I suspect this one of a number of reasons why a lot of the UOR bought vehicles will stay in Afghanistan, to be written off as foreign aid - the lighter stuff like the body armour and the DMR etc will come home and stay in use but a large chunk of the odd ball collection of armoured and protected vehicles will probably stay where they are, to save on the cost of recovering them out of a landlocked country. Saves us having to pick up on the tab for running a pile of small subfleets...
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
the normal process is to leave behind some kit as continuing aid, but there is some pragmatism behind the decision as well.
however, it doesn't help karzai when he publicly comes out and says the exiting forces should leave behind their gear for the afghani militaries benefit - esp when he knows that some would probably have been left behind anyway.
the concerned
Active Member
i keep seeing that the uk government is reconsidering its JSF options due to the cost of refitting. Am i the only one that thinks its money that is worth investing in ,1 we get the right aircraft,2 we get a ship that is flexible with regards to our allies and i am sure the ship will out live the lifespan of the jsf and the uk will never be in the position to fully develop a replacement on its own so would have to acept a joint replacement aircraft which i doubt would ever be stovl again.Also why couldn't the uk government purchase the cv-22 osprey with sub variants providing asw/aew/air refeulling this i think would be a wise choice so that just 2 types operate on the carriers
Well the B model is far from an orphan as it will be operated by Italy, Spain and don't forget the USMC where as the C will only be operated by USN. As for the CTOL option cross decking Rafaels onto the UK carriers sounds good in principle but what about spares, ordenance etc? I think if you have stick with the C option then the only navy you will be cross decking with on a regular basis will be the USN, everything else will be touch and goes, maybe with refueling as well.
Realistically the only navy we will be really co-operating with heavily will be the USN. There will be some limited cross-decking with Europe, but mostly just for political purposes and emergencies. That is as true of the F35-B as the F35-C
The ACA have not finished their study of CATOBAR yet so of course they are still considering it. Most of the rest is a political game made up by Jim Murphy. The costs to buy and run F35-B are so much greater that it is unlikely that the cost of conversion will still not be worth it on just those grounds. However there are other factors (tanking, difficulty of re-learning CV skills etc) that might change the equation.
We will not be buying Ospreys whichever option of carrier we go for. That was rejected years ago when we still thought we were going STOVL
The ACA have not finished their study of CATOBAR yet so of course they are still considering it. Most of the rest is a political game made up by Jim Murphy. The costs to buy and run F35-B are so much greater that it is unlikely that the cost of conversion will still not be worth it on just those grounds. However there are other factors (tanking, difficulty of re-learning CV skills etc) that might change the equation.
We will not be buying Ospreys whichever option of carrier we go for. That was rejected years ago when we still thought we were going STOVL
t68
Well-Known Member
Looking at both the V-22 against the Ch-47 the only relative advantage is outright speed and slightly long range you already have a number of Chinooks at CH-47D standard in service. Also they both do not have ASW/AEW capability that you desire but you already have the Merlin which is ASW/AEW certified also you still have Sea King in service.
I am lead to believe that their are some S-3 Viking in storage, if the MOD still go with cat and trap carrier it might make a short term solution to ASW limited AEW problem, plus it gives you a air refuelling capability from the carrier if the USN has no E2 Hawkeye spare its not ideal but food for thought.
US-3A was a modified for carrier on board delivery, their was also an Outlaw Viking modified Over-the-horizon Airborne Sensor Information System (OASIS)
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/oasis/
I am lead to believe that their are some S-3 Viking in storage, if the MOD still go with cat and trap carrier it might make a short term solution to ASW limited AEW problem, plus it gives you a air refuelling capability from the carrier if the USN has no E2 Hawkeye spare its not ideal but food for thought.
US-3A was a modified for carrier on board delivery, their was also an Outlaw Viking modified Over-the-horizon Airborne Sensor Information System (OASIS)
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/oasis/
Last edited:
Osprey is fabulously expensive to buy and to maintain so it's the opposite of what the RN needs. They have looked great in every movie they've ever been in I admit but they've no place on a UK carrier deck. There's bags more stuff that would be sensible to buy (the full order of A400M, another C17, more Chinooks, all stuff that would greatly enhance UK capabilities)
If the US decide to plain give us some, I'd still be wary, let alone buying them.
I do agree I'd sooner bite the bullet and get CATOBAR ops with F35C up and running than faff around any further.
A BAM has a base crew of 35. For extended deployments, operating a helicopter, anything that requires armed boarding parties, that is increased significantly. For anti-pirate & anti drug-smuggler operations the extra people are essential. It has cabins, bunks, galley etc for 70, & I think most of that would be needed.
A Type 22 batch 3 has 250 crew, with Harpoon, Sea Wolf, torpedoes, helicopter armed for anti-shipping & ASW operations, etc. Leave all that except the helicopter (without the Sea Skua, torpedoes, etc) at home, & you can also leave quite a few sailors at home - and not just the crew to operate & maintain all the gear. Hotel operations can be scaled down for fewer crew, producing an additional saving, command centre crew can be greatly reduced, engine crew can be trimmed a little if you're going to be operating entirely on the Tynes except in grave emergencies, etc.
