And pretty soon you are talking serious money.
Revisiting the F35B Joint Combat Aircraft and CVF theme, the true costs have which yet to reveal themselves but to date it is a rough estimate that we have either spent or contractually committed to spend about 3 to 4 billion pounds on the two programmes in design effort, materials, studies and initial purchases. The £2billion invested in the JSF programme is just that, an investment so even if we were to withdraw a healthy return would still be likely, unless of course that is the US cancels it.
Cancelling them both would be a enormous waste of that money but at some point there comes a time when you have to cut your losses and run.
No one knows the actual cost of the final, delivered version of the F35B, the preferred option to fulfil the joint Combat Aircraft for the RAF and RN future carriers. The initial number of 150 aircraft was predicated on a minimal increase in costs and a low price, the great white hope of an affordable airframe was the promise, yeah right, the cheque is in the post!
The final number will be determined by cost, not operational need so expect the numbers to go down, not up.
Estimates of the cost of the F35B are as numerous as lines of code but the range seems to be between £60-80million each. Will this include all the usual extras, again, this is not clear.
On top of the basic costs are weapon integration, last time I looked the USMC, USN and USAF do not use Storm Shadow, Meteor, ASRAMM, PaveWay IV, Brimstone or CRV-7 which means that the UK’s air launched weapons are going to have to be qualified separately. This is a time consuming process but generally speaking usually proceeds with little fuss or drama, for example the effect the weapons release has on flight dynamics can be adjusted by physical or software modifications.
There is that word, software.
In a previous post we covered the issue of operational sovereignty and software, we thought we had a deal, Lord Drayson stating that “We have today received the necessary assurances from the US on technology transfer, which we would require to operate the aircraft safely and maintain, repair and upgrade it over its operational life”
One must assume that this means weapon integration but the US has now categorically stated that NO ONE will be getting such software access so to allow the JCA to have any weapons apart from a harsh stare from its pilot and maybe a 25mm cannon, the UK will pay extra for this integration. of course we would have had to pay anyway but who to, that is the key question now. The other alternative is to buy into the US weapons programmes like AIM-120C, JDAM or SDB but not even the MoD would be that foolish.
Costs will rise and numbers will fall
The US have indicated that it will set up a “reprogramming facility,” probably at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, to further develop F-35-related software and distribute upgrades. Another question is can that software be transferred back and forth between Florida and the UK electronically or will the aircraft have to be physically present in Florida. If physical presence is required then that is going to consume an awful lot of airframe hours, pilot time and aviation fuel, or they could go over as a job lot on the CVF, happy cruising.
Even if the software can be transmitted electronically the lack of flexibility is going to cost, and cost big.
Costs will rise and numbers will fall
There remains a very real prospect that only a bare minimum number aircraft will be obtained, numbers curtailed by spiralling costs, maybe less than 40. When training and other requirements are taken into consideration it is likely that the CVF will deploy with less than a dozen aircraft, although they should be able to surge to the designed 36, if all aircraft have been maintained, none are being used for training, damaged, lost or not being cannibalised for spares etc.
Note, this is one CVF, don’t forget we are buying two.
The F35B was selected as the preferred option for CVF because of one reason and one reason only, cost.
There are fringe benefits around sortie generation rates and others but fundamentally the F35B design, whilst likely the most expensive in capital terms, offers the lowest through life costs. The ability to dispense with perishable skills like cat and trap operation, installing steam plant and maintaining that steam plant etc makes the F35B option joined at the hip to CVF. Other options might be considered like Rafale or F18 but realistically, when looked at through life, likely work out even more expensive.
As insane as it sounds, the F35B is the sanest choice.
The UK is facing the prospect of having a pair of huge aircraft carriers rattling around the worlds oceans with a very small aircraft compliment, shared between them and shared between ground operations. In order to get this capability compromises have had to be made, not only in the design of the CVF’s but also to its escorts numbers. Hopefully we will only be doing the ‘expeditionary warfare’ thing against second rate opponents because if anyone with a half decent submarine or aircraft force decides they are not going to follow the script and keel over but fight back, there might just be trouble.
