USN questions F35 operating costs – forecasts 40% more to fly less JSF’s than the present fleet of F18C/D and Av8B !

From ARES blog:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af2921a42-0e4a-4bcd-aebf-3eedeafb6984

Hello all

Sorry for late comments, not been online much over the Christmas period.

Some interesting articles around this subject recently, and as this is the most recent of the three I hope no one minds if I put my thoughts here?

Ok – I think for the RAF, in terms of money spent so far and getting the most “bang for the buck” to use that hackneyed phrase, I agree that an all-Typhoon RAF fleet is the best option. A tranche 3 Typhoon is likely to be at least as good and possibly/probably better than an F35 in the strike role. The suggested breakdown of 9 squadrons is fine, though I’d prefer more.

As for the Carriers – I would suggest that they should be fitted with Catapults.

Ideally they should be nuclear powered but I have no idea of the extra cost or delay that would be incurred in such a move (but an incoming government could claim it was an attempt to reduce greenhouse gasses…)

As for the aircraft… I’m not sure that the Super Hornet would not be the best value, but I am very, very tempted by the Sea Gripen. We could go for that option and maybe lease spare F18A/Cs in the short term? Or do that, and develop a Sea Typhoon (Although I suspect that would take a lot of time and even more cash…)

On a slightly different note, does anyone know if any policy makers for the Conservatives read this site? Or if admin could submit our suggestions to them? Or am I being Naive again? :-)

Phil,

I think you misunderstand what I am aiming at with my series of articles. Its not a new thing ;)

Am I an expert naval analyst? of course not, never will be and I’ll never claim to be. I dont write a blog or take part in discussions to look like a ‘rocket scientist’. The fact that anyone could write it is exactly what I want to get across.

If you think you shouldn’t write about Naval affairs unless you know the minute specifications for every missile system in existence, then thats the kind of attitude that has made defence such a low priority to people in this country, and has led to Defence being sidelined. The average person in Britain has no idea about the armed forces apart from Afghanistan. Its wrong that defence is never an issue for voters at election time. I hope that putting historical perspectives in simple terms, and relating it to the present, adds to debate.

Surely thats the whole idea with this site?

Ref 40mm CTA – its gonna be an “army standard” and as for standards, the NATO ‘standard’ Naval gun is 127mm / 5 inch and we stick to our crappy 114mm / 4.5 inch which no one else buys either…..

Jed, with regard to the 27mm, Yes I did read that the German had dveloped a range of 27mm Naval guns, but did not think they had actually deployed them. I mention the 27mm purely as it would at least offer some commonality with the RAFs Tornado and Typhoon (though not F35)fleet. I really don’t care what cannon size they choose. The beauty of the 27mm round is that it does seem to offer the best of both worlds, bot as small as the 20mm, nor as big as the 30mm but good range, accuracy and rate of fire. Pretty much ideal I would have thought. Anything would be better than the mis-match of different guns and differnt calibre’s the Navy has now. Do you know that even in between guns of the same calibre the rounds are no compatiable!!!!

My personal view is that the Navy should adopt the Bofors 57mm round. This has excellent performace in the littoral defence role, plus has a secondary CIWS capability, so we could even standardise on this. Ideally though I would like a smaller calibre that provides both a high-end CIWS (and Goalkeeper reconfigured for 27mm ideally), with a range of remote-control single barrel cannons to supplement the CIWS and for use on smaller ships and RFA etc. The rounds being compatible between the two systems of course. As you say both of these systems should be configured with some form of inner-layer missile system. The starstreak is particularly useful as it could also be used in the Anti-surface role.

These changes would initally not be cheap, but the benefits and savings in the future, from reductions in logistics and training would be enormous.

Finally, with refernce to the CTA 40mm weapon, my view here is that nobody else is going to buy it, so we will simply have another weapon and calibre that is totally non-standard!!!!

Phil

I agree, I am sure most commenters here could have written what James has put together. I always use the FI for war gaming maritime scenarios. Sometimes I give the “Argies” AIP subs, SU27′s and Chinese J10 and Brahmos supersonic anti-ship missiles, just to see how it plays out….. :-)

Actually my basic training was cancelled, all the instructors were deployed. I ended up at Raleigh in the first class of 83.

I agree with all your comments. T23 just has the 2 x LS30B mounts if there is a problem with GWS26, they could have stuck at least one Phalanx on the hangar roof – but that would have cost money. Of course it is well known that the reason the T42′s where so small and crap was purely budgetary. They should have been HMS Bristol sized, the SeaDart forward and the flight deck and hangar instead of Ikara, and plenty of room for ‘close in’ weapons.

