One thing that is absolutely a racing certainty is that weapon system developments will be more expensive and take longer than the various elaborately constructed project plan diagrams, PowerPoint presentations and weighty definitions documents would have you believe.
In this respect I am not surprised about the problems with the F35 Joint Strike Fighter; it’s just business as usual, even though I think the UK has better things to spend its scarce and dwindling defence budget on.
However, at what stage does one say enough is enough.
The bad news just keeps on coming.
The cost estimates have risen by between 30% and 90% depending on how and from when you measure, the JSF was marketed as affordable and that was one of the key points used to justify the inclusion of so many nations. These estimates are also based on planned acquisition from all the partner nations that conveniently forget the global economic situation. It does not take a genius to work out that volumes will be reduced and we all know where that ends, a procurement death spiral where increasing development costs have to be spread over fewer and fewer production orders driving the cost up and so on.
The reality is no one actually knows exactly how much it is going to cost but one thing is absolutely true is the direction of travel is only one way.
In addition to being 2 years behind schedule, at least, the programme will likely breach the so called US Nunn McCurdy limit which will trigger a serious re structuring.
The UK originally planned a purchase of 150 aircraft, subsequently reduced to 138 and now, various mutterings that the final buy could be in the order of 50.
All this is bad enough and would be almost bearable if the aircraft themselves were offering a serious step change in capabilities, were on target development wise, but sadly this does not appear to be the case.
Some parts if the programme are pushing ahead but other problems seem to keep coming out of the woodwork with alarming regularity, even accepting that it is still in development.
Just a couple of snippets to illustrate these problems…
Reported in DoD buzz is the decision to remove a series of fuses and fire extinguishers as a means of reducing weight, cost and risk. Tests have shown that without these features the aircraft becomes much less survivable against hostile gunfire.
The high velocity and high temperature heat wash issue isn’t going away either. How much of this is actually a real and significant problem is open for debate but it is certainly something to be concerned about. Whilst the USMC are happily using flying their Harriers from forward locations comes a story about the design specifications for handling areas to support the F35B. Describing the specifications the report notes that to support vertical take-off or landing operations the surfaces will be exposed to Mach 1 exhaust at temperatures of over 900 degrees Centigrade, much beyond the current capabilities of temporary surface sealants and portable surfaces like ALM matting. Whilst the true vertical take off or landing is actually rarely used now, the rolling landing and take off that is currently the norm with Harriers do use downward thrust and there is no reason to believe this won’t be the case with the F35B. Not being able to use semi austere facilities is not a ‘deal breaker’ but it does compromise the flexibility of deployment and operations. The report may be incorrect LM protest that it is based on worse case data and not reflective of test data, hope so.
The F35B is the logical choice for the UK because it allows the RAF and FAA to share training and logistics, recognising that flying off the CVF will not always be the mode of operation and expeditionary planning generally calls for the initial flying to be done with CVF with follow on operations moving the aircraft to land bases that can support more sustained operations. It makes a lot of sense from an operational and perhaps more significantly, cost perspective.
If the F35B becomes so expensive that the UK can only afford a very few the whole thing starts to look like an exercise in futility, 2 large carriers and their supporting assets with very few aircraft to fly off them, more than a little embarrassing. An extremely expensive combination, that actually delivers nowhere near the promised effect.
When is enough, enough?
The main problem with the F35 is that it is too big to fail, there is no Plan B.
What are the options for the UK if the F35 is cancelled or more likely becomes more expensive than the much maligned Typhoon?
In earlier posts we have questioned the benefit of the CVF, not in basic terms, but in the context of an overstretched budget. There is no doubt about the utility of carriers but they are not worth the cost if they lead to a dangerously top heavy force structure that the RN seems to be going towards.
Is there another alternative?
The Harrier, like the Sea King, is an exemplar for the ability of military equipment to remain viable through constant upgrades. Speak to any UK FAC’s in Afghanistan and they will continually sing the praises of the Harriers in the care of the Joint Force Harrier, a superb Close Air Support combination.
Could the Harrier’s effective life be extended by a couple more decades with an affordable and modest set of upgrades, combining re-manufactured structural components that address fatigue issues with new avionics and other systems. We already have many of the sensor and avionic components available in the Typhoon design, take these and transplant them onto a new build airframe.
No composites, no supersonic speeds, minimal stealth and a few tweaks could be a model for cost effective capabilities that could be obtained in a quantity that provides for a worthwhile effect.
The scope of such an upgrade would need to be limited to constrain costs but is it achievable?
Does the UK really need a Day 1 attack combination beyond an increased buy Storm Shadow on Typhoon and Nimrod and submarine launched Tomahawk?
Questions, questions, questions
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
231 Comments
Viable alternatives for Royal Navy?
Given the timing constraints, no chance of re-starting the Harrier production line. We would need to buy F18′s; Rafale’s are too expensive and modifying Typhoon for carrier launch would be the height of insanity :-(
Lets hope the EMALS trials go well, eh?
Hi Rupert, do you think restarting the Harrier line or simply re-manufacturing what we already have is a non starter on cost pr practicality grounds. What sparked my thinking on this was a story about re-manufactured F4E’s (yes, that old) coming into service with Turkey.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/09/339189/turkey-accepts-first-aselsan-modified-f-4e-phantom.html
So would this approach give us a bit of breathing space, cost wise
I think the Harrier option doesn’t sound that bad. It could take a couple of years but we have the advantage of knowing that the Harrier works and we could also have one with a radar; Something of a necessity for fleet defence. Gets my vote in the short-term.
The Harrier seems like a bust to me now. Lets not kid ourselves here, they are very old aircraft that have already had a hell of a lot of upgrades. The existing airframes are dropping out of the sky a little too frequently as it is. New build would verge on too expensive anyway and would also require redesign work to fit the fleet defence role again, whilst STILL being largely obsolete.
If F35 really does become too expensive, other options should be considered, there are a few, all with there own issues: Rafale, F18, Sea Gripen, Seaphoon, hell even the Indian LCA Mk2. All are much more modern, would require less effort to get to production and most would probably not be massively more expensive than the massive reproduction of Harriers that have been doing the job for far too long.
The twin carrier project is one of those fantasy projects beloved of our rulers. Just imagine the costs of two carrier groups. Aircraft, airfields, training facilities, simulators, docks. Plus escorts and fleet train. And is the RN big enough to support them? And please don’t say lets get the RAF to help out – if the RAF people wanted to go to sea they would have joined the Navy in the first place.
It’s better to have those Aircraft Carriers and not need them, than need them and not have them. And having two of them instead of one would be the most sensible thing to do, we wouldn’t want a situation where in time of needs the our only carrier is being refitted.
Grim, Harriers have been obsolete for a while now, but it looks like it will take a fair while for the F-35B fleet to become operational, if it doesn’t get cancelled. The USMC AV-8B+ already has a radar so no development work is required in that sense, unless an AESA is specified.
I don’t see the Harrier option as anything more than an interim option until something more capable is introduced. It would be quicker than getting something like a Seaphoon into operation and be more capable than the existing Harrier fleet. When the USMC upgraded their AV-8B’s to AV-8B+ standard, I’m sure a US Senate committee report said it would’ve been cheaper using new-build airframes than converting the existing ones.
Personally if the F-35 dies a death I’d be tempted to opt for the Rafale or F-18E as the development work has already been done and it would be operational a lot sooner. Opting for the Typhoon would be a choice based on national pride. There’s no need to re-invent the wheel for, what is in the scheme of things, such a small number aircraft.
We have discussed alternatives to the F35 at great length on this site – see the FDR heading and look for ‘Maritime futures’ articles if you have not read them before.
On the point of this article – the UK needs to stand up and be the first to pull out of this pogramme. It has already been suggested that the F35 program is at the beginning of its ‘death spiral’ as even at the latest hearings the massive unit price increases were not based on figures that take into account declining budgets and reduced buys. Reduced buys / production runs will only increase unit price even more.
Write off the development costs, try to get some back (?) somehow – but do not throw good money after bad by continuing to pretend we can afford this aircraft.
Single fleet RAF based on 250 to 300 Typhoons. Sell the carriers to India (!) or do a deal with France to share them and fly Rafales, or keep them to ourselves and fly F18′s.
NO F35 for the UK !!!
The writing has been on the wall for quite some time only those living in lala or fantasy land would believe anything LockMart says about the JSF anymore. All that has happened is that official people have started to look at the reality of the program and realised how much rubbish they were being fed by LockMart. Will things change? Well I doubt it unless senior figures disappear or admit they were wrong about the F-22 and everyone realises that most people live in the real world. Jed is right we have discussed this before as we are not stupid and the options are laid out to be discussed and debated.
The idea of remanufactured or upgraded harriers makes me cringe, the design is old and obsolete and I doubt it would be any cheaper than buying Superbugs off the Americans. That is of course to say we actually want carrier air power and they way things are going we won’t have a navy to speak of. Aye here I go again being gloomy but with all the parties quite happy to go along with all wars will be counterinsurgency based line then things look bad. However in a few years we might not even be a sovereign nation anymore thanks to the plotting with the French and the commitment by all parties to surrender to Europe.
If a lot of the problems are with the B why not switch to the C. I know a lot of people have already talked about it. It saves the issues with decks and downwash, increases range and load, allows decent AWACs on the carriers, commonality with USN. I have never really understood the all consuming drive to have VSTOL aircraft. Its not like you are going to have to operate from austere sites in Germany (or UK) once your airfields have been wiped out. Most expeditionary work can be done from carriers with decent ranged aircraft (he says without seriously looking into it). Was the whole VSTOL thing just a way of the UK ensuring a significant job share in the whole exercise way back when it was first envisaged?
Hi Fromafar
One of the main drivers for the F35B for the RAF and FAA was in through life cost savings which would be considerable. Everything from the lack of expensive to maintain cats to perishable skills like carrier ops can be saved on. A common training and manning regime for the RAF and FAA saves a FORTUNE over the life of the aircraft.