It is about time we bit the bullet, grew a backbone, cut our losses or [INSERT YOUR OWN PHRASE HERE] and cancelled the whole lot, no tinkering around the edges with having just one hull or a smaller number of airframes, the whole lot.
Two or four billion Pounds (depends how you count it) is a lot of money to throw down the drain but the UK armed forces have much better things to be spending our scare defence funds on now and in the future.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
15 Comments
Software Option 3
Its possible that the hard drives are removeable, so we can post them to Elgin, they’re upgraded and can be posted back.
Still a far from brilliant option, but better than flying over the aircraft, since I very much doubt it will be emailed under any circumstance.
It wouldnt be email but likely a secure link of some sort, it would have to be very very secure though.
Would you trust the software code to the Royal Mail :D
Who says the through life costs for the Rafale or F18E/F are more than those of the F35, be it A, B or C ? As no one has a clue yet what the ‘real’ through life costs of the F35 will be (how many aircraft are currently flying in the test programme, 4 ???)
Also F35B has the yanks worried about melting the bloody flight deck with its single great big nozzle !!
But apart from any of that – we should not buy anything without the source code – if they want to say “screw the (so called) special relationship” then screw them too, a great big public withdrawal and promise to spend the money on more UK jobs by buying more Typhoons – as we discussed in the tactical air postings.
CVF is a mistake, maybe one its too late to get out of, JCA in the form of the F35B would be a ‘criminal’ mistake, and one we can actually avoid !
Jed, I was guessing about through life costs for the F18 and Rafale but the liklihood is they would be greater, the cost of cats and traps, the people to maintain them and maintenance costs would be large against a cost of zero for STVOL. Add in the steam generation plant and the people to maintain them. I take your point about overheating decks though, perhaps the cost of a water cooled deck will be as expensive to install and run as steam plant at cats.
The costs of maintaining what are very perishable skills like cat and trap operation would be massive, its not something you can skimp on or accidents happen, the training costs with the F35B can be shared across the RAF and RN, a bit of purple. The RN would have to carry 100% of the cost for the Rafale or F18
How actually feasible a Seaphoon or Sea Gripen is I am not sure, maybe an option worth spending some money on to study
This is shaping up to be a scandal as big as MRA4, Astute, A400, Typhoon and FRES all rolled into one, we havent seen anything yet.
How did we get here?
Seaphoon
Thats awesome, I move we name it that from now on.
Yes royal mail and email were just meant to be jokes, presumably you could take hardrives out of the aircraft, handcuff it to someone and put him on a flight direct to elgin with promises he’ll be shot if he doesnt have it when he gets there.
“How did we get here?”
Buying a cheap aircraft thats shaping up to cost double the expensive aircraft and not work?
How did we convince ourselves we wouldnt end up here?
As much as I would like to claim the name as my own I think it has been called that for ages :D
I trust by now the small group of regular contributors here are aware of my feeling for CVF, so it goes without saying I disagree with Admin on parts of the post.
However, I totally agree on the software thing, we shouldn’t be paying 2 billion to not have sovereignty of our own aircraft. I wish we’d done more with the Seaphoon before it was too late.
However, since we will end up with the F35 i’ll stick to points in relation to that. First, i’d rather see the C version coupled with EMALS. It’s just a better aircraft.
Next, even a normal compliment of 12 aircraft is enough, as long as when we actually need it, in a proper war situation, we can surge to the full 36.
Even a reduced buy is better than nothing here, we wouldn’t be using both carriers at once in a war, that is irresponsible, dangerous and doesn’t allow for any kind of deployment over longer than 6 months (the point at which the carriers would likely rotate). Part or all of the air group could simply transfer across during handover of ops.
Interesting fact to note, 66 tail numbers are currently reserved for F35′s. That may be smaller than planned (80ish I think) but is still enough for a full carrier, and a small second airgroup for the other, and normal training ops back in the UK.
As a side note on weapons integration, Meteor is currently only able to fit the A2G stations on the F35B, and is being looked at to see if we can alter it for the A2A station.
Grim said: “Even a reduced buy is better than nothing here” – ahhh that is where we will have to agree to disagree matey !
I think the bigger picture is being missed, can’t see the wood for tree’s etc. At some point you get hit by the law of diminishing returns – you end up paying MORE for LESS capability.
