The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

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 F35b has a much longer range than the Harrier, but it doesn't have the legs to be a decent Tornado replacement.

My opposition is basically that the B is a worse aircraft and yet more expensive than the C. Personally I reckon it also won't last as long due to the structural weight saving measures it has had to go through in redesign. Buying the only STOVL plane in production also puts a huge limitation on the flexibility of the carriers for decades to come, and probably means that it will be the only fixed wing aircraft able to operate from them until conversion, no UAVs/UCAVs.

Buying huge aircraft carriers that are configured in the same way as bargain basement cheap and cheerful ones is something of a contradiction, and then we would be compounded by buying exorbitently expensive aircraft for it.

 

[Neutral Zone]

I'm still trying to work out why the costs of conversion have gone up so dramatically, wasn't CVF supposed to have been designed from the outset with possible future conversion to CATOBAR or STOBAR in mind?

Also i think the source at the end of that article sums up my view of Jim Murphy very well, this programme wouldn't be in the mess it is if Labour hadnt spent years faffing about over placing the order meaning that costs spiralled.

 

[kev 99]

I'm still trying to work out why the costs of conversion have gone up so dramatically, wasn't CVF supposed to have been designed from the outset with possible future conversion to CATOBAR or STOBAR in mind?

Also i think the source at the end of that article sums up my view of Jim Murphy very well, this programme wouldn't be in the mess it is if Labour hadnt spent years faffing about over placing the order meaning that costs spiralled.

I suspect the the terms "Big enough for conversion" and "designed with conversion in mind" have become confused in the MOD press releases. There has been plenty of stories of items that have been removed from the carriers as cost cutting measures I doubt much has been spent on making them conversion friendly. In addition I've seen a few people commenting on other forums that for carriers that have been built for conversion no space appears to have been left under the flight deck for catapult rails.

 

[ProM]

Re the Guardian story, there are at least a few inaccuracies in there. Whether that means the rest is as accurate who knows

Re aircraft support costs. Mea culpa. I exaggerated. It is still a lot of money and in some cases may be in billions. Take Osprey (one of the example).

the Marine Corps’ V-22’s cost per flight hour today is over $11,000—more than double the targeted estimate.

Now that is what it is costing the USMC spread over hundreds of aircraft. You can be sure it would be much more than that for us however we address it. Multiply that up for flying hours over 20 years and you have a large number. Plus the suggestion (one that led to my response) was that it could be for AEW on a STOVL carrier. How much to fit out for RN usage in that capacity? Lots more.

So yes, I exaggerated, but the basic principle of what I said I stick by.

 

[StobieWan]

From the DMC news feed today we have a sort of response to the U turn stories on the weekend. I view it as a bit of a fudge answer and seems to leave things wide open for just such a move.

"Purchase of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft
There were a number of articles in the papers over the weekend which claim that the MOD is preparing to make an announcement about its purchase of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

The MOD is currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan. This means reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed.

The Defence Secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament before Easter.

The intention to move to a 'cats and traps' based carrier strike capability, which was announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, was always subject to a detailed piece of work to assess the costs and risks involved in converting a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier. That work is ongoing."

 

[ProM]

That work is ongoing."

And from what I heard was not due to finish until the end of this year. I hope they at least let it complete and base the decision on facts rather than a knee jerk reaction

 

[StobieWan]

And from what I heard was not due to finish until the end of this year. I hope they at least let it complete and base the decision on facts rather than a knee jerk reaction

Everything seems to point to an announcement in the next fortnight so I think you're out of luck on that one. We'll see I guess.

I maintain, selecting B vs C will be a bad move for the nation's defence but I don't think anyone in the decision loop cares what I think

 

[Hambo]

If they do reverse the decision then its utterly shocking, not just the waste of "only £250 spent so far" (what CEO of a major company would get away with that?) but the fact that they binned a perfectly good Harrier force for far less.

Watching the Wasp sea trials with F35B though, if we do go back to the STOVL it wont be the end of the world. We will never have a large number of such expensive aircraft at sea, the question should be asked is can F35B overmatch any likely adversary we will have? can it defend our small fleet? can it integrate with existing systems and how quickly could we get it?

Ok it lacks the range of the C, but if we eventually get an extended range Storm Shadow, or if some buddy refuelling mod gets adopted then the RN may not miss the extra range. In reality are we really going to be swapping Rafale and F18 squadrons with the French and USN? The only real loss would be Hawkeye but we are too tight to pay for that anyway.

It looks like there was no real provision to convert the ships from the original spec, and fitting cats, extra GT's, EMALS etc added to the slowing down of the F35C production means we could waste upwards of £2billion F-ing around for at most a dozen aircraft at sea? Is that worth it? £2Billion more than going with B would buy some P-8s.

I suspect we will bite the bullet and go back to 40 B's, at least get QE to sea with something earlier. Sometimes the simplest version might be the best, just use what everyone else is using so why not aim for a second batch of 40 A's for the RAF down the line.