I don't know exactly how much the crew can be cut by, but I think it's quite a lot. You might end up with 150 vs 60, rather than 250 vs 35. Still a big difference, & with fuel & so on the T22 will cost a few times as much in running costs as a BAM, but for the same operations the margin isn't anywhere near as great as when comparing a warship-configured T22 to a fisheries protection BAM, & the running/capital cost equation makes it no longer quite as obvious that the OPV is the best choice. One also has to factor in dockyard equipment & personnel, spares stocks, & so on, of course.
kev 99
Member
Spain hasn't committed to buying the B model, it might be the only option for replacing it's Harriers but it has not committed yet. Italy is far from a certain buyer, the Italian airforce is lobbying hard for dropping the F35B as a cost saving measure, they are every bit as oppossed to their navy having fixed wing aircraft as the RAF are to ours.
It's also worth pointing out that possibilities for cross decked USMC F35bs got cut in half when the Marines decided that half of their aircraft would be Cs.
If you're talking about the choice between B and C in terms of cross decking potential then the numbers are well in favour of C.
Buying the B limits the RN to operating the Bs for years to come, any successor to the F35 would have to be STOVL or conversion would have to be made, so cost that should have been built in from the start will just get pushed a couple of decades into the future. STOVL has its advantages for navies but it really only came about as a means of producing small, low cost aircraft carriers; naval fixed wing aviation on the cheap.. If you're building 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers then you don't need STOVL, and when the aircraft are as expensive as the F35b then it stops being cheap anyway.
Last edited:
If I had a pound for every time someone suggests just buying a few of these different aircraft type for the carrier because they will be cheap, then I could retire a rich man. Still be several £billion short of the money needed to train the pilots; maintainers; equip to be RN compatible; produce the safety case; set up the spares, repairs and support facilities.....
But this applies to any new type of aircraft being bought, whether JSF, Rafael, or Super Hornet. Most likely the biggest difference in price involves the aircraft's flyaway price.
t68
Well-Known Member
Never said it was going to be cheap, only gives you some of the capability that will be missed from the carrier if MOD stick with cat and trap set up. This is only if the USN has no E2 or C2A aircraft spare for long range ASW/AEW, COD, but the S3-Viking will also provide in flight refuelling which both the E2 and C2A will not give. It’s just another avenue to explore as the logistics trail will roughly be the same as it is a different aircraft just like E2/C2A will be, you also would be looking at dozen of each aircraft as you cannot keep the same aircraft floating between both carriers.
If it would take several billion pounds to introduce a small number of a cheap to buy new type into service, then there is something catastrophically wrong with the way we do things, & we should change it radically.
You say that in the same week it's being suggested that converting a carrier already pre-designed for CATOBAR ops is going to cost more than it's original build price to well..convert for CATOBAR ops.
I can hear the Disturbed cover of "Land of Confusion" in my ears right now - but if you want to go with the original Genesis version, the lyrics still work...
I meant adding:
Just a few E2-Cs; or Ospreys; or SHornet for tanking...
As to Swerve's comment, it is easy to buy a few new aircraft.
Why do you believe this is wrong? If we were to add just 2 (say) Ospreys to the QEC. We now need to train the maintainers, which means we need shore trainers, and simulators, and manuals. Does that increase the number of people on QEC? Probably, so more covering shifts; people to feed them; pay them. And we need to make sure that every one of the millions of parts is entered into the supply system so that spares an be ordered. It may not be billions to introduce an aircraft to service, but it will soon cost that extra to keep it there.
Look at air forces around the world. How many have bought decent aircraft but can now no keep many in the air? They cannot be maintained, or the pilots are not trained properly. How many of Libya's air force (which was numerically bigger than the RAF) put up a defence? And how many were U/S?
According to you, most of the air forces which keep their aircraft flying must be doing it by magic, since they can't possibly be able to to afford it.
It does not cost billions to introduce a new type. Yes, there is a big overhead, but an order of magnitude or two less than you claim. Ditto for operating it.
You talk about the costs of tracking parts: well, I once (over 20 years ago) helped write an MoD system which did just that (& also costed them, & labour for maintenance, etc). Before that I worked on a similar systems for commercial firms, & a variant for Shorts, which as an aircraft manufacturer had to track individual parts for their entire lifetime. One such system can track multiple types. Shorts (not exactly a big aircraft firm) had all its parts, for all its types in one system, running on a computer which by modern standards was ridiculously slow & short of memory & offline. You could walk down to PC World & buy a much more powerful computer for a few hundred quid now, & with the right software, it could do that job (though I'd rather have a decent networked server with multiple backups). Data entry might be a pain - except that for any current type, the manufacturer should be able to supply files for upload.
The system will tell you when parts need to be ordered. This sort of thing was up & running in the 1970s, & I remember seeing a fairly modest firm based in my home town on a customer list for the first such system I worked on 30 years ago.