So although I am ex-Navy and a proponent of Maritime air power, what is better for UK defence as a whole – 66 F35 and one (at any time) operational carrier OR a decent sized Typhoon force for the RAF and a decent number of surface combatants for the RN ???
If it is too late to cancel either the CVF’s or F35B’s and a maximum purchase is 40 planes maybe a useful supplimental force could be T-45 Goshawks used in the strike role like the long serving A-4 Skyhawk. The Goshawks could be used in the SHORT TAKEOFF BUT ARRESTED LANDING style used by the Russians for there SU-33 and MiG-29 naval fighters. No steam plants no cats just the arrestor gear. A carrier wing of 20 F35B’s for air defence and 16 Goshawks for strike. This 36 plane wing would have as many F-35B’s as the original SEA HARRIER force sent to the Falklands and the could fulfill the strike role of the GR-9′s.
Admin, may I also offer my congrats on the 200th post.
All, if we really are only to get a handful of F35s and the B version at that, then what the bloody hell do we want with 2 x 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers. Surely if the intention was to only have 12 to 36 available, we should have bought 3-4 LPHD. That way it would have bolstered our amphibious fleet, which contrary to popular belief is not that brilliant. (The Albion and Bay class due to lack of Helicopter hangers and any meaningful armament, none at all in the case of the Bay class) have been severely compromised by cost cutting.
I did read somewhere that the MOD had already stated that the 2nd CVF would not be used as a carrier, but instead converted as an Amphibious / Helicopter carrier to replace Ocean!!! If this turns out to be true, then this must make the CVF the biggest waste of the Defence procurement budget ever!!!! Well done MoD, you have excelled yourselves, just when we thought they could not get any worse, they have come up trumps!!!
I still can’t actually see these things ever seeing service. It has taken 9 years to get this far, they are still some 6-7 years away. With the way the economy is and the low priority this or any UK government puts on Defence, these will just be forgotten about or at best sold off. If the political will to actually field these ships ever existed, we would have had them by now. They have delayed the project for so long that the economy will finally KILL it off!!!!
I do, however, fear that the RAF WILL get F35Bs to replace its Harrier’s!! Grim you are right, with an investment of £2billion +, we bloody well should have the software access codes and further more should not buy a single aircraft (apart from the test and evaluation models recently ordered) until,
A) the internal bomb bay is lengthened to accommodate Stormshadow.
B) all UK weapons, especially Meteor/ASRAAM/ALARM, Paveway IV and Brimstone etc..) have been fully integrated.
C) they modify the airframe to take an internal 27mm cannon!!!!
After all it’s predominantly a ground attack aircraft for Christ sake!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_class_amphibious_assault_ship
A few of them you mean?
Phil options A and C, so we basically add more complications to an already heavily delayed and over budget aircraft. I don’t know if you know what you’re saying and saying it anyway to make a point or if you really don’t know. If it is the latter then I’ll point out that modifying the airframe will add delays, increase costs and therefore reduce the number of aircraft we could buy yet again there is also a good chance the yanks would rightly tell us to f**k off. We should get the software codes if not we walk or at least negotiate to get access to an equivalent level either way we still get the industrial workshare.
In regards to the bay class I would seriously look at when they need a major overhaul adding a hangar to them essentially turning them into Galicia or Rotterdam class ships which is what they are based off of. Its major work and I’m not entirely sure if it would be possible but if done alongside a major overhaul the vessels would not be out of service much longer than a standard major overhaul. Doing this would of course add the hangar but would possibly add additional accommodation above the hangar enhancing the capability of the vessel in its role.