The STVOL design also provides a great deal of flexibility in all types of operation, naval or land based. For example in KAF recently the RAF Harriers were the only aircraft able to fly for a few days whilst the runway was repaired, the short takeoff capabilities allowed it to use a small section of the runway where the more traditional jets were grounded. In a naval context instead of only 2 ships with cats and traps the RN could utilise the helicopter carriers or even some of the large deck RFA vessels (at a push)
Beyond the usual image of operating from austere locations STVOL gives a lot
Euan, why do you think a carefully managed re-manufacture of key wear components and the insertion of existing technology into a GR11 ?? would be more expensive when taken in the round (training, logs, systems, maintenance etc) than a brand new buy of F18′s for example.
The Turks have just done a similar thing with their F4′s that are as old as the Harriers, we have plenty of airframes in storage and if we are honest we only really need the attack capabilities with some secondary air defence
I suppose that was my point (albeit badly described). You could have F35-C’s for a “Joint JSF Force”. Pilots could train for carrier operations just as they train for VSTOL activities off of the flight decks now. Perhaps there is a whole different level of training required, I would be guessing. anyway there are nmerous examples of carrier aircraft being used by airforces exclusively, e.g. F4,A4, F18. As far as the austere capability is concerned Im sure the two days of CAS cover was probably a god send to people in the field but in the greater scheme of things it is a lot of money, time, research that, perhaps, could be plowed into just the two version A and C and the aircraft could be up and running on schedule. Too many if buts and maybes I suppose but once again just a thought.
The current issue isn’t between the B and C versions, its the fact that the whole F35 program is screwed basically, with costs spiralling and getting later.
We could insert new tech into Harriers (at quite an expense no doubt) and you’d still have an old aircraft that can’t really stand up to real dangers. We’d be creating an aircraft that could fly in Afghanistan and maybe against a country with very weak air forces and defences (and then not without losses), but not really project any force.
At some point you have to simply admit that upgrades only go so far. You all seem to mention this as an interim solution, interim to what exactly? Interim means we’ll have to buy yet another type a little down the line anyway! Why not just bite the bullet, save some money and buy that new type now in the form of an existing (and in production or near production)aircraft.
My vote would be Rafale here. The govt. is banging on about closer defence ties, this might help, and we could probably negotiate for them to buy a bunch of UK equipment in return (PA2, Mantis etc.). On top of that, it isn’t a terrible aircraft as much as it pains me to say.
After that the only realistic alternative is F18. We probably wouldn’t manage to get get full ToT out of the yanks after we piss them off by dropping F35, the Aussies couldn’t even without that. Rafale at least offers the prospect of joint upgrades and adding lots of British tech. We’d also become directly reliant on the US and hand them a nice juicy order, just as we’re complaining at them for buying Boeing over EADS again. Seems like a silly idea to me.
If we could wait a little longer and wanted to splash out a little more then it’s Seaphoon all the way.
Just sticking to the subject of Harrier upgrades etc – why do people think the aircraft is obsolete ?
The GR9A is a capable airframe / avionics combination for CAS / Recce ? NT-ISTAR – nothing wrong with it.
It is actually only half as old as the upgraded German and Turkish Phantoms. The McDonnell-Douglas / BAe Harrier II family is a ‘child of the 80′s’ with the GR5 entering service with the RAF in 1987, so its 23 years old, round it up to say the design is 30 years old. Thats a log younger than the Phantom or even the A10.
The BAe Harrier II wikipedia page states that a notional figure of 600 million pounds was mentioned with respect to fitting Sea Harrier’s radar sets to GR7′s.
So if you include adding this, or some off the shelf Selex radar, USMC style upwards firing chaff and flare launchers, Jaguar style helmet mounted sight etc etc etc along with a structural Service Life Extension Programme (SLEP) and an upgraded Pegasus, then such an extensive upgrade programme would not be ‘cheap’ – however it would be preferable to sinking more money into the F35 debacle. If all existing Harrier II airframes were upgraded and handed over to the Navy then at least we would have something to fly from the carriers, saving some political face (instead of selling them for example) and it would also leave the RAF free to concentrate on the Typhoon.
Grim with respect to your comment: “We’d be creating an aircraft that could fly in Afghanistan and maybe against a country with very weak air forces and defences (and then not without losses), but not really project any force.”
Well we have discussed this quite a bit too, who else do you see the UK taking on ? We would have so few operational F35′s of any variant flying from a single operational carrier, so who exactly do you see us projecting force against ?
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for CATOBAR Rafale ops from our new carriers, but don’t diss the Harrier II as being obsolete and useless, it could be far from it, depending on what exactly you want / expect it to do for you.
Bae Harrier II Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Harrier_II
Jed, I suppose obsolescence comes in many forms. In the case of the Harrier it means that it lacks many of the things you’s expect to see as standard on a modern fighter. Things like FBW controls, radar and supersonic capability. Would pitching a Harrier force against an enemy fielding Mirage 2000′s or Mig-29′s be a wise thing? I guess that’s something only Harrier aircrew could answer.
However, although the Harrier has a number of limitations, it would still be better to have an upgraded Harrier force that worked than have a fleet of F-35′s that didn’t.
Richard
(this is a genuine question) Does the platform matter as long as the weapons it carries can do the job – does for example the speed of the aircraft matter if the missile can grant you kills in the ranges of a few hundred metres to the horizon ?
It maybe just best to have a stable platform with internal room for updates based on a already known craft that works and is reliable and depend on weapon technology over the platform carrying it.
A Harrier Carrier wouldnt have any serious “strike” capability against a nation.
The aircraft would be limited to fleet defence and attacking an enemy fleet.
But as I’ve said before, what could 35 F35b’s do better?
Could they really penetrate enemy airspace, attack key targets and get out alive?
Dominic said: A Harrier Carrier wouldnt have any serious “strike” capability against a nation.
The aircraft would be limited to fleet defence and attacking an enemy fleet.”
Useful capabilities – leave ‘strike’ to sub launched Tomahawk.
“But as I’ve said before, what could 35 F35b’s do better? Could they really penetrate enemy airspace, attack key targets and get out alive?”
Maybe, maybe not, why not hang Storm Shadow or NSM on your not stealthy / non supersonic / ‘old’ and much cheaper and actually in service Harrier II variant to achieve the same effect ?
Hi Jed
Sorry that post was a bit short and not very clear.
I’m quite a fan of building some new and improved harriers to be used as fleet defence aircraft, primarily to engage incoming aircraft with long range missiles.
No reason you couldnt stick a few long range land attack missiles on them and pop off a few shots too.
I was just pointing out that they do have limits.
In the middle of the ocean, when no ones got a home base nearby, I think Harriers are “good enough” for now, whereas I dont believe F35′s are “good enough” over enemy skies.
If submarine launched Tomahawks and Harrier launched Storm Shadows have already put 95% of the enemy airfields out of action, then Harriers might be worth while over enemy sky as well.
There are a few dimensions to this both political and military.
First, the carriers wont get cancelled because they have become so embroiled in politics that if they were to get cancelled the tories would get wiped out in Scotland and they are not exactly strong up north as it stands. Secondly we do need replacements for the illustrious class ships, it is not enough to say that America has the carrier capability – as of late the Americans have shown their true face towards their main ally and it has been a nasty face indeed. Sovereign carrier capability is a must if we are to remain a proper global nation.
Secondly, I have lost a paper I had on Typhoon carrier capabilities. Does anyone else have this same paper? Basically if I recall correctly, DSTL had successfully carried out tests with the Typhoon to establish that it could in fact land on the future Elizabeth class carriers (marking out a similarly large space on the ground as on the future flight deck).
The F35 can’t fail, only because there’s no viable plan B. Not for the UK, and moreover not for the US themselves. But certainly the F35B is plagued… and it does not make sense for the UK to pursue it at these conditions and cost.
Go for catapults and F35C. The unitary cost may not be that lower than the one of a F35B, but the mainteinance costs along the life of the plane will be undoubtedly much lower, simply because the F35B has the lift fan, the stabilization jets in the wings, doors for air intake, and LOTS of mechanical complexity.
The F35C has foldable, larger wings and reinforced carriage. There’s no comparison as to mechanical complexity. Besides, the F35C has a range of over 1200 km, and its weapon bays aren’t shortened, which means that the plane has incomparably greater performances.
As to the question that closes the article, i think the answer is yes. Storm Shadow has a range of 250 km. Either Typhoons can be deployed on allied soil at very short distance from the front line, or the need for a carrier-born air force capable to strike anywhere in the world becomes VITAL no less.
And to be sincere, what is needed even more is an anti-radar missile that can be mounted in the weapon bays of the F35. So the stealth fighter can take off enemy air defence on day 1, and the non-stealthy planes and choppers later can move in the area risking far less.
Sadly, i think ALARM does not fit into the weapons bay. But it must absolutely be integrated for carriage on the F35, at some point.
Catapults would also allow for future use of UCAVs, and make possible a plan B option based on Rafale or F18.
No catapults mean F35B. There’s no option at all.
But F35C is the best choice that can be made, i think.
And since the carriers are still only at the start of the works, and have been designed with space reservations for catapults, there’s not even engineering work to do. There’s still time before catapults need to be installed. If EMALS testing goes well, get them. Otherwise, get old steam catapults, the CVF design has been made with provvision for even that, and put them on.
I’ve always supported a switch to catapults however I would wait and see what happens with EMALS as it would naturally be the preferred choice over traditional catapults. EMALS more or less needs to work it’s like the F-35 in ways the US needs the program to deliver results as they have planned on it working. The first Ford class super carrier is supposed to be launched with EMALS in 2015 and thankfully in ways the CVF delays means the first CVF is due in 2016 and the second in 2018. This should be enough time to equip them with EMALS should we have to do so it’ll cost money but hopefully not megabucks.
