And here's the first UK F35 flying - F35C of course, a potent image...
http://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/4451
http://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/4451
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Neutral Zone
New Member
On second thoughts, that could be the political cover that the Government is looking for, "We'd like to have CTOL but the French carrier can't take the F-35 so there's no point in doing it..." They may also be calculating that Sarkozy is likely to be gone in a few weeks.
Have the treasury released their reassessment of the £1.8bn figure? Because that number must be absolute nonsense, after all the deputy SecNav (I think that's who it was) said that the figures should be more around £800mn didn't he?
I really hope we stick with the F35C, otherwise we're just delaying the inevitability of fitting cats and traps at a later date.
I really hope we stick with the F35C, otherwise we're just delaying the inevitability of fitting cats and traps at a later date.
According to the following from DoD, the cost of AAG for Gerald R Ford will be around $102.2million
The cost of installing the gear should probably be a bit less again, should.
Defense.gov: Contracts for Monday, November 09, 2009
If you're talking STOBAR (short takeoff, but arrested landing) that's the worst of all compromises.
No payload, no bring back weight, just awful.
kev 99
Member
Don't you mean inevitability of scrapping the ships because of the cost of conversion?
Personally I think we're stuck with B and the carriers will only serve for the life of that aircraft, conversion costs will always be cited as too high.
Or retained as Commando Carriers operating next generation rotor craft and UCAVs.
Hopefully someone raises the question of what to do with the ships after the F-35B is done, if they did follow the same role as HMS Ocean then it'd be a massive waste of that ship. Not to mention what would the UK buy after that and the cost of doing so.
But the decision is being made today, from the Telegraph article about the US saying the cost of converting the carriers will be half what the MoD thinks, there's this segment
So the NSC is today reviewing a reassessed figure on converting the carriers, I assume in the next few days - depending on the sort of figure given - we can make an educated guess as to what they plan on adopting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-half-what-you-think-US-tells-ministers.html
Well, F35 will be in production for another 20 +years and the airframes could well last 20-30 years in service, depending on how they're used so it should be possible to run the carriers on for their service life with whatever F35 model is selected, assuming a steady buy of replacements over the years.
I'd sooner just see us get over this pain barrier and buy C and fit for cats/traps however.
I'd sooner just see us get over this pain barrier and buy C and fit for cats/traps however.
I want two usable carriers. If that can be funded with both having catapults & F-35C, good. If not, but we can have two carriers with F-35B flying off them, I'd be happy with that.
What I don't want is for millions to be wasted on chopping & changing, & us to end up with nothing because the budget's been spent on that. We've done it before, e.g. with AFVs, where we spent £1 billion on trials, prototypes, etc. over 15 years without a single piece of operational hardware.
What I don't want is for millions to be wasted on chopping & changing, & us to end up with nothing because the budget's been spent on that. We've done it before, e.g. with AFVs, where we spent £1 billion on trials, prototypes, etc. over 15 years without a single piece of operational hardware.
I'm not sure I'd trust assurances from the US on how much something should cost given cost over runs in their carrier program and LCS and ...etc etc.
We should remember of course that the USN does have a vested interest here and can see the value in having an extra F35C compatible deck or two run and paid for by a close ally.
WillS.
Exactly - this whole carrier thing has been a monumentally badly managed affair on the political side, from the artificial delays created during Labour's tenure to push the costs to the right, basically flushing a billion plus down the drain to this latest on/off love affair with CATOBAR.
The catapults & arresting gear are in production now, & the cost is pretty well known. The US government has offered us a guaranteed price, with any cost overruns (which they don't expect) to be absorbed by them.
The fitting cost they suggest is reasonable. The widely-touted conversion cost for one ship of £1.8 billion is the unbelievable figure. It's almost as much as a whole ship was going to cost before the government started pushing the price up by construction slowdowns.
I don't doubt it is. It's just that I've come to believe that the words "reasonable", "cost" and "military equipment program" are rarely found in the same sentence in a positive way. ;-)
However, the original Times article's point about us being the first to fit the kit, is also a reasonable one. There are a lot of unknown unknowns here and I think the MOD and Treasury are looking for as much cost certainty as they can. At the moment cost certainty seems to be on the side of the B.
Like you, my main interest here is us having two usable carriers.
