The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

Personally I'd have specified CATOBAR from the outset but bought or leased Legacy Hornets being phased out for the USN so that a pool of British CARQUAL'ed pilots could have been built up over a decade and RN deck crew could have been trained by the Americans. The big mistake with the STOVL option was that it tied CVF and F-35B together, as has been said before the carriers are being built on time and budget, it's the JSF's various dilemmas that have jeopardised it.

That doesn't get you anything - we would have had nowhere to fly Hornets *off*.

CVF won't be in the water and ready to receive aircraft until after F35C would be available.

You'd be buying Hornets with nowhere to fly 'em off...

Neither are there any spare Hornets to be had - they're either shagged out or in great demand.

So, no second hand USN jets to buy or lease.

Ian

 

[StevoJH]

The super hornet is still in production.

Personally I don't see any reason why STOVL 'shouldn't' be used, the f-35b is going to be much closer in capabilities to its conventional counterparts than any previous STOVL fighter.

And while a helicopter based aew may not be quite as versatile as an E2, given the likely opponents, it should be more than sufficient.

 

[StobieWan]

The super hornet is still in production.

Personally I don't see any reason why STOVL 'shouldn't' be used, the f-35b is going to be much closer in capabilities to its conventional counterparts than any previous STOVL fighter.

And while a helicopter based aew may not be quite as versatile as an E2, given the likely opponents, it should be more than sufficient.

I know SH is still in production - the suggestion was that the UK should find some legacy USN Hornets - of which there are of course none to be had.

We could pop out and order SuperHornet tomorrow, assuming we went CATOBAR, have them delivered two years later, at which point we'd be able to fly them over the yard the carriers are being built in but in no way would we have carrier strike back.

If we go CATOBAR (which seems increasingly unlikely) then we won't have a deck to fly a CATOBAR aircraft off until 2018 at the earliest when possibly POW would be converted.

That's maybe a year after IOC with F35C and certainly well into the timescale where the C model can be bought in any quantity required. Hence my saying that buying Superhornet makes no sense for the UK *in terms of restoring carrier strike earlier*...

To get that to work, we'd have to have a completely different timeline in which many things turned out completely differently.


B ? I'll take B with two carriers and a reasonable air wing over SFA every day of the week. I'd sooner have C with all that but let's just be resigned and pray for the best eh?

Ian

 

[Systems Adict]

docks/LPD's have regularly taken up the C2-C4 roles in task force management in the MEO and Gulf

They have the capacity (capability, fitout and real estate) to pick up floating command roles - and often do. In fact the most highly regarded C2 assets in anti-piracy TF management have been other nations LPD's.

they're referred to as the "goldilocks" ships...

I'll let that one sink in, if the other DefProfs don't jump in and explain or no one gets it I'll say why later....

They're not too hot & they're not too cold.

In fact, they're JUST RIGHT !

 

[the concerned]

why couldn't we buy the jsfb's now but a reduced number and then when the cv's go into a mdlife update then introduce the catapults plus then get a look at what is replacing the superhornet( use this jet to replace all existing aircraft that the uk are using)

 

[RobWilliams]

This was certainly a curveball from the MOD (for me, anyway. Who'd have thunk it that the MOD would have a poke around the X-47B program)

Asked by Lord Moonie

To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Government of the United States or Northrop Grumman Corporation about the X-47B unmanned combat air programme. [HL16858]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): The Ministry of Defence has held an initial scoping discussion with the United States Government on the X-47B unmanned combat air programme. Northrop Grumman Corporation has not been involved.

Asked by Lord Moonie

To ask Her Majesty's Government what research and development they are undertaking on unmanned carrier-launched surveillance and strike aircraft. [HL16859]

Lord Astor of Hever:The Government have an 'unmanned air systems (UAS) research and development pipeline' within the defence science and technology programme that examines a range of uses of UAS, including some in the naval environment.

The source is extremely reputable too, these comments were released on 1st May.

Lords Hansard text for 1 May 201201 May 2012 (pt 0001)

I know it's just an 'initial scoping discussion' but it appears as though the MOD are trying to find out if the argument for CATOBAR UCAVs seems a reasonably effective defence if they chose the C, although the fact NG hasn't been involved pretty much says it how it is, a fishing expedition.

 

[StobieWan]

why couldn't we buy the jsfb's now but a reduced number and then when the cv's go into a mdlife update then introduce the catapults plus then get a look at what is replacing the superhornet( use this jet to replace all existing aircraft that the uk are using)

Because it'd cost a trillion quid?


I mean, seriously, when will it hit you that doing the same rework over and over costs money?

The Superhornet replacement exists only as a *rumour* - a powerpoint presentation only.