A carrier with some jets is better than nothing . There should however be a proper investigation into the delays to the carriers, the politically motivated moves behind the scenes and the mad economics, we could probably add the airtanker contract into the list of stupid things to do with public money.

On a side note, if the Scottish vote for independence in 2014, is there a plan B to build the POW in English, welsh or N.I yards, being at the Socialist Republic of Scotland will have no use for it and therefore but for a small bit of compensation for taxes already spent, shouldn't benefit from the work?

 

[1805]

Everything seems to point to an announcement in the next fortnight so I think you're out of luck on that one. We'll see I guess.

I maintain, selecting B vs C will be a bad move for the nation's defence but I don't think anyone in the decision loop cares what I think

Having no fixed wing carrier aircraft capability for 8 years is a disaster, move to from C back to B is a different capability, a bit inferior in some areas and better in others. If the B could be available is small numbers earlier that would be worth it.

The B is such an advance over the Harrier, actually probably provides more than we need.

 

[1805]

If they do reverse the decision then its utterly shocking, not just the waste of "only £250 spent so far" (what CEO of a major company would get away with that?) but the fact that they binned a perfectly good Harrier force for far less.

Watching the Wasp sea trials with F35B though, if we do go back to the STOVL it wont be the end of the world. We will never have a large number of such expensive aircraft at sea, the question should be asked is can F35B overmatch any likely adversary we will have? can it defend our small fleet? can it integrate with existing systems and how quickly could we get it?

Ok it lacks the range of the C, but if we eventually get an extended range Storm Shadow, or if some buddy refuelling mod gets adopted then the RN may not miss the extra range. In reality are we really going to be swapping Rafale and F18 squadrons with the French and USN? The only real loss would be Hawkeye but we are too tight to pay for that anyway.

It looks like there was no real provision to convert the ships from the original spec, and fitting cats, extra GT's, EMALS etc added to the slowing down of the F35C production means we could waste upwards of £2billion F-ing around for at most a dozen aircraft at sea? Is that worth it? £2Billion more than going with B would buy some P-8s.

I suspect we will bite the bullet and go back to 40 B's, at least get QE to sea with something earlier. Sometimes the simplest version might be the best, just use what everyone else is using so why not aim for a second batch of 40 A's for the RAF down the line.

A carrier with some jets is better than nothing . There should however be a proper investigation into the delays to the carriers, the politically motivated moves behind the scenes and the mad economics, we could probably add the airtanker contract into the list of stupid things to do with public money.

On a side note, if the Scottish vote for independence in 2014, is there a plan B to build the POW in English, welsh or N.I yards, being at the Socialist Republic of Scotland will have no use for it and therefore but for a small bit of compensation for taxes already spent, shouldn't benefit from the work?

I find I agree with you! On Scottish independence, the one that could be really at risk would be Faslane, nothing being done there that could not be done in Devonport.

 

[StobieWan]

My concern on selecting B over C is that a common fleet of C models would be better for the RN *and* the RAF as the C has more payload (1500kg) and longer legs (not very much difference, just a few tens of miles however)

In one sense, getting B on board vs a fleet of A for the RAF might mean that the RN gets a dedicated strike capability instead of begging for cabs off the RAF. I find it hard to reconcile all the bold talk about the carrier being ready for Catobar with the costs quoted however.

I dunno, if we get the U turn then this really will go down in history as the most shambolic and protracted purchase in the history of the UK's often tortured past relating to carriers (the post WWII refits would previously have been my favourites for sheer waste and inefficiency)

If they do reverse the decision then its utterly shocking, not just the waste of "only £250 spent so far" (what CEO of a major company would get away with that?) but the fact that they binned a perfectly good Harrier force for far less.

Watching the Wasp sea trials with F35B though, if we do go back to the STOVL it wont be the end of the world. We will never have a large number of such expensive aircraft at sea, the question should be asked is can F35B overmatch any likely adversary we will have? can it defend our small fleet? can it integrate with existing systems and how quickly could we get it?

Ok it lacks the range of the C, but if we eventually get an extended range Storm Shadow, or if some buddy refuelling mod gets adopted then the RN may not miss the extra range. In reality are we really going to be swapping Rafale and F18 squadrons with the French and USN? The only real loss would be Hawkeye but we are too tight to pay for that anyway.

It looks like there was no real provision to convert the ships from the original spec, and fitting cats, extra GT's, EMALS etc added to the slowing down of the F35C production means we could waste upwards of £2billion F-ing around for at most a dozen aircraft at sea? Is that worth it? £2Billion more than going with B would buy some P-8s.

I suspect we will bite the bullet and go back to 40 B's, at least get QE to sea with something earlier. Sometimes the simplest version might be the best, just use what everyone else is using so why not aim for a second batch of 40 A's for the RAF down the line.