In regards to the F-35 with Denmark supposedly thinking of jumping ship this could encourage others to do the same pushing up unit costs for everyone hence adding to the already spiralling death spiral. I would say at $112 Million Dollars as an average the aircraft is already too expensive for justification especially since the B model will cost more to operate and purchase than the other variants. As a barmy side suggestion does anyone think a joint multi-year block buy of Super hornets between European F-35 customers would be possible as it would allow us to drive a good deal with Boeing? Yes I know it’s mad but hey why not Money can make politicians do some odd things. The Rafale could be another option but Denmark etc wants an American aircraft because of all the good things that come with it.
[...] else is there but the Harrier? From Think Defence: The Harrier, like the Sea King, is an exemplar for the ability of military equipment to remain [...]
We must buy F35, at present we have nothing, harriers have been good but are now dated, why spend 800 million updating them? F35 will give us stealth, new technology and will attack as appose to just defending!!! 2 new carriers transporting harriers with destroyers that are vulnerable or ones with no PAMMS. Everyone says the eurofighter is a cold war relict but we have a world beating fighter, so agile the f18 cant5 keep cope. Asa nation we need 70 f35 split between the two carriers. We need are pilots in the best aircraft possible, hey the government arnt going to give us our 25 frigates are they let them carry on with JSF
Hi All,
You guys all seem to very intensely know your stuff – I, on the other-hand an the complete opposite, a total novice on understanding any of the intricate & detailed issues is putting it lightly. I just came across this thread by chance as I love military aircraft!
It seems that we in the UK are in a very precarious situation with what aircraft we need & currently have available. I think we should always look after our best interests first & not worry about any of the others – we always seem to play second fiddle to the needs of others, especially the USA. These so called allies, certainly look after their needs before ours & there is always a catch involved – usually to our cost.
We are facing very difficult economic times & cannot afford to blow money we cannot afford & it is time we stood up for our own interests, even if it pisses off some of our so called allies – they do not think twice about shafting us as history as often shown. Yes, we may lose some political influence in the short term but at least we can build ourselves up slowly without haemorrhaging for others in the long one.
I know many of you will think me insane but the likes of Eurofighter, Rafale etc are just way too expensive for what they currently offer & The USA options are based on designs that cannot move forward much anymore. We also have our hands tied in some way or another when dealing with the USA.They want us to buy their old crap & line their pockets by emptying ours & then also “dictate” things to us afterwards.
1) We need to save money. 2) We must get value for money. 3) We must invest in newer, better technology. 4) We need to be able to develop any platforms we choose without conditions applied. 5) We need to do this whilst maintaining & increasing our spheres of influence. 6) Whatever we get, it should not only meet or exceed our requirements but also must provide a platform to evolve future generations.
I know this will sound crazy to almost everyone here but based on the above, why do we not get the LCA from India? It is apparently a 4+ GEN aircraft & will be much cheaper. As long as it suits our needs or can be adapted to do so, why not? It offers us serious cost savings, a newer, more modern fighter with latest avionics, composites etc. The UK & India are extremely strong & loyal allies in almost every sense – We do more business with India than almost anyone else and vice versa. The are very strong political & economic ties between the two countries & unlike the USA, the Indians would never stab us in the back or hold us hostage. Unlike the French, they would not change the goalposts in the middle of the game – on the contrary, The Indians are far more likely to accommodate us to most extents dues to the special relationship we have with them.
Furthermore, with our expertise, we can help India develop the LCA & the future AMCA probably in areas in which we specialise & it would mean joint ventures, joint R&D, joint costs etc. Rather than relying on others to provide the latest tech, we would be developing it for ourselves for our benefit & profit. There will be no restrictions or silly terms & probably full transfer of technology.
The economic impact would be well in our favour – think of all the jobs created in our defence sector & affiliated industries, the money we save, the freedom & independence we get & we get to have, work with, improve the best current technology (for it’s class) & we get back into proper planning for our future rather than truly on someone else who will still want to sell us 30 year old platforms another 50 years down the road. We will also find we be have more political influence in future & that so called old friends & allies will know that we may will only tolerate so much & that may be the pivot we need for them to ‘adjust” their ways.
India is fully committed to a 5th GEN Fighter – in the FGFA/PAK-FA programme which it has partnered with the Russians with & is looking at 250 FGFA’s at a cost of $25 Billion with a further $6 Billion for joint development costs. It is looking at around 280 LCA’s at a cost of around $6.1 Billion. That is a unit cost of just over $20 Million for the latest & newest aircraft for its class – around $60M-$80M cheaper than anything from the USA, France or the Eurofighter. They have just given Dassault of France around $2 Billion to upgrade the Mirage 2000-9′s for the interim term. They are also set for developing their requirement for an Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) which we can also partner & benefit from in every way – these programmes last very many years so our involvement will probably mean decades of multi platform, multi-level partnerships & collaborations with multi Billion Dollar investments. We can not only save money but also profit from it if we partner ourselves with India.
The money is huge – India is completely modernising every aspect of its armed forces is is not settling for second best – it is getting new warships, new carriers, new helicopters, new missile systems, space programmes etc & they are spending astronomical sums of money. They only want the latest & next gen stuff so they are not riddled with obsolete stuff as we are today. If we partner with them, we get loyalty, a strong ally, the latest platforms, future tech projects, huge current savings, future savings, future profits etc.
If the global powers like us, France, USA, most Europeans cannot afford Rafales, F-18′s & Eurofighters then most other countries who need to buy aircraft cannot either. They will look for the very best alternative at the cheapest price so planes like the LCA can have massive export potential & we can be a part of that. It is no surprise then, that Pakistan bought cheap Chinese J-17′s against US F-16′s even though the US can pretty much dictate anything it wants to countries like Pakistan & whom they are allies with. Many others are also now looking to the Chinese as viable options against traditional suppliers.They are producing new aircraft like they come off a conveyor belt – we may argue that they will never be as good as what the west can produce but they will say, we don’t care, we are selling them in droves while you are not.
We know we cannot do do serious long term military business with the Chinese for very obvious reasons but we cannot remain trapped with no Plan B with our current partners. We need to woo strong & loyal allies like India as they are a very rapidly growing economy & if we do not partner with them, then others will. Another massive factor to consider is that if we partner with India on defence issues, then with the added benefit of our special relationship with them, we can develop virtually every part & level of our trade with them – at almost every possible level – the Indians were very loyal to the Soviet Union despite massive obstacles put in their way by others so they will view us with extreme loyalty. I believe that this can be the very basis of us reclaiming our economy back & huge UK jobs potential – industry, education, travel, manufacturing, investing, R&D, joint ventures, new businesses, economic output, reduction of trade deficits, stronger currency etc & more – all can benefit in my view, not only for the present & immediate future but for generations as well. – This can only come from the strongest emerging economies & certainly will not be coming from the USA, France or China, I am pretty confidant of that! If we are not careful, we too, like the all-mighty USA, will owe the Chinese Trillions whilst getting relatively nothing in return as is the present case.
I find it absolutely amazing that the USA has now offered India full access to the JSF program with no restrictions at a time when it wants to sell it’s aircraft to India but previously had applied all sorts of various sanctions. Ironically, they have also agreed to give India sharing of nuclear tech that they previously vowed never to do. They also recommended that India become a permanent member of the UN when previously, they fight it tooth & nail for 60 years. To me, that wreaks of the same old US tactic of “we will screw you when we do not need you but will give you anything you want if you buy our stuff”. We have fallen in that trap & now we must ensure that we benefit from India’s economic & political influence & military needs rather than the Yanks – one thing is for sure, we benefit out of it massively & the Indian’s would much rather do business with us by about a billion percent more than they would with the American’s. Only question is are we smart enough to do that? My motive here was not to impress anyone on how well India is doing but to certainly impress *upon* everyone the potential that exists for the UK before we once again lose out to others & then spend the next few decades lectured by the very so called experts who created the mess about what we should have done, could have done etc as is so common in the UK.
Feel free to rip into me!
Bazzy!
I have a “soft spot” for the LCA (N) especially if buying it secures Typhoon as the MRCA competition winner. However, I also think that by the time they arsed about adapting the design to take EJ200 engine, and installing our own radar and ECM (which I suspect is the minimum we would insist on to stop any lapses in Indian security screwing our ability to operate the LCA) I cannot see the LCA (N) working out much cheaper than buying a Rafale (M).
The LCA is nowhere near a 4+ gen aircraft – more like 3rd gen. The design process started 30 years ago, and it shows. It’s primitive and limited, and even though it has just been accepted for service (I suspect as a result of political pressure rather than on its merits) its operational deployment is being constrained because the engine isn’t powerful enough.
We rightly complain about our procurement processes often enough, but next to India’s ours is a model of speed and efficiency…
If we want a cheaper but advanced plane Gripen is probably the best bet – unless you want to buy from China.
Hi,
Reply to Tony Williams,
Tony, I really do not know the technical side of how good or bad the LCA is so I cannot comment but why would the IAF accept an aircraft that does them no good when the rest of their plan to is modernise? They are fully committed to the 5th Gen PAK-FA which clearly shows their intentions so why would they spend the money on aircraft that do not fulfil their needs?
Lets look at this from what is best for us regardless of how good or bad the LCA may be. I read that the Gripen (lovely jet btw!) does not have the better AESA radar & would need to be upgraded at some cost. The UK WILL PROBABLY NOT BUY swedish stuff due to lack of Political Influence & the Gripen does really on the USA for many things like engines etc so either way, the Yanks have a foot in the door, even if we go with Gripen & can make life nasty for us for rebutting them. Then add the cost of making the Gripen upgraded with the radar & to RSF specs. The price goes up in which case, the UK will say, we might as well buy from the Yanks, keep them happy & carry political favour.
If then the Yank options also are too costly, then discounting the LCA, it leaves only as you say, the Chinese stuff. Problem there is, even if the LCA is 3rd Gen, the Chinese stuff is probably really no better & probably worse.