By the way, the Germans do use 27mm as their calibre of choice, as they use a different type of Mauser cannon. However I would like to see the single 30mm’s on our ships being replaced with the 40mm Case Telescoped Ammunition (CTA) in the Israeli ‘Typhoon’ mount (which could also mount 3 x Starstreak).

Jed, re the James Daly Blog.. Not wishing to be funny but I reckon I and probably every Think Defence contributor could have written that article. It was not “rocket Science”. At the time of the Falklands I had just started my basic training and was a Defence “Geek” even then. I can remember telling my friends, family, work colleagues that these ships could not defend themselves let alone the fleet and that we would have many of them sunk or badly damaged. How I hated being proved right. I was so angry, I am convinced it has scared me for life as I have been obsessed with the quality (or lack of) equipment of our armed forces ever since.

The T42 destroyers were crap, how on earth the admiralty thought they would actually work in action is beyond me. I have long thought that each ship should be able to defends itself, without needing other vessels to provide capabilities that are not present on a given ship. Now surely it makes sense to have a range of defence capabilities i.e. medium/Long range air-defence (like the Sea Dart now Sea Viper or the US Standard air defence / Sea Sparrow type weapon), A inner-layer missile defence for anything that gets past the outer missile defence (i.e SeaRAM or Starstreak) and then a CIWS (Close in Weapon System) like Goalkeper or Phalanx. I belive that this is what was recommended after the Falklands and the first ship built to incorporate these findings was the T23. which has 32 VL seawolf… That’s it. No long range missiles and no CIWS. The T45 is the same, it will have 48 Sylver launchers for PAMMS/Sea Viper (all in one place as it happens) and nothing else. It has provision for some form of CIWS and they will probably take Phalanx block 1′s from the T42s, but we have learnt nothing from the Falklands.

Having multiple defence sytems on one ship makes sense on many levels. If you are relying on specific vessels to provide capabilities, like long-range air defence and one of them is damaged, you weaken the whole fleet. It also makes ships more vulnerable if they are self deploying (the norm in peace time).

With regard to the amphibious fleet, this is also weak in many regards, the new Albion and Bay class ships are OK but cost constraints have meant that neither of them has aircraft hangers, so cannot actually deploy with helo’s. Helicopters can only operate from these ships, so you need other ships to transport the helicopters for them!!! Neither carries a very large troop compliment, they both carry about the 3-400 mark (slightly more in what the RN calls “high-Density” configuration) which I guess means sleeping in the corridors etc. The Bay class has no weapons fitted at all and the Albion class has 2 x Goalkeeper and a few 20mm cannon, and no air defence missiles whatsoever!!

What we should have built is something along the lines of the French “Mistral” class ships which basically combine the capabilities of Albion/Bay and Ocean/CVS (minus the harriers). Ideally the USMC LPHD would been even better as they can operate AV8Bs as well. Surely what you need is a ship that can carry about 1000 men and all the equipment and vehicles they need, 16 or so Helicopters including attack version i.e Apache and 4-6 Harriers, not forgetting some decent landing craft, not the WWII type crap we have bought. The new PASCAT craft might just plug this gap. Finally whilst I am ranting, surely someone could design a series of cannon (including CIWS) that use the mauser 27mm round, thus providing one round that everyone can use and commonality with the RAF…..

Frankly I’d love to see the typhoon fly of the CVF, although how easy that would be is another matter, mostly relating to defence procurement, not physical possibility.

Note the Soviet Union/Russia’s approach to naval fighters. The Su-27 and Mig-29 are land based fighter aircraft designed with no intention if ever seeing a carrier.
The Su-33 and Mig-29K are their navalised versions respectively, Of note is that the Su-33 uses a ski jump not catapults.

Also note that prior to the sea harrier the navy operated F-4 phantoms, a naval fighter bomber with low mounted wings like the typhoon.

I’m pretty certain that the Typhoon can be made to fly of the CVF, the question is, if we gave it to BAE, would we ever actually see it happen?