WillS
We should be finding out in the next few days, from he Telegraph link I posted a few posts earlier, what the new cost associated with converting the carrier is. This time being lead by the Treasury, and we all know what they are like in regards to spending money.
According to the article the review concluded yesterday + the NSC should be reviewing the report today.
Hopefully it should be a more reasonable number, this could easily make/break the C/B decision in my opinion.
Cameron 'has decided on F-35B' - Defence Management
looks as if it's official, reversion to B model
trying to find another source but having difficulty so far
credit to SpudmanWP on the Air Forces board here for the find
looks as if it's official, reversion to B model
trying to find another source but having difficulty so far
credit to SpudmanWP on the Air Forces board here for the find
That's just a re-report of the FT article unfortunately so it's not moving things forward I suspect.
Ian
As I understand it, QE in 2016 with the ramp, POW in 2018 with emals if the current Govt can find anything from £1billion to £1.8 billion to refit it dependent on source, if the builders can integrate the power requirements and technology into a ship.
By 2015 there may well be a Labour Government more interested in rebuilding the private sector and embarking on another spending spree we can't afford.
F35B has passed it probation. The USN has pushed back the production of the F35C to the early 2020's so we either get the very expensive first additions or wait a long time for a sizeable number, so POW plus a workable airgroup as late as 2025 , which is two more elections to flipflop again.
F35B may be available earlier, other buyers with even more dodgy economies than ours may cut their orders eg could we bag some destined for italy or spain.
Can the present Govt guarantee both ships as STOVL? or just one and can the RN find the crew.
% of GDP is not going to grow, so what else does the RN lose to get one fully fledged CTOL CV without its own airgroup? An astute? 3 T26's, sell another LPD?.
Sarkozy and Cameron cosy up for the cameras now, but will Another plus French PM share the same views, can we really rely long term on sharing ships with france? I don't think it was ever a serious option, we could however cross deck F35B with the USMC, Harriers from the USMC, Italy and Spain.
We also need to increase the A2G on Typhoon, develop UCAV etc etc.
So the question is in my mind, can we get two ships and F35B in service sooner, or do we press ahead with one ship and risk another "review" ten years down the line. One ship with some F35C for approximately 140 days a year in all likelihood is going to mean a smaller fleet of escorts as the money will have to come from somewhere. The question for the Daily Mail readers out there is, can two CV's with 30 "short ranged, lower payload" F35B's defend or retake the Falklands? Could F35B do a Libya mission, contribute to the GW1 and GW2 type missions? The answer is yes to all of them.
So if we revert to F35B, we will still be in a far better position than we are now, and arguably those ships would be more capable than anything we have previously operated. A change wont be the end of the world.
By 2015 there may well be a Labour Government more interested in rebuilding the private sector and embarking on another spending spree we can't afford.
F35B has passed it probation. The USN has pushed back the production of the F35C to the early 2020's so we either get the very expensive first additions or wait a long time for a sizeable number, so POW plus a workable airgroup as late as 2025 , which is two more elections to flipflop again.
F35B may be available earlier, other buyers with even more dodgy economies than ours may cut their orders eg could we bag some destined for italy or spain.
Can the present Govt guarantee both ships as STOVL? or just one and can the RN find the crew.
% of GDP is not going to grow, so what else does the RN lose to get one fully fledged CTOL CV without its own airgroup? An astute? 3 T26's, sell another LPD?.
Sarkozy and Cameron cosy up for the cameras now, but will Another plus French PM share the same views, can we really rely long term on sharing ships with france? I don't think it was ever a serious option, we could however cross deck F35B with the USMC, Harriers from the USMC, Italy and Spain.
We also need to increase the A2G on Typhoon, develop UCAV etc etc.
So the question is in my mind, can we get two ships and F35B in service sooner, or do we press ahead with one ship and risk another "review" ten years down the line. One ship with some F35C for approximately 140 days a year in all likelihood is going to mean a smaller fleet of escorts as the money will have to come from somewhere. The question for the Daily Mail readers out there is, can two CV's with 30 "short ranged, lower payload" F35B's defend or retake the Falklands? Could F35B do a Libya mission, contribute to the GW1 and GW2 type missions? The answer is yes to all of them.
So if we revert to F35B, we will still be in a far better position than we are now, and arguably those ships would be more capable than anything we have previously operated. A change wont be the end of the world.