Why I feel we should strongly align ourselves with India is that we have a special relationship with them, they deeply respect us & it would serve our interests to win contracts with them as they are spending money big time. Nothing secures trade between two nations like defence contracts & with the Indians, we get lots of long term benefits, with everyone else, we will probably get bugger all.
I know India has taken a long time to develop the LCA, but be fair, it is their own first attempt at a fully indigenous complex aircraft & they do not have a history of such projects as we in the west do. The country has huge & constant challenges that we can never appreciate – it is a third word country rising, has 1.3 billion to feed, multiple enemies as constant threats, terrorism to deal with, natural disasters etc on top of the endemic bureaucracy & political corruption. The LCA project was also halted for quite some time due to US Sanctions remember. Given all of that, it is understandable things have not been super smooth – we with our superior knowledge & skills have also had plenty of failures & disasters with our projects going biblically over budget too & we have had decades of experience & global collaboration which in a way is far worse! The Indians have not & this was their first attempt. It also took us, USA, France etc a few decades to get things right & even now we make major blunders & we did not get it right to perfection first time round either – not by avery long shot!
I just think we should partner with countries that secure the very best possible economic long term benefits for us – with the defence contracts, a whole bunch of other stuff will come to which is why I feel this is worth more than just an aircraft deal!
Bazzy!
@Baz, India operates a high/low mix of combat aircraft for financial reasons: the high end is met by the Sukhoi Su-30 something (I can’t keep track of all the number variations) while the LCA is supposed to provide the cheap, low-end of the range, replacing obsolete planes which are still around. The PAK-FA will be the next high-end to replace the Su-30s in due course.
This approach makes sense because both Pakistan and China (the only two countries with which India is ever likely to go to war) also operate a high/low mix of warplanes. To go for high-end only would mean a drastic restriction in the numbers which could be afforded, and India wants big numbers because of the size of the air forces opposing it.
We can’t afford big numbers of anything so need a competitive level of capability in what we do have. No way does the LCA even come close to providing that.
Tony – we too should operate a high/low mix – if only to keep a critical mass of aircraft. We should have bought Gripen as a Jag replacement when BAe still had a large proportion of the programme. Tejas looks interesting but nobody has a good word for it (apart from Baz)and seems to have a longer gestation than their last attempt, Kurt Tank’s Marut. India will soon have 300 Su-30s in service (how many did DFid pay for indirectly?)and are looking elsewhere for a Mig 21 replacement. I thought we did more business with Ireland than the 4 BRIC countries put together! Not sure what special relationship we have with the Indians other than one based on colonial guilt.
Agree with sentiment that the Gripen is a good Jag replacement (as is a new build Jag with FBW as trailed in the UK with improved G performance, and with new engines giving it more thrust). However IMO the LCA, for all its flaws, is better than the Mig-21 and also edges the JF-17, and may well once it is fitted with a higher thrust engine may surprise us all
@Tubby – to say that the LCA is better than a fighter which first entered service over 50 years ago is faint praise indeed…
@Baz :
I really do not know the technical side of how good or bad the LCA is so I cannot comment but why would the IAF accept an aircraft that does them no good when the rest of their plan to is modernise?
India is a bit of a special case, with their relentless focus on indigenisation at any cost. Their new frigates are a good example of how they’ve been prepared to wait a long time for something indigenous, rather than buy in foreign kit and have it “now”. The rise of China has forced them to change that a bit (hence Brahmos and PAK-FA), but they still prefer to do things their way as far as possible, industrial self-reliance is an important part of their grand strategy. They’d rather have a Tejas that is Indian and “only” equivalent to a Mirage 2000, than a bought-in Gripen, because they recognise that their long-term security depends on maintaining an independent aerospace industry.
As for us – yes it would be lovely to have a high-low mix, but we simply can’t afford it – and something like the Hawk would be a better match for us for all sorts of reasons than the Tejas, not least being half the price.
Hi All,
I should have stated this better & at an earlier stage but the main point I was trying to make is that with our expertise we can join with India & help them develop/deliver a far better end version of the LCA than they could probably do by themselves – reason is because we have the knowledge & the experience.
By entering into a joint collaboration, we can benefit from it for all of the reasons previously mentioned. In this way, it does not matter how good or bad the LCA currently is – we (the UK) can help make it much better & that means an end product that the rest of the world is far more likely to buy because of our input. The only caveat is that a joint UK/India end version LCA still remains very competitive in terms of final cost compared to other options.
Many Thanks All!
Bazzy!
@ Baz
I believe BAE is the export partner for Gripen, so it probably would not be such a political stumbling block as you imagine.
I still think we would be better served buying 4-5 squadrons of F-18E/F to operate from the CVf and replace the Tornados and supliments the 5 squadrons of Typhoons. Buy off the shelf US ordonnance and certify the Typhoon to do the same with the exception of Meteor and ASRAMM which would need to be cleared for the F-18. You never know we might even get the US to buy in to Meteor turning it into a NATO standard to suppliment the AMRAMM with its enhanced capabilities and I can see the USN finding it useful filling at least part of the hole left by the F-14/Phoenix combo.
LJ
You maybe right that FA18 should have been the aircraft the UK bought. But as it stands all current orders for the aircraft will be delivered by 2014 and the production line closed there after, were do we find the money in the next two years to place the orders to allow long lead item purchases in order to keep the line open. The UK has 2 choices JSF or get out of the carrier game all together which would be a disastrous decision.
@ Lord Jim
Considering the threat posed by 1950s era Russian bombers the F18s could handle UK air defence when not at sea……… :)
@Baz
the main point I was trying to make is that with our expertise we can join with India & help them develop/deliver a far better end version of the LCA than they could probably do by themselves
You didn’t understand my point – the Indians don’t want outsiders to “help” them!! At least not for the low-end stuff. And it’s debatable how far the Tejas platform could be taken in any case – the basic structure has now been fixed (I think I saw it passed IOC a few weeks ago?) so you couldn’t do fundamental changes, but it is already quite an old platform.
Hi All
@El Sid: Thanks for clarifying that – I just thought the world needs a good (not absolute best) but affordable aircraft & if we could somehow benefit from the sales of that, all the better!
In view of what you have said & in view of the fact that India is modernising it’s armed forces, I think we should aim to supply them with all the high tech stuff they want/need & cannot produce themselves like warships, missiles, guidance systems, submarines etc – if we do not, then someone else will. Before we know it, China will be a major global arms & defence provider & we need to figure out a way of making stuff better with the same sort of cost so we can get a portion of that future market. We can supply the tech & skills but we cannot build it cheaply enough so we need to partner with other UK friendly countries where it would cost much less to produce things to. China has the cheap labour & plenty of production lines but it is still no match for the West in term of tech knowledge, skills & expertees.
I think we should get out of JSF altogether – I fear it is going to be one heavy albatross on our shoulders & one that we will regret!
Bazzy!
If the UK wants to get into exporting low end fighters (and I am not sure we do), then IMO a better bet would be to set up a joint venture between BAE and overseas company, then create a new design, or update a classic design using a combination of UK know-how and lower cost labour from a country like India or Brazil. Obviously if we want it to sell we would need to buy some, as China seems to be the only modern exporter of fighter aircraft able to export a fighter they have not inducted into service.
If by some miracle we went down this route we should avoid the problems of the LCA, where it was a conservative design, designed to replace Mig-21 and their Sea Harrier’s, and now due to length of time it has taken to come in service they want a level of performance comparable to modern aircraft (such as being able to handle 8.5g’s).
Baz you might be right about the F-35 being a millstone around the neck of MoD. Once we went away from the F-35B, which we could explain as being the only STOL option, the only way to make CATOBAR even vaguely work out cheaper than STOL is for us to buy F/A-18’s, as they have lowest capital cost.
I agree with LJ and Tubby. F18 is the way to go – cheaper so less precious about using them in environments where they might actually get shot at and Good Enough to deal with any likely threats, especially combined with Typhoon Tranche 3Bs. The Silent Hornet looks interesting, esp bearing mind the F35 is only really stealthy from the front….
http://tacticalreport.com/view_news/Kuwait_Air_Force_Boeing_and_the_F-18_Silent_Hornet/1408
Also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
And I quote: “The Super Hornet also makes considerable use of panel joint serration and edge alignment. Considerable attention has been paid to the removal or filling of unnecessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities. Where the F/A-18A-D used grilles to cover various accessory exhaust and inlet ducts, the F/A-18E/F uses perforated panels that appear opaque to radar waves at the frequencies used. Careful attention has been paid to the alignment of many panel boundaries and edges, to scatter traveling waves away from the aircraft.[5]
It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal RCS an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters.[35]“
read a quote somewhere (hope it wasn’t on here or i’ll look foolish). An american was boasting about how stealth gave their aircraft the radar picture/size of a seagull. Reply given was “from now on i’ll order my men to shoot down any seagulls going faster than 600mph.” love it!!!!!
“You never know we might even get the US to buy in to Meteor turning it into a NATO standard”
I thought that was the original plan. The US developed the short range missile, the EU developed the medium range missile, we just screwed the pooch so badly the US went off on its own.
I dont really get “Hi / Lo” mixes.
For the US, it sort of works, because the F15/F22 is nails, and the F16/F35 is also nails.
But most of the other Lo end aircraft are not available in even remotely large enough numbers, nor is it cost effective to use them to jam meat grinders.
Realisticaly, 100 F22′s are going to beat 500 Gripens.
Even if the capital costs are 5x higher, the operating costs cant be.
That said, I’m still happy to feed UAV’s into a meat grinder.