Think Defence gets the odd visit from Daly History, I started reading it a few days ago, it’s very good. Am going to add i t to the blogroll

OFF topic – the Daly History Blog (by James Daly) has an excellent set of articles, thought experiments, on whether the current UK armed forces could fight a campaign to retake the Falklands Islands – see:
http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/

Jed, I agree with you completely. It is a major re-design. I am not disputing that at all; I have no idea on costs, I was simply stating that the F35 is bloody expensive and an essentially new design (based on the typhoon’s predicted growth potential is in my view a better way to spend our money. If we were really lucky we might be able to sell most if not all of the T1/2 Typhoons to help pay for an all new T3 fleet that were carrier capable. Yes, the Gripen is a better option in that the Swedes, like the Russian’s build there aircraft to a very robust standard. All I am saying is that with e T3 should take the opportunity to develop the aircraft much further than they currently appear to do, basically making a Typhoon NG equivalent. An alternative is a re-engined Rafale. A Rafale with EJ200 with TVC and AESA CAPTOR radar and 27mm cannon would not be a bad aircraft at all. I know its all a pipe dream,but its better than the nightmare that is F35.

At this point I have to make a confession. I have long commented that if we are to buy the F35 then it should be the C variant (I also believe that it should have an internal 27mm cannon as well). However, I have to agree with Admin, in that if we should choose one of the other carrier aircraft (be it Rafale/F18 Seaphoon or Sea Gripen or whatever), then the F35B makes more sense for the RAF. especially if we do ever get around to building a replacement for Ocean/CVS and build something like the French Mistral class Amphibious Helicopter Support ship. IF we could make it big enough to carry 4-8 Harrier/F35B type aircraft that would be a superb asset.

I have to disagree with Grim and Phil, purely on cost grounds.Phil the big problem is that “no more expensive than the F35″ is not good enough to save FAA fixed wing ops, it needs to be cheaper to procure and having cheaper through life costs.

Your description of moving canards etc is a full up redesign of the Typhoon, which means time and money etc which I frankly do not think is worth the development risk. Thus I disagree with your other statement, we may have the ‘engineering’ spirit, we may still have the brains, we certainly do not have the political balls, nor the gold bullion.

I would go with the Gripen NG, which I admit is only in the dev stage itself, however the Gripen from the outset was designed for high sink rate, short strip landings for the Swedish emergency road basing system. I am guessing it could be manufactured or at least assembled at Warton or some other BAe plant, but as I have said before, we have squandered our chances at linking defence capabilities to jobs, and if we want the capability we might just have to accept that its going to involve Swedish jobs (as opposed to American for F18′s or French for Rafale).

So, for STOBAR my vote is Sea Gripen !

Grim you are right in that the so-called experts do seem to disagree as to how difficult it is to convert the Typhoon to a naval fighter. I suspect that it would mean a totally new airframe. However, I don’t think this should be a show-stopper. Tranche 3 is the ideal opportunity to extend the capabilities of the aircraft. It needs a longer range and a heavier payload anyway. At the same time as making it carrier capable you could also make some improvements in the stealth characteristics, by making provision for internal carriage of Meteor, with the existing mountings being used for ASRAAMs, this could make it very stealthy in the A2A role. The cannards will have to be moved back as currently they would block vital views required for desck landings. These changes coupled with beefed-up undercarriage and folding wings would do it. Yes its not going to be cheap, but it will no more expensive than the F35 and it has the benefit of UK jobs and harmonising capability within the RAF/FAA not to mention allowing the provion of more airframes.

Definately worthy of serious consideration. Technically it is possible but do we have the political will to do it??? I suspect not, we are scared of our own shadow these days. We need the spirit that allowed us to produce aircraft like the Vulcan and Concorde. We have the brains but not the balls….

This was a pleasant surprise for me today. One of the only main points of disagreement i’ve found so far with your ideas was cancellation of the CVF and JCA because of the massive drop in capability it would create and the far reaching foreign policy effects. This little ray of hope is something that i’ve discussed many times before.

If this line of thinking were to be continued i’d start by suggesting we stick to Typhoon. It offers commonality and indigenous work and will lead to improvements across the entire fleet, not just the naval aircraft. No other potnetial aircraft can offer that. We may as well get some extra returns for the amount of money it’d require to navalise a new fighter.

Often it is hard to get a straight answer on whether the Typhoon could be navalised, with many fanboys (and BAE systems as well) saying that it would take very little to modify the Typhoon in such a way, to become a STOBAR aircraft, whilst others will say it is nearly impossible. STOBAR would require some small modifications to the CVF (an arrestor wire) but this is a small and fairly cheap piece of equipment compared to a full CATOBAR system.

There are some points that would certainly need addressing; the fuselage would require strengthening, the thrust vectoring fully developed, and a tail hook added to allow for recovery.

If these could successfully be achieved then I think it would offer one of the best alternatives to the JCA program.