we should have just stuck with Harriers for another 20-30 years.

But I have to say there is something sadly amusing that the UK is as hopless at souricng aircraft to fly off it's carriers, as that actual carriers themselves....at least they are consistent :-(

Maintain the industrial capability by investing in industry through progressive taxation, education and trade policies. Enable industry to win substantial blocks of design and production work on multinational projects. Conducting limited builds of compromised adaptions of existing inservice designs only leads to tears.

It is possible to have a profitable successful industry that is capable taking a project from initial design concept through to full production without ever doing so. The idea is to use the capability to fill gaps in other companies or even nations projects, exercising and further perfecting the full range of capabilities on discrete segments of many different projects. e.g. Would Airbus be so successfull without BAEs wing designs? Would the F-35B be flying without RR and BAE?

 

[1805]

Maintain the industrial capability by investing in industry through progressive taxation, education and trade policies. Enable industry to win substantial blocks of design and production work on multinational projects. Conducting limited builds of compromised adaptions of existing inservice designs only leads to tears.

It is possible to have a profitable successful industry that is capable taking a project from initial design concept through to full production without ever doing so. The idea is to use the capability to fill gaps in other companies or even nations projects, exercising and further perfecting the full range of capabilities on discrete segments of many different projects. e.g. Would Airbus be so successfull without BAEs wing designs? Would the F-35B be flying without RR and BAE?

I agree with your first paragraph completely. But the rest I struggle with, it saddens me to see people running down the Typhoon as a 90s design, so the B52s are still in service, great aircraft go through many models/upgrades.

The original Buccaneers were only average performers, upgraded engines made them greats. If we had focused on a great attack plane and not built the Tornado, the money saved would have go into a decent fighter in the 70s. We then pour money into the Tornado and do the same thing. The UK defence industry is littered with systems that are under developed, have far to short production runs and then abandoned. You could not invent a more expensive way to procure equipment.

Recent example: why buy more Chinooks, if we need some more helicopters by some Merlins (I think they are actually cheaper?). If we want to buy best all the time, then lets get out of the high tech defence industry and just focus on the labour side of ship building/assembly of kits, in run down areas.

The F18 is a very good example of how to do it well. Aibus is a massive French achievement, that the rest of Europe has benefited from.