I have to confess I have developed an irrational hatred of the F/A-18. Perhaps because it replaced so many cool and useful aircraft in the USN, perhaps because it originally developed from a competition loser, but probably because I’ve heard from various sources that it is essentially a bomb truck pretending to be a fighter. When engaging at range with missiles it can hold it’s own but in a dog fight it gets creamed. Now I realise this this might seem strange for a bloke who usually likes jack of all trades but they have to operate with specialised elements to be truly effective. A naval air arm needs a proper fighter to clear airspace and enable the bomb truck to do its job. If you follow the path of the F-16 (why doesn’t it have an A prefix?)and design a fighter then try and squeeze the bombing bits in later that might work.
@ Tubby “If the UK wants to get into exporting low end fighters (and I am not sure we do), then IMO a better bet would be to set up a joint venture between BAE and overseas company”
We already do, it’s called the Hawk.
@ Jedi – Many moons ago I twiddling my thumbs reading defence mags when I read an article about the Brazilians buying one of the old French carriers (forget which one) and I began thinking about what aircraft it could operate. At the time I believe Brazil had Sky hawks and Trackers; What about a combat version of the Goshawk? Interoperability with the USN, industrial links with Britain… then I thought what about the 100/200 series Hawks? Could they combine the two? I had been told that the Hawk 200 could carry the radar of the F/A-2 Sea Harrier, called a “mini-AWACS”.
Now with the comments made on this site I’m thinking the same again but for us as well was the Brazilians. I’m not talking about being the main FAA jet on the carriers (see my above post) but having another RAF/FAA jet that could operate from the carriers, have links to Brazil and USN and possible export orders (I believe the Indians are building a Hawk trainer under licence?).
Of curse then there’s the question of the support aircraft; COD, AEW, E/SIGINT, EW, possibly ASW. A common support aircraft (CSA) could also have export potential as well as being useful to the RAF and Army. But that’s a different thread…
@ Jedi & Gareth,
I thought that we stopped making Hawk 200 variants?!?
Anyway, IMO the Hawk would be a rather p*ss poor low end fighter, it lacks the speed or payload of other low end fighters such as the JF-17, and I suspect it would be in serious trouble against a reasonably modern/modernised J-7.
Realistically (and obviously IMO) a carrier based low end fighter needs to be a step up over the Goshawk mated with a Hawk 200 or over a A-4 Skyhawk. Personally I am partial to brushing of the blue prints of the carrier version of the Jaguar, then using the redesigned wings developed during the British programme that tested FBW on the Jaguar with the new engines developed for the Indian Jaguar’s, combined with wingtip rails, and the avionic advances made before the Jaguar’s untimely retirement to create a Jaguar II design. If we could keep the price tag down to £30 million we would have a winner.
However the killer is the development costs, we would be likely looking at least £2 – 3 billion if not more.
@Baz
I think we should aim to supply them with all the high tech stuff they want/need & cannot produce themselves like warships, missiles, guidance systems, submarines etc
It’s a nice thought – but everyone else has the same idea… Don’t get me wrong, we should be trying to make a few quid out of the Indians, but aerospace is mebbe not the right place to be doing it (unless we want the Russians to get all our secrets), and Tejas is certainly the wrong programme. Here’s an update on the Tejas/LCA programme :
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/01/352408/troubled-tejas-edges-toward-service.html
And lovely people though they are, the Indians are perhaps the BRIC equivalent of the French, enjoy their food rather than do business with them. I suspect that the Brazilians are perhaps where we should be concentrating our efforts.
Baz, since you appear to be lacking some of the technical background, you may find this report of interest, about the Indian MMRCA competition.
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/dogfight.pdf
Don’t take it too literally – there’s several technical errors and omissions, the prices quoted in particular are all over the place (old exchange rates, mixing flyaway costs with costs of some support packages and so on), and it has a lunaticly US-centric view of the world which seems to think that India needs the US more than the US needs India. But apart from that, it’s not too bad! I do wonder if the guy has shares in Boeing though, I don’t think he realises how badly the 1998 US sanctions went down with India and with her making such a big thing of self-reliance, I think his confidence in them buying US directly (or the Gripen, as it has so much off-the-shelf US kit) is probably misplaced. You might also view their purchases of C-17 and P-8 as throwing a bone to the US relationship too.
The bits on technology transfer (p59 onwards) and the IAF force structure (p118 onwards) are probably the most interesting/relevant here.
@Tubby – how about taking the Hawk down the Sea Harrier route? Sea Harrier was slow and didn’t have a massive payload or range, but Blue Vixen + AMRAAM was enough to make people think twice about coming near our carriers with malice aforethought. We could probably do something along those lines out of the Hawk parts bin – start with a Goshawk plus the APG-66H from Hawk 200 and the cockpit from Hawk 128. No it won’t be as sexy as an F-22 – but that lot should cost no more than £20m or so, so we could actually afford them. And planes that you can afford to fly are a lot more effective than planes that are so expensive that they stay on the drawing board. Integrate AMRAAM/Meteor, perhaps add CAESAR and PIRATE derivatives if they can be done at a sensible price, and you’ve got something that’s a spiritual successor to the Sea Harrier.
@El Sid,
I am no expert on the Goshawk, but I understood from those with a deeper understanding that I have that while the Goshawk can go through a cat and trap cycle it is not designed for long term deployment on a carrier, due to not using corrosion resistant materials. If we could we re-shape the Hawk’s wings and put in an engine with re-heat then I would be a lot happier with the Hawk, as we could then operate them as point defence fighters of the carriers, providing an inner layer of defence while the F-35C’s provide the outer layer. I imagine a quick launch, fast burn on re-heat up as high as possible, then launch a couple of AMRAAM or Meteor’s, either they splash the inbound fighter/cruise missile or they turn them aside, then the return to the carrier to re-arm and refuel. In that situation the most important features are rapid climb rate, rather than payload and sustained speed. From what I have read the Phantom II remains a good point defence fighter.
Once you want to do more with your low cost fighter, like provide CAS, you need decent payload and good fuel efficiency, as once you load up with a couple of drop tanks, you would not have much of a payload on a Hawk for your Paveway IV’s. This is why I personally favour the revived Jaguar idea.
However saying all that, I think the best idea for an export market would be to actually build the Harrier III http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/JSF_HarrierIII.htm, and at the same time turn PoW into two 30,000 LHD’s with a mix of helicopters and Harrier III’s.
Reading the article in this months Air Forces Monthly it really seems the F-35 is heading for trouble and surprisingly it is the F-35C that appears to be in most danger as the USN seems to be moving towards only ordering around 260 ‘C’ airframes as against 420 ‘B’ ariframes for the USMC. It is also hedging its bets over delays by investigating whether additional orders for the SH should be made.
Most surprising was the claim (To be taken with a large pinch of salt) by Typhoon programme insiders that “A force of 4 Typhoons supported by AWACS was able to defeat 85% of attacks by an 8 aircraft force of attacking F-35s carrying their standard internal load of 2 JDAM class weapons and 2 air-to air missiles.” IT is af if other manufacturers are begining to smaell the blood and realising that the F-35 may not be the only game in town.
The final claim made is that the UK could pruchase the F-18E/F at half the price of a F-35 and that the running costs for the former would be 33% less than for the latter.
Given the addtional squeeze the MoD budget is feeling as a result of the CSU, needing to find an addtional £1+Bn in savings shouldn’t the MoD stop thinking that the F-35 is the only game in town and re-evaluate what platform it needs for the CVF, especially if we are only going to have 1 squadron of the things and little chance af any attional purchases as the this is unaffordable with the curretn and predicted levels of defence spending.
“The final claim made is that the UK could pruchase the F-18E/F at half the price of a F-35 and that the running costs for the former would be 33% less than for the latter.”
As i have said many a time; frankly i don’t care what we fly off the carriers as long as we get those carriers……… and both of them.
If Goshawk MkII would cause the carriers to be cancelled because it isn’t an effective platform then fine, no Goshawk MkII.
If F35c would cause the carriers to be cancelled because it costs too damned much then fine, no F35c.
Personally i think F35c will come good, but if it doesn’t then buy something else that is cheaper and available now.
@Gareth and El Sid,
The Brazilians have a long-standing requirement (F-X2 programme) for a new land-based fighter.
The shortlist has been whittled down to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Dassault Rafale and the Saab Gripen NG. A decision was expected by now (with the Rafale being favoured for political reasons) but the change of President has led to a delay, and it seems possible that the size of the order will be reduced and it will also be postponed.
As a matter of interest, the Brazilian Air Force rated the Super Hornet as the most capable of the three, with the Gripen as the cheapest and also the best value in terms of “bang for the buck”. Brazilian industry also favoured the NG, as they would be involved in developing it.
In the future, they will also need a new fighter for their carrier to replace the A4 Skyhawks. That’s not officially a part of this competition, but it would obviously be helpful to just buy one carrier-capable plane for both roles. Saab has stated that a carrier-capable version of the NG could be developed without too much trouble.
Hmmm – We’re aledergy going to be working with the Brazilians on the Type 26 frigates, could a joint-project with them on a Naval Grippen NG be possible, at least as a back-up to the F-35?
If we do want to go down the hi/lo route for the RAF, I favoured the (Gos)Hawk option but a (Sea)Grippen would be more capable, and in common with allies.
Typo – allegedly.
Really need to spell check before I post :(
Nobody’s mentioned Sea Typhoon!
The Hawk is a non-starter – better off buying Skyhawks (don’t say we haven’t bought 50 year old US airframes before). Not sure I want to “co-operate” with Brazil, a country that refuses Royal Navy ships access to its ports. The Tucano wasn’t exactly a success either, was it?
Back to the F-35. If we are only buying 36 plus spares at $100M.+ each then they will be a “silver bullet” and will need a partner onboard (other than the Apache). The F/A-18E/F is the only proven, affordable(c.$43m a copy currently). It can refuel the F-35s and also be configured as the Growler. The original plan to buy 138 was based on the F-35B so that the Crabs could reinforce the onboard force a la Falklands and operate like JFH. If we only buy F-35C in small numbers, we will need cat-and-trap qualified pilots in order to reinforce, so Cameron’s “idea” of only deploying 12 with an option for 36 is nonsense as you would need to qualify pilots at short notice with the carrier who knows where. It also negates the carrier’s advantage over land-based aircraft by having to fly out to wherever the ship is.