A carrier with some jets is better than nothing . There should however be a proper investigation into the delays to the carriers, the politically motivated moves behind the scenes and the mad economics, we could probably add the airtanker contract into the list of stupid things to do with public money.

On a side note, if the Scottish vote for independence in 2014, is there a plan B to build the POW in English, welsh or N.I yards, being at the Socialist Republic of Scotland will have no use for it and therefore but for a small bit of compensation for taxes already spent, shouldn't benefit from the work?

 

[Volkodav]

A further thought on reasons behind rumoured switch back to the B is that it would permit short term savings in cancelling the redesign of the carriers and pushing out the expense to when its time to buy the aircraft.

 

[the concerned]

doesn't the stovl variant damage the carrier surface everytime it lands because of too much heat can someone shed light on this subject because if so then the uk government isn't going to save any money because they will consantly be having to repair the carrier.

 

[Hambo]

doesn't the stovl variant damage the carrier surface everytime it lands because of too much heat can someone shed light on this subject because if so then the uk government isn't going to save any money because they will consantly be having to repair the carrier.

I don't think that was a problem on the Invincible class and we had decades of experience with the Harrier about what materials to use on the decks. BAe were looking at a type of rolling landing for the"B" for better payload bring back etc, I assume that will also reduce the direct heat effect on the deck.

 

[kev 99]

My concern on selecting B over C is that a common fleet of C models would be better for the RN *and* the RAF as the C has more payload (1500kg) and longer legs (not very much difference, just a few tens of miles however)

In one sense, getting B on board vs a fleet of A for the RAF might mean that the RN gets a dedicated strike capability instead of begging for cabs off the RAF. I find it hard to reconcile all the bold talk about the carrier being ready for Catobar with the costs quoted however.

I dunno, if we get the U turn then this really will go down in history as the most shambolic and protracted purchase in the history of the UK's often tortured past relating to carriers (the post WWII refits would previously have been my favourites for sheer waste and inefficiency)

I am rather worried about what will fit in the weapons bays of the b as well, unless we buy 1000lb jdams and or SDBs then we're limited to external ground to air weapons or 500lb Paveway 2/4, on the air to air station will Meteor fit? I've read that MBDA are investigating a redesign option which will make it fit the F35 bays but the B bay is shorter than the A/C, we could end up with an aircraft that will require a unique set of weapons that the UK had no intention of buying.

A further thought on reasons behind rumoured switch back to the B is that it would permit short term savings in cancelling the redesign of the carriers and pushing out the expense to when its time to buy the aircraft.

Absolutely, it's the way we do business in this country, FSTA deal means we get someone else to buy the infrastructure and aircraft and pay in installments (at inflated long term cost), and there's plenty more PFI deals that you can add into the mix, we even build roads on the cheap that require more money on maintenance as a result, even repairs to potholes are done in a way that costs less money now but more in the future.

We don't like spending on capital costs up front, we'd much rather spread spend evenwhen it costs more.

edit sorry went on a bit off on a bit of a tangent there!

 

[StobieWan]

I find I agree with you! On Scottish independence, the one that could be really at risk would be Faslane, nothing being done there that could not be done in Devonport.

Faslane would go in any event as it's the base for nuclear boats - the SNP have stated they want a nuclear free Scotland, which appears to mean both "nuclear armed" and "nuclear powered".

 

[StobieWan]

doesn't the stovl variant damage the carrier surface everytime it lands because of too much heat can someone shed light on this subject because if so then the uk government isn't going to save any money because they will consantly be having to repair the carrier.

The USMC have trialled landings on simulated decks as well as real surfaces and the same deck material they've been using for the Harrier seems to work fine.

Through-life costs for the B variant are about 1/3 higher than the C model however, for various technical reasons.

 

[kev 99]

My concern on selecting B over C is that a common fleet of C models would be better for the RN *and* the RAF as the C has more payload (1500kg) and longer legs (not very much difference, just a few tens of miles however)

You sure about this?

The only information I can find gives 1400nm verses 900nm, with combat radius of 640nm verses 383nm.

 

[StobieWan]

You sure about this?

The only information I can find gives 1400nm verses 900nm, with combat radius of 640nm verses 383nm.

Sorry, wasn't being clear, I was comparing the A model vs C model for the RAF in terms of range - ie, the RAF would still be better off with the C model. Mainly I'd like a single, common fleet of aircraft, not some mixed pool of B and A.

As you say, there's a honking difference in range for the B vs the other two.

 

[kev 99]

Sorry, wasn't being clear, I was comparing the A model vs C model for the RAF in terms of range - ie, the RAF would still be better off with the C model. Mainly I'd like a single, common fleet of aircraft, not some mixed pool of B and A.

As you say, there's a honking difference in range for the B vs the other two.

Also only got a 80nm range improved combat radiance over a Harrier GR9, when you factor in the Harriers drop tanks as well it's probably around the same.