Whatever we get tomorrow, we're living with it.

 

[1805]

I don't see why F35b should not see out the CVF. Is there any reason why the F35b airframes can no do 45 years when some B52 will do c90 years? The harrier concept (if not the actual airframes) will have done almost 50 years by the time the USMC is done with them. 2 CVF with F35b at least 5 years earlier than the F35c is a huge improvement over prehaps only 1 CVF with F35c. Get real you where all over the moon with F35b before the defence review offered the chance of F35c (probably only driven by potential dropping of the b's by the US).

The c is different from the b don't take it for granted it is better. There is a strange status thing about cat & traps.

 

[kev 99]

why couldn't we buy the jsfb's now but a reduced number and then when the cv's go into a mdlife update then introduce the catapults plus then get a look at what is replacing the superhornet( use this jet to replace all existing aircraft that the uk are using)

I'm betting the Queen Elizabeth class won't ever be converted, the majority of the measures included in the original design to make them easy to convert will have been removed to make them as cheap as possible.

The c is different from the b don't take it for granted it is better. There is a strange status thing about cat & traps.

Strange thing to say, it's very obviously better and also very obviously cheaper.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm betting the Queen Elizabeth class won't ever be converted, the majority of the measures included in the original design to make them easy to convert will have been removed to make them as cheap as possible.



Strange thing to say, it's very obviously better and also very obviously cheaper.

Yup, 450 nm radius vs 610 and 1500 kg more payload for the C.


Plus the bigger internal bay with the option on block 3 to carry six AIM120 rather than two, the larger 2000 lb JDAM.

But, B will do the job - we'd be back into fixed wing, supersonic strike. Happy happy joy joy

 

[gf0012-aust]

They're not too hot & they're not too cold.

In fact, they're JUST RIGHT !

I had a funny feeling you'd jump in and get it right

 

[1805]

Strange thing to say, it's very obviously better and also very obviously cheaper.

But this is obviously not the view of the USMC which has fought so hard to maintain this capability and originally also the RN's view.

On costs, the total cost figures are not exact and will be different for each operator based on numbers/platform type. As the UK's decision will almost certainly just be driven by cost, I don't think it can be taken for granted in the UKs case it is more expensive.

I do agree with, I think one of your earlier posts, that one of the great benefits of the b was the ability to operate from smaller, more flexible and cheaper platforms has now been lost with the construction of the CVFs.

If you just look at stats in the strike role, then you are probably right, but it is more than adequate and a huge leap forward.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This was certainly a curveball from the MOD (for me, anyway. Who'd have thunk it that the MOD would have a poke around the X-47B program)

UK MOD has been tightly engaged on UAS options with the US over the last few years, so "exercising future options" has been a consistent theme - they were also looking at UAS mid 2020's as part of future force planning scenarios

 

[kev 99]

But this is obviously not the view of the USMC which has fought so hard to maintain this capability and originally also the RN's view.

On costs, the total cost figures are not exact and will be different for each operator based on numbers/platform type. As the UK's decision will almost certainly just be driven by cost, I don't think it can be taken for granted in the UKs case it is more expensive.

I do agree with, I think one of your earlier posts, that one of the great benefits of the b was the ability to operate from smaller, more flexible and cheaper platforms has now been lost with the construction of the CVFs.

If you just look at stats in the strike role, then you are probably right, but it is more than adequate and a huge leap forward.

C is better than B, there is no denying this, a quick look at the stats back this up, also a quick look at the costs also backs up the costs that it is cheaper.

The problem is with the UK requirement that we have made very large but cheap aircraft carriers that were supposed to be flexible enough to be converted to cat and trap in the future. Unfortunately any but the most cursory thougths to conversion have been removed at the design stage to make it as cheap as possible. So C is becoming expensive because it requires the ships to be converted at great expense now because the previous Government was cheap. The MOD is going back to B because it saves money in the short term, it's the usual UK short termism, the same reason we decided to buy our tankers for the RAF on hire purchase (FSTA).

I won't bother to cover what should be obvious regarding why the USMC wants STOVL aircraft.

 

[swerve]

I don't see why F35b should not see out the CVF. Is there any reason why the F35b airframes can no do 45 years when some B52 will do c90 years?

Yes, a very good reason. B-52s have a much easier life. Their flight profiles resemble those of airliners more than those of fighters. Look at how many flight hours an airliner does before retirement, & the annual flight hours of a B-52, & their longevity does not look remarkable.

e.g. L-1011-500 sn 193J-1196 (D-AERL) was delivered to LTU on 27 October 1980 and flew 74,931 hours before LTU removed in from service on 3 April 1996. That is an average of 13.80 (13 hours and 48 minutes) flight hours a day, or 5037 hours per year.