I agree that whatever ensures both carriers enter service should be the option we choose.
Now, when should we order the 3rd carrier???
I think we need to stop looking at how much america pays for its equipment. If you want to see how much the UK would pay for things you have to look at what other countries bought US equipment for. So for the FA18 super hornet we have to look at australia. It is costing them $4.6billion US for 24 hornet + 10 years support. The canadians plan to buy 65 JSF with 20 years support for about $14.5bill US in a fixed price deal. You will find the over a 10-20 year period there will be NOT be a significant difference in price between the 2 aircraft. Now there is an argument for the RAF to be a typhoon only force and does the UK needs a stealth aircraft at all. In the end it quite simple we either are willing to pay for a high end capability or we don’t.
“If we are only buying 36 plus spares at $100M.+ each then they will be a “silver bullet” and will need a partner onboard (other than the Apache). The F/A-18E/F is the only proven, affordable(c.$43m a copy currently).”
This won’t happen, as the reason why we ditched harrier is because we didn’t want to operate three combat aircraft types.
Mark
F 18 exists as a flying system, f35 is years away from full opperational deployment.
If canadians buy f35 with a $14.5 bill for 65 they will be getting a bargin compared to what it will cost, is that deal signed sealed delivered.
IXION
Yes the f35 is 5-10 years from full service but we neither have the money or the requirement to operate either aircraft in the next 5 years that’s the whole point. I totally agree if we cat and trap aircraft carriers entering service next year then f18 would make sense. But in 10 years time im not sure it would make sense no matter what the Boeing PR people say it will not be as survivable or have anything like the range of f35c. The F35 has had its problems but not more than any other aircraft program. The B version has been a problem child for a long time and were well out of it. I believe the airforce should be typhoon only and reduce the F35 buy to navy requirements only as it makes sense to have the best theatre capability centred on the navy.
AS for the canadian deal I think its in there parliment awaiting approval.
Hi,
Nice that we are back discussing jets.
The Indians are working on a nice vectored thrust engine, to make it light-weight, but making it in the same factory where they license produced the engines for the SU 35MKIs. So what today is not so impressive and long-overdue fighter, might still turn into something (especially in the carrier-launched & affordable peer group). BTW,the Russians offered the guaranteed engine & parts availability out of India, not Russia, but still did not qualify in the Brasilian competition.
Which takes me nicely to Brazil. Yes, the new president is stalling on the 50% increase in defence expenditure. But the Gripen offer has built a nice triangle: weapons development and integration with S Africa (they fly the older version); Sweden guaranteeing joint development and production of NG (and buying the Brasilian transport as an industrial off-set, to replace their Hercs).Plus they have the paper design for the carrier capable version.
- who says that we are working with Brazil on the new frigates; is that BAE marketing literature… isn’t is all open competition with the Italians, the French etc?
@ ACC – Many apologies, read this article too quickly. You are right, BAE made an offer to Brail supported by HMG rather than seal a deal. Sorry for the confusion. :(
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5593035&c=SEA&s=TOP
@ Tubby – I’ve read that interesting piece before; I am a huge Harrier/STOVL fan but as the new Carriers are going to be CATOBAR I thought I would mention my “Super Goshawk” idea.
Have you seen this idea for a “Super Harrier”?
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/superharrier.jpg
from the excellent Navy Matters site.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm
Could the two concepts be combined?
On a more personal note I always wondered why the Sea Vixen radar from the F/A-2 wasn’t installed in to a AV-8B plus; if we couldn’t convert the RAF GR9′s, couldn’t we purchase/loan some from the USMC?
Mark said: “AS for the canadian deal I think its in there parliment awaiting approval.”
Note quite. PM Steven Harpers conservatives have bought into F35 lock stock and barrel, there is nothing to put before parliament per se. This of course has caused uproar amongst the opposition parties, and even some in the military. Opposition politicians are very angry that there was no competition and that the F35 will not provide value for money, the military dissenters argue that there has been no discussion of requirements, and therefore we do not know if it is the right aircraft for Canada or not.
So F35 = controversy over here at the moment.
Arround the world, there does appear to be a lot of squirming and shifting of bottoms on seats about the f35.
The B version is probably dead. Countries are pulling out, or cutting back on committments to buy. The USMC is starting to investigate restarting AV8B production, everyones getting jumpy about the cost,
As for the B The same applies regarding cost, the aircraft that was going to cost less than the f16 is now looking at f22 unit cost figures.* The Ausis are looking at not going ahead with their buy, USAF are cutting way back on the original 3000 ish plane buy.
There are problems with the c version (although not as bad as B). If B and C do not go ahead then A becomes even more expensive in terms of sunk development costs.
It is quite possible that the whole program could still collapse.
* Of course without the ‘Must be Kept in a hangar, the maintence crew must wear protective suits, sections of the plane have to be replaced regulalry, particularly if it rains’, costs of that particular aircraft.
There was a bigger diff between the Phantom & the Buccaneer, yet we operated both off the old HMS Ark Royal.
I feel the RN needs 22 to 28 STOVL F-35B, for rough weather fleet defence when cats & traps are no go.
The F-35C carries more weapons, much further. Th RN needs 40 to 48.
We lunge from one extreme to the other. First Britain wanted 150 STOVL F-35B, now none. Both positions seem mad to me.
22-28 RN F-35B makes more sense to me.
The RAF does not need any F-35s. The RAF would be better off replacing Tornado GR4 with the longer legged USAF Regional Bomber(son of 2018 bomber). If the coalition stopped waffling & actually helped industry, Britain would get involved in development/production.
“22-28 RN F-35B makes more sense to me.”
Wouldn’t be much use for anything.
As per the wise words of JimWH at warships1:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/187038/t/Rumours-about-the-Amphibious-fleet.html
at best you would have one front-line squadron of twelve aircraft, who would spend half their time becoming carrier qualified in order to spend the other half doing nothing back on land, as you can’t expect squadrons to retain pilots if they are expected to live on the ship for the rest of their service lives.
New US Bomber
Another gold plated design, I know the USAF are being criticised for aiming low, just remember the F35 was going to be a cheap simple aircraft. PLEEEEEASE lets not sing up to be part of the development team for that lets just buy it of the shelf when it works.
Why would we want a strategic bomber anyway? back to the argument about tomahawks launched from ship/ sub doing anything a bomber can do.
Thanks Jed I can understand the canadians position the primary need for canada is air defence of its home land as is some of the european countries who are now unsure over F35. It is hard to justify a LO strike fighter under those circumstances. However the UK are not any of those countries and have more international obligations than them. The UK has had a requirement for such an aircraft for sometime. I do think a fleet of around 65 aircraft for the fleet air arm is a sensible number which should be able to support 3 12 aircraft squadrons. The air force can then make up there half of JSf with either more Typhoon or UCAV’s or Ideally get involved with the US manned bomber program. We can deem this capability to expensive but we have to limit our obligations accordingly not pretend otherwise.
IXION the whole program wont collapse now the B version might go but I doubt it. If they’d wanted to kill it they would have done so this time round. Also will F35 will be much more expensive than F16 it will cost less than F18 to operate for no other reason than its single engined. As for the LO coatings ect F35 does it different to F22/B2 it does mean its not quite as LO but is much cheaper to operate.
Mark
I wish it would, but accept that the whole program is unlikely to go.
The B version is in real trouble – in real terms it is unusable as is, and when you have pushed the envelope so far technicaly allready, are not easily to fix. There are more than a few straws in the wind that it is toast, I hear on unofficial channels that Makers are frantically lobbying to try and get congress’s pork barrell ‘Go Go USA’ Vote out for when the admin tries to kill it.
Every customer is geting horrified by the price of the remaining B and C versions and as I said C is not out of the woods. USN allready very worried about the lag time between last f 18 and deployment of 35c.
Overall it is hugely over budget and over time, incrimental improvements in ’4th generation’ fighters mean it’s remaing supperiority is its LO features. Which as I have posted, before are themselves subject to improvements in detection technology.
I don’t see from published info waht it brings to the party that is not allready available cheaper.
@Gareth Jones,
Thanks – personally I think that going to CATOBAR was a mistake, STOL fighter made much more sense split between the RAF and the RN than a CATOBAR aircraft, as you require minimal training to carrier qualify a pilot, you can operate them in worse sea states than CATOBAR and it is easier to mix helicopters and STOL operations. Going to CATOBAR is going to not only increase the training costs and reduce the service lives of whatever is brought but is going to making seriously difficult to use QE or PoW as helicopter carrier with embarked FJ unless the design they come up has totally segregated helicopter spots away from both the “runways” being used to launch and recover the F-35C, F/A-18 E/F or Rafale’s.
Assuming that IXION is right, then I really hope that Boeing (with or without BAE) does decide to self-fund development of the AV8B with more powerful engines, larger wings, more composites, modified intakes for reduced IR and RCS, and an AESA radar, and that the RAF/RN decide that they can afford to operate three types of aircraft. Then when the economy picks up we can replace Ocean with something in the same class as Juan Carlos, with the ability to carry next gen Harriers.
If I can be allowed to get way with some fantasy fleet building then my ideal mix of carriers and fighters would be one QE class CATOBAR strike carrier with E-3D, and at least 18 F-35C’s embarked, one 30 – 40k tonne through deck air defence cruiser (built in conjunction with Brazil) with Aster 30, 12 LCA (N) Mk II fitted with EJ200 engines with vector thrust & Selex AESA radar (or Sea Gripen’s) and Merlin MaSC, and two large LHD’s with a mix of Merlin MaSC, Merlin Commando and new build multi-role Harriers.