If the CVF ball was not already rolling and F-35B was a proven product then I would have liked the Royal Navy to go for 4 of the Spanish BPE’s or the Canberra class as they will be known by the Aussies. The interesting thing is the UK can’t seem to destroy its armed forces fast enough while other nations are making steps in the other direction; the RN (possibly) loses airpower at sea while the RAN is gaining it. India is building carriers and has tried to buy one, China is making moves into carrier aviation, Spain and Italy have just built new STOVL carriers, Japan and South Korea have just built helicopter carriers easily capable of carrying STOVL aircraft, Australia is due to get 2 new 30,000 ton STOVL carriers. France is debating a second carrier alongside its 3 Mistral class helicopter carriers and some suggest a 4th mistral class is not so farfetched. Meanwhile hear in blighty we have ordered 2 new carriers and there is mounting pressure to cancel them and even if they do appear it will be a half arsed effort. Not to mention our people/voters and politicians are gobby idiots who have an opinion on everything everywhere and want to be heard yet won’t support the Armed Forces so that we will be heard, the military needs to tell the politicians and public to put up or shut up. The thing that really pisses me off (sorry for the language) is that we can afford carriers and we can afford escorts if it were not for the mismanagement in Government. There might need to be a budget increase in the long term but overall defence spending has dropped considerably since the 1980 and even the 1990’s when the ‘peace dividend’ was taken although the peace dividend has been taken many times over.
The current crop of politicians seems to like spending money even although we are bust, for instance just the other day I saw an announcement saying we will be contributing £100-150 million pound to support Yemen. What money would that be? Were borrowing over £170,000,000,000 this year alone so tell me where is the money coming from? I’m sure Yemen has a credit card or someone else can give them some money. The £1.5 billion promised for climate change or whatever nonsense is not so bad as it’s almost pure spin most of the money is already allocated and reuses old resources.
DominijJ, yes that’s what I was eluding to.
Euan, Yes I know that these changes would now be almost impossible to achieve. My point really was the UK should have not allowed the design to be compromised. The original F35B design had a longer bomb bay that would have accommodated UK specific weapons, not unreasonable as the only level 1 partner and the USA’s closest and most loyal ally.
Like the 27mm cannon, this was also on the cards to be part of the standard fit, but was dropped, I believe due to Mauser/Rheinmetall failing to agree acceptable costs with the US.
What I was saying was that the F35 does not meet the Uks specific needs and we should not buy until it does i.e. we don’t buy it!! I assume we can still make money from sales to others air forces. We have been turned over by the US. Quite disgusting, when you think what inventions and technology the UK has GIVEN to the US and how they bankrupt us to fund WWII. Special relation my ARRSE. This has been a ONE-WAY relationship for decades and it needs to stop.
Possibly, albeit naively, the Navy might have once thought they were going to get 150 JSF at a price the MoD could afford, fit for purpose, and complete with access codes. The reality is more stark; the Yanks will not gives us the codes so we will never really ‘own’ it, the aircraft has weight problems so it doesn’t have the weapons load capability it was intended to have and being destined to be the most expensive single seat aircraft ever built means that the Navy will be lucky to afford a notional full compliment for one carrier. Hardly a good outcome for a strategic goal of having a sea-borne deployable force of 80 fast jets and hardly a good deal for the tax payer who will again pay far too much for far too little received.
I am surprised that the cheapest option that preserves the goal of having two fully equipped carriers doesn’t get a mention and that is simply to equip then with the Harriers the UK already owns. The whole cost of the JSF purchase could be substantially deferred if not avoided altogether. The RAF already deploys its Harriers on RN carriers, there are (now) surplus RAF Harriers available and, I believe, somewhere there are 50 or so Sea Harriers in storage. Admittedly all these aircraft will need varying levels of sustainment and will probably need to be replaced by 2020. But that gives the MoD five years breathing space over a JSF purchase before it has to fund the purchase of new aircraft and when it happens if we continue with Harriers then no doubt buying new or refurbished Harriers from BAE is going to be a lot cheaper than buying the JSF.
Sure the Harrier has capability limitations and there are consequences of that, but against the possibility that the Navy might not be given any carriers at all, the Navy shouldn’t set its ambitions higher than it can justify.
The CVF’s deck probably won’t melt from the F35B’s (JCA) engine exhaust because the JCA will do SRVL “Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing” From “The Register” a good tech, IT news site, with some good defence tech news like this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/16/stosrvl/
Excerpts: “The so-called “rolling vertical landing” has already been tried out by British engineers and test pilots using the Harrier, and is expected to allow a jet to get down onto a carrier deck at sea while carrying more weight than it could in a vertical hover landing. It should also lessen wear and tear on the engine, which has to run at quite destructive power levels and temperatures in the hover.”