A fighter used at those rates, but with a fighter usage pattern (NB. I realise that it isn't physically possible, because of flight durations & turn round times), would wear out within two years. Fighters have much harder lives. The airframes are subjected to much greater stresses, & although built stronger (the wings would come off an airliner, or a B-52, if it did some of the things fighters do), the stresses wear it out in a few thousand hours of flying, instead of the tens of thousands an airliner can do.

 

[1805]

C is better than B, there is no denying this, a quick look at the stats back this up, also a quick look at the costs also backs up the costs that it is cheaper.

The problem is with the UK requirement that we have made very large but cheap aircraft carriers that were supposed to be flexible enough to be converted to cat and trap in the future. Unfortunately any but the most cursory thougths to conversion have been removed at the design stage to make it as cheap as possible. So C is becoming expensive because it requires the ships to be converted at great expense now because the previous Government was cheap. The MOD is going back to B because it saves money in the short term, it's the usual UK short termism, the same reason we decided to buy our tankers for the RAF on hire purchase (FSTA).

I won't bother to cover what should be obvious regarding why the USMC wants STOVL aircraft.

All your view, but not much of this is in the public domain. You might be right about the CVF being cut back to the stage conversion is very expensive, but it might equally be other costs. On small numbers even modest conversion cost would be more expensive.

The smaller number of aircraft brought v more expensive platform cost will alter the cost significantly, even if we were starting a fresh.

If it just becomes a straignt RN order similar to Sea Harrier numbers c40-50 then, the more expensive aircraft will still balance out cheaper platform. Also the b is more flexible, should be able to fly from far more, maybe even forward bases would even take away any advantage of c, stuck back out at sea?

 

[swerve]

The super hornet is still in production.

Yes, but Neutral Zone was advocating the purchase or lease of ex-USN F-18A/B/C/D.

Personally I don't see any reason why STOVL 'shouldn't' be used, the f-35b is going to be much closer in capabilities to its conventional counterparts than any previous STOVL fighter.

And while a helicopter based aew may not be quite as versatile as an E2, given the likely opponents, it should be more than sufficient.

Yep.

Now it really does look as if it's official (we'll know for sure today), I feel relieved. I can't imagine a third reversal, & that means we can just get on with it.

Two carriers with cat & trap would have been ideal, but if the choice was between -
1) one with cat & trap & one oversized LPH
and -
2) two which can both operate the aircraft we have
I'd take 2), any day, even if the aircraft are more expensive & lower performance. A spare deck trumps aircraft performance.

But mourn the money wasted on an aborted switch, when we end up back where we started.

 

[swerve]

docks/LPD's have regularly taken up the C2-C4 roles in task force management in the MEO and Gulf

They have the capacity (capability, fitout and real estate) to pick up floating command roles - and often do. In fact the most highly regarded C2 assets in anti-piracy TF management have been other nations LPD's.

they're referred to as the "goldilocks" ships...

Yep.

Although I'm not sure if it was a role foreseen when they were designed, if what I've read is correct, the Absalon class has also performed it successfully.

 

[kev 99]

All your view, but not much of this is in the public domain. You might be right about the CVF being cut back to the stage conversion is very expensive, but it might equally be other costs. On small numbers even modest conversion cost would be more expensive.

Yep all but there's quite a bit of evidence out there that supports cuts to CVF which have made it cheaper, and anyone that has an interest in UK defence down the years will know that the MOD/ are pound wise and penny foolish

The smaller number of aircraft brought v more expensive platform cost will alter the cost significantly, even if we were starting a fresh.

If it just becomes a straignt RN order similar to Sea Harrier numbers c40-50 then, the more expensive aircraft will still balance out cheaper platform. Also the b is more flexible, should be able to fly from far more, maybe even forward bases would even take away any advantage of c, stuck back out at sea?

If we'd been aiming for CATOBAR in the first case this wouldn't be the case, the money is being distorted by the need for conversion.

F35 is still being touted as 25% cheaper to operate over the B as well so likely there wouldn't be any saving long term anyway.

The more flexible number of platforms is irrelevant, F35s in UK service will fly from CVF or land, and either would do that.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Some pertinent questions on whether to go B or C:
What does the RAF want to operate?
Does the RAF want to permanently give up STOVL ops long term?
What is HMS Ocean going to be replaced with? A ski-jump equipped LHD or two, or helicopter lift only?

I think there is only going to be a single JSF fleet. By choosing C, then there will be no LHD or RAF STOVL ops. Is the C that much better that the RN/RAF would want to give these up?