@ Tubby – Interesting Fleet. For the same tonnage as the Two QE class carriers (although not necessary the same cost) we could have had 4 San Juan or Cavour class – essentially 4 modern Hermes. We could have used 3 as CV and one as LHP/A, or variations thereof.
With the QE class going to be CATOBAR they might well need another vessel to carry the ASW helicopters – either on a enhanced RFA or a modern version of the 1960′s “Escort Cruiser”.
http://brickmuppet.mee.nu/weaponsnkit/935293
Would be useful for other roles as well – Commando carrier, UAV carrier, disaster relief, etc.
The really crazy idea I came up with was combining the carrier tonnage with the set costs of the escorts; machinery, electronics, etc and build 9-12 small CVS like the Giuseppe Garibaldi. 3-4 could be equipped as command ships with area AAW capabilities, leading two other CVS in 3-4 squadrons. If you could build-in a well-dock they could act as Assault ships as well
I guess that the Americans will keep plugging away until the F-35 A/B/C come right. They are not stuck with the UK defeatist mentality.
STOVL fighters can operate in rough weather when conventional aircraft are stuck in the hangar.
I think an airgroup of 8 F-35B + 20 F-35C makes sense for a QE carrier. Putting only 12 F-35C on a 65,000 ton ship is madness. An angled deck with wires is easy, but the cats might be more difficult/expensive. The Russians launch SU-27s off a ski ramp. Why can we not launch the F-35C off a ski ramp?
Tomahawks launched from submarines are good, but limited in number. We only have 7 submarines, say 10 Tomahawks each, so 70 strikes max.
This is why you need both QE carriers and a regional bomber. Had we bought 50 TSR2/F-111 for the RAF in the 1960s, they would have had a greater combat radius than the short legged Tornado. Aircraft that cannot reach the enemy are a waste of money.
Either you believe in British industry or you do not. Britain was great when we invested in our armed forces & manufacturing industry.
@ Gareth Jones,
I do not think we need a real ASW carrier, as they have good dash speeds, but I like the idea of two or three 10,000 tonne “cruisers” 2 – 3 heli spots, good aviation facilities, mission modules, divits to carry 2 combat boats, and fitted with 76mm gun, FLAADS and Phallanx.
@ Tubby – Perhaps something similar to these?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_class_landing_platform_dock_ship?wasRedirected=true
Maybe grow it into something slightly more like Jean D’Arc? Would be a useful vessel, perhaps a candidate for the Forward Presence Ship?
Apologies for going off thread…
Perhaps when Italy goes under with the Euro they will give us the Cavour in lieu of payment……?
JH
I am quite prepared to believe in British Industry. But it is not helped by trying to buy or build weapons based on some psudo imperialistic relic, ‘Team UK world police’, ‘punching above it’s weight’ fantasy.
The F35 fit you recomend = at least 24 F35B and 60 F35C to supply those numbers on board a ship. Yes 65,000tons for 12 fighters is stupid, which is why we should ditch the f35 and the carriers with it. (and why we probably will in 2015).
BTW can anyone really see any politician of any colour saying ‘Great we’ve got rid of the stuctural deficit lets blow £10 bill on fitting out the carriers properly with a buy for 120 odd f35′. If you believe that I have got this bridge I am trying to sell near tower of London secret deal cash only…..’
ALSO do not impart the exceptional stovl characteristics of the hariier to every such plane. Stovl does not necessarily impart bad weather capability in particular the F35 has not yet exhibited any real bad weather capabilty of a pitching deck.
Hey all,
Well this is turning out to be rather interesting. In my personal opinion. The RAF should (post 2020) be an all typhoon force with a purchase of some more UCAV and a small buy (1 or 2 squadrons worth) of the regional bomber to replace the 60 odd tornados left.
The FAA, should then be bought 75ish F/A18, F35c etc planes and do a deal with the french to buy some new E-2D hawkeyes, this is my thinking. The 75 planes would allow 48 frontline jets with an OCU and spares. The 48 planes then get split into 6x 8 plane squadrons. This allows us to form 3 CAW’s each with 2 squadrons of FJ. The UK purchase of the E-2D would be a total of 12 (enough for 2x 3 plane flights, a few spares and a joint training pool with france).add in a few merlins and we havea CAW of:
16x F/A18/ F-35c, etc
3x E-2D Hawkeye
2x Ships flight merlins
3x ASW merlins
This leaves enough room on board for say a french or US squadron or, in times of emergency, we can surge most of the CAW in traing, to give us, either a second carrier or 1 carrier with:
32x Fighters
4x E-2D Hawkeye
2x ships Flight Merlins
3x ASW merlins
(43 in total)
Id also ensure that each carrier is availbe for 3/4 of the time therefore ensuring we have at least 1 carier availble and sell off Bulwalk, Albion and Ocean and instead buy 3x 30,000 tons Enforcer LHD from Schelde (should carry nearly 1000 troops), to form the core of the amphib fleet.
Sorry, the enlarged carrier should have a total of 41 combat aircraft on board not 43.
IXION
The UK is not the global power it once was, but that does not mean we should hide under some rock. Our history means that even if we avoid trouble, trouble may come looking for us.
When the old Ark Royal was scrapped late 1978, if I had said “save it , we will need it to fight Argentina in three & a half years”, people would have laughed at me.
Likewise the shiny new Tornados were useless in the conflict as they lacked the range to get to the fight. Meanwhile the ancient neglected Vulcan pulled off an amazing mission.
No I cannot guarantee the F-35B will be as good as the Harrier in rough weather, but it stands to reason, that the B will cope with bad weather better than the C.
More like Team Neighbourhood Watch with BAE supplied twitching curtains. Well if they arrive. Fit the curtain rail. Reach below the window. Are of a suitable colour……….
Why do we need a Tornado replacement bomber? TLAM has a range of 1550 miles. Moscow is only 1559 miles away.
http://www.europemapofeurope.net/europe-map-of-europe-large-2008-muck-hole.jpg
Im not looking to hide under some rock. However there are lots of potential enemies that are under under rocks that are too big for us to take on with a weak carrier BG in their own back yard. But I’ve said all this before so won’t go on.
@ IXION
Actually I have been giving some thought to a non-CVF “defensive” RN. This was since TD told me that without an army we wouldn’t need a navy (in so many words.) Along the lines of South Korea’s surface group idea. The trouble is I still think we need 120,000 tons of carrier in the shape of 4 x 30k tonners, 12 Darings, 12 SSNs to make it work. We may not want to project power ashore in the form of marines/army. But it would still be useful for the UK to be able to defend an area of the sea against a second rate power. The sea is a global common it gives our small island strategic depth but it is also a route here too.
@Tubby – fair enough if that’s true about the Goshawk, although how much of the corrosion proofing thing is actual, and how much just a certification thing? In any case, even if we just had the “Goshawk 328″ as a surge capability, like the Apaches, that would still be very useful. We’re going to need something to train our pilots on, and we aren’t going to have buckets of F-35 available for that purpose, so either we slipstream our guys into the US programmes, or we get some Goshawks of our own.
Yes, long-term BAE are probably going to have to come up with a supersonic variant of the Hawk, just to keep up with the M-346 and KAI T-50, although there’s obviously a tradeoff between top speed and training-friendliness. But the MoD just don’t have the cash to fund development of new aircraft, or even “just” some new wings and engines (MRA4 shows how easily that can go wrong….) – and almost certainly any kind of navalisation of an aircraft that is currently non-naval. We can root around the parts bin for some new combinations, but that’s about it. That’s why I’m interested in a CATOBAR equivalent of the Harrier – I don’t mind if it’s subsonic as long as it’s cheap, and can take some half-decent avionics and weapons. When I say cheap, I’m talking £20m, £25m, no more than that – talk of Sea Typhoons is just utter fantasy, we just don’t have the money. If that means resurrecting the Skyhawk, the Buccaneer or the Phantom, then fine, I’m not proud, although I accept that resurrecting designs has issues of its own. At least look at the economics of subsonic aircraft even if they get you no bragging rights down the pub.
The Kiwi “Kahu” Skyhawks ended up being quite sophisticated in the end, ISTR they had an early version of the APG-66 found in the Hawk 200 plus a glass cockpit, HUD etc, Singapore installed F404 engines, and the Israelis tweaked theirs quite a bit. If we could put some Sea Harrier or GR9-type avionics in them, even recycle kit directly from the GR9, that could be interesting if it can be done at a sensible price. Hell, even think about a “non-VTOL” Harrier with EJ200′s replacing Pegasus if that makes a significant difference to costs. We could even dream of getting them covered by HPAC and MRMS since presumably we’re committed to paying for those anyway.
I know, it’s all dreams – we just don’t have the cash for extra aircraft for CVF, even if they were “only” £20m ones. But it’s interesting to think what might be possible if only people would stop being dazzled by supersonic boondoggles capable of pulling 20G and delivering 20 tonnes of cruise missiles whilst remaining immune to S-400′s.
The way I see the F-35 debate is just a painful realisation that the days of “easy” air superiority are over, now that OPFOR has access to half-decent planes. Just like riflemen who easily beat up opposition with spears or muskets found that even developing better rifles did not give them enough of an advantage over opposition with old rifles, the days of beating up airforces who have crappy Fishbeds and Floggers and Mirage 5′s are coming to an end. Instead they’re increasingly going to have “quite good” planes, like Fulcrums and early Flankers (ditto AWACS support, SAMs etc), and it just gets a lot harder to establish clear superiority as the OPFOR go from “crappy” to “quite good”. So the “West” is going to have to be prepared to either :
a)Spend $$$’s on superweapons like the B-2 and F-22 and their successors
b)Spend $$$’s on quantity as well as quality, like the Saudi purchases of F15/Tornado/Typhoon
c)Learn to make friends with the big powers on the red team
a) and b) aren’t options for most countries in the West, because we don’t have the cash unless we borrow it from Beijing, which is even more of a failure at the geopolitical level than a military defeat would be.