Ah, Libya! Trust you to pick perhaps the worst possible example, a country which bought far more weapons in the 1970s & early 1980s than it had people trained to operate, & then quarrelled with enough suppliers to get itself embargoed for many years, & which had a leader whose megalomania was matched only by his administrative & military incompetence. Why not cite Pakistan? With a fraction of the budget, it kept (& keeps) more aircraft operational than Libya ever did. Some of the aircraft it flies now were in storage in Libya, non-operational, for decades, until bought as spares sources by Pakistan, which was surprised to discover that some of 'em were almost in as-new condition, having been stored almost unused.
There are many other examples of forces which would be stunned at the thought that it costs billions to operate a small number of an aircraft type. Why not ask Switzerland, or Finland, or even Sweden or Israel? Do you think that any of those would introduce penny packets of some types (e.g. helicopters) into service if the costs of a new type rather than more of an existing type were so high?
Yes, each additional type increases overheads, but nowhere near as much as you claim - unless the administrative & operational systems are so inefficient that everyone responsible should at best be sacked for gross incompetence, or at worst put on trial for criminal negligence or maybe some more severe charge.
It does not cost billions to introduce a new type. Yes, there is a big overhead, but an order of magnitude or two less than you claim. Ditto for operating it.
You talk about the costs of tracking parts: well, I once (over 20 years ago) helped write an MoD system which did just that (& also costed them, & labour for maintenance, etc). Before that I worked on a similar systems for commercial firms, & a variant for Shorts, which as an aircraft manufacturer had to track individual parts for their entire lifetime. One such system can track multiple types. Shorts (not exactly a big aircraft firm) had all its parts, for all its types in one system, running on a computer which by modern standards was ridiculously slow & short of memory & offline. You could walk down to PC World & buy a much more powerful computer for a few hundred quid now, & with the right software, it could do that job (though I'd rather have a decent networked server with multiple backups). Data entry might be a pain - except that for any current type, the manufacturer should be able to supply files for upload.
The system will tell you when parts need to be ordered. This sort of thing was up & running in the 1970s, & I remember seeing a fairly modest firm based in my home town on a customer list for the first such system I worked on 30 years ago.
Ah, Libya! Trust you to pick perhaps the worst possible example, a country which bought far more weapons in the 1970s & early 1980s than it had people trained to operate, & then quarrelled with enough suppliers to get itself embargoed for many years, & which had a leader whose megalomania was matched only by his administrative & military incompetence. Why not cite Pakistan? With a fraction of the budget, it kept (& keeps) more aircraft operational than Libya ever did. Some of the aircraft it flies now were in storage in Libya, non-operational, for decades, until bought as spares sources by Pakistan, which was surprised to discover that some of 'em were almost in as-new condition, having been stored almost unused.
There are many other examples of forces which would be stunned at the thought that it costs billions to operate a small number of an aircraft type. Why not ask Switzerland, or Finland, or even Sweden or Israel? Do you think that any of those would introduce penny packets of some types (e.g. helicopters) into service if the costs of a new type rather than more of an existing type were so high?
Yes, each additional type increases overheads, but nowhere near as much as you claim - unless the administrative & operational systems are so inefficient that everyone responsible should at best be sacked for gross incompetence, or at worst put on trial for criminal negligence or maybe some more severe charge.
If the British did buy say four Hawkeyes, they would most likely use the US FMS spares package for so few aircraft. Its not as if the British are buying a spares package for forty aircraft. Usually when a nation buys so few aircraft they buy an extra one to use as a spares hulk. So we are discussing a hundred million or so at most, not billions...
I know what people on this forum think about the Guardian, but here is another story on the potential switch back to F35B Government plans U-turn on aircraft carriers as catapult costs spiral | Politics | The Guardian
It looks very much like this has been briefed to the journalist and is not rumour.
Also there is a hint as to how the decision may be presented/justified:
"The MoD hopes the savings from abandoning catapults could allow the second Queen Elizabeth class carrier to be put to proper use after all, sources said."
It looks very much like this has been briefed to the journalist and is not rumour.
Also there is a hint as to how the decision may be presented/justified:
"The MoD hopes the savings from abandoning catapults could allow the second Queen Elizabeth class carrier to be put to proper use after all, sources said."
the concerned
Active Member
But hasn't the jsf'b got the same type of range limitations as the harrier did in the first place . People keep saying the harrier was good it was only as good as what we could have used at the time. Whats the point of saving money when all you are going to do is limit the RN's scope of operations.Take Libya and the type of no-fly zones we have used in other operations that extra fuel/range that the jsf'c provides is vital. Give the RN the equipment it needs or you might aswell just sell the carriers
The Independent also ran something similar. I guess we'll see in the coming weeks. That kind of a U turn would set the seal on this government being the most spectacularly incompetent in living memory for defence issues.
As to F35B, it'd have less range than the C model but it'd still be a major leap forward from Harrier and it'd beat the crap out of shaking your fist at folks.