That said, some of the anti-F-35 claims do get a bit far-fetched. OK, so Eurofighter are trying to flog Typhoons by saying (at Farnborough last year) that if you carefully position four $100m Typhoons and have a couple of multi-$100m AWACS on patrol, presumably with tanker support (£800m lifetime cost for an MRTT), at just the right angle (20-30 degrees) from the line of an expected attack by eight F-35′s in ground attack mode – then they splash the F-35′s most of the time. What if four of the F-35′s are configured for A2A, and sweep ahead to take out aerial opposition, and in particular that pesky AWACS? Or all eight of them, and then come back a second time for the ground attack? But it does beg a question, as to why a nation that is sophisticated enough to be running Typhoon/AWACS/tankers (ummm – Saudi Arabia after the Islamists take over?) is being attacked by any second-line nation of the sort that will be using F-35 as their primary fighter. We just have to accept that those days are over. On the other hand, 4 A2A F-35 would probably massacre 8 A2G Typhoons, and the Typhoons would have less chance of getting through to the AWACS on a fighter sweep. Sounds like stalemate to me, the aerial equivalent of the WWI land battle. Which makes this F-35 debate the virtual equivalent of the Boer War…?
On the other hand, people are a bit overly romantic about the F/A-18. The historic cost for the USN was $42.7m flyaway, without engines, so it’s more like $60-65m once you include the engines. As has been said, the Aussie acquisition is the best guide for the UK – they bought them from the USN in May 2007 at USN prices in a deal similar to the Saudis buying new Typhoons via the RAF, 24 F/A-18F for “approximately” A$2.9bn, and a total programme cost of $A6bn over 10 years. The Aussie (and Canuck) dollars are currently both around parity with the US$, but in May 2007 it was about A$1.2/US$ and that “approximately” makes me think it was transacted in US$, so an acquisition cost of about US$100m/aircraft and a 10-year cost of US$205m. That’s for an airforce that is already flying F/A-18C’s, and has no requirement for carrier training. Still think the Super Bug is a cheap option?
OK, 12 of the Aussie aircraft have an extra $3m/plane of wiring to support Growler conversions in the future, I can’t see the RAF/RN going for Growlers as their doctrine prefers to have a little bit of SEAD on every plane rather than dedicated ECR variants like the Europeans. In the past that has meant ALARMs plus jammer pods but it seems the intention is to use AESA radars for electronic attack with a possible backup from AAMs with dual-mode ARM seekers.
AIUI the Canucks have a LOI for 65xF-35, and industrial contracts signed by Lockheed for offset business in Canada, but the plane order isn’t signed yet. I don’t know if it’s something to do with them being one of the first to sign up, but from what I can tell, they seem to have a deal that protects them from budget overruns on the R&D, but they pay any extra production costs. There’s lots of good stuff in these interviews by their Defence comittee with Eurofighter and Saab a few weeks ago, for anyone interested in the F-35, Typhoon and Gripen, they discussed things like stealthing the engine inlets on the Typhoon :
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4865088&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3#Int-3640309
Eurofighter are coy on costs, they imply the Saudi deal was a bit expensive when the Canucks talk about $8.86bn for 72, although that reflects exchange rates at the time, the deal appears to have been transacted in sterling, £4.43bn which would be US$7.13bn now, so call it US$100m/copy (with engines?). There’s been fingers-in-air talk of that deal being worth $20bn over its lifetime, which would point to a lifetime cost of US$275m/plane.
In that link the Swedes are very happy to talk costs – 65 Gripen for C$3.75bn acquisition, and around C$2bn to support them in 2010 dollars over 40 years. Call it $ parity, and that’s US$58m per plane acquisition costs (with engines?), and about US$90m lifetime. That latter figure is exceptional if reliable, it implies running costs about a quarter of the F/A-18.
The Canucks variously talk about the F-35 costing $70-75m in 2010 dollars (?) and a “rumour” of $92m. That looks as though it might be without and with engines? It certainly seems to be in the right ballpark, Lockheed are still publicly clinging on to $60m without engines for full-rate production and the A/C engines are about $19m. That still looks optimistic, although I would equally not put too much weight on the quoted low-rate production costs of $111m per F-35A without engines – this article shows how the unit costs have come down in the course of the different LRIP batches. No doubt they are disappointed that the $111m figure is “only” 50% of the LRIP1 cost, but somewhere in the $90-100m region for flyaway cost including engine looks plausible.
You’ve also got to look away from the MoD’s budget, and think about the overall economic impact of the F-35 project – and in particular if we were to withdraw from it. Our Tier 1 status means that we definitely punch above our weight (to coin a phrase) when it comes to industrial participation on F-35, it’s over £10bn just for BAE UK. Half of that will end up in the Treasury’s coffers as tax, one way and another. It’s hard to imagine that we would get similar economic benefits from a F/A-18 purchase. Look at the net economic cost, and the Hornets look far more expensive than F-35.
Picking up a few other points :
@Tubby – payload of Jaguar isn’t that much greater than modern Hawks. And for Afgan-style CAS, you don’t actually need huge payload, because they don’t fire that many weapons, the average Tornado only fires 1-2 weapons a month. The Reapers do most of the persistent, bomb dropping stuff, manned aircraft are more for flypasts and cannon. The French are using Mirage 2000′s for CAS in Afghanistan, which have similar payloads – they’re not the favoured option, but that’s more about their lack of sexy avionics.
@Lord Jim
From what I can tell, despite Boeing’s hype, the USN thing is more just a timing thing. They have a requirement to buy 40-50 odd airframes a year just as replacements, and have a bit of an issue with early F/A-18C’s coming to the end of their lives in particular, so they just need to buy whatever is currently available. There does seem to be some political pressure to start thinking more in terms of a mixed F-35/18 fleet in the longer term, but I think that’s as much about Boeing porkbarrelling as anything else. I wouldn’t regard a “gap-filling” order of F/A-18′s as saying anything profound about their views of the F-35, just a realistic acceptance of the timescales.
@Tony – yep, I’m aware of the Brazilian comp. It’d be lovely if the Brazilians would finance the navalisation of Gripen, but even with it on the shelf, I’m not sure we could justify buying it, due to the inefficiencies of a mixed fleet and the industrial benefits of F-35. Shame, Gripen are nice planes which would suit a mid-ranking power like us very nicely, but I just don’t see the timing/capex/economic stuff quite ever working for us.
@ChrisW – again you’re suffering from interservice blindness. Regardless of cap badges, if we only had 36 then all would effectively be carrier planes, albeit with a land base in Moray. As for carrier qualification, that wouldn’t need to happen on our active carrier – you could imagine the mothballed carrier being used for same, or a French or US carrier.
@IXION – think the plan is to have the first operational squadrons of F-35 in 2-3 years time, despite the delays to some variants the F-35A is making reasonable progress. Incidentally, it’s funny how testing the F-35B has suddenly picked up since Gates started making noises about “probation”….
Of course we’re not going to suddenly buy an additional 80 F-35′s if the world situation continues as it is now. Of course 12 planes will rattle around a 65k ton ship. On the other hand, it gives us a lot of options to respond flexibly in the future. If Saudi and a few others “do a Tunisia”, that might turn the thoughts of the West to building up their carrier forces. Not having the carrier full of planes means that we’re poorly placed for an immediate response – but things look better in the medium term. We’ll already have in place the things that are slow to build (the carriers) and with a bit of queue-barging (the USAF might decide that without bases in the ME, it was more important to reschedule some of their F-35A orders in order to allow us to get more F-35C’s for our carriers) we could get a full complement of F-35C’s and pilots within 2-3 years, planes are quicker to build than carriers. It’s not ideal, but it’s a better place to be in that having to wait 8 years for a carrier to get built. If the world doesn’t got to hell in a handcart, then we’ve saved $8bn, but there will still be smart-arses who ignore the option value and say that we shouldn’t have built the carriers in the first place, because they never got used. I know it’s really easy to post smart remarks about the carrier with no planes, but for all the problems imposed on the programme by politicians, I think we’ve ended up in the least-bad place we could have, given the budget realities. We’ve traded short-term capability for long-term flexibility (plus lots of sneers). Given that I see a lot more dangers in the world of 2020-2030 than I do in the world of 2010-2020, I’d rather be prepared for the former if I had to choose one, although I would obviously rather be prepared for both.
So – yes I can imagine a scenario where we buy an extra 80 F-35, but I really hope that we don’t have to!
@ACC – the Indians don’t have the best record of domestic aero engines, after avionics it’s arguably the aspect where they are most dependent on foreigners.
@John Hartley Had we bought 50 TSR2/F-111 for the RAF in the 1960s, they would have had a greater combat radius than the short legged Tornado. Aircraft that cannot reach the enemy are a waste of money. That’s why we have tankers. And exactly which missions would the TSR2 have managed in the last 50 years that the Tornado (with or without tankers) has failed to achieve? The truth is that we just don’t have much need for long-range bombing these days. Yes Black Buck was an amazing feat, but I find it interesting that you get so excited about a couple of bombs making it onto Stanley airfield, but are so quick to dismiss the effect of 70 Tomahawks. Incidentally, the Astutes have capacity for 38 weapons, split between torpedoes and Tomahawks, let’s just say you’d expect them to each have more than 10 of the latter but you wouldn’t expect to have 7 Astutes all available at one time.
@El Sid @ 1.08
I think that even with a low cost fighter, if it is not currently being made there would still be loads of development costs. I think the chance to make Super Goshawk are likely gone, as to get the best out of our BVR weapons you need to go supersonic, still if it happens I will not complain, and to be honest I think there is a chance if we work with France and Brazil with the aim of making an advanced CATOBAR trainer with secondary attack role, and somehow persuade the French that the Hawk is the ideal basis of any such future trainer programme.
Our best bet for a low cost fighter is to kiss and make up with the Russians and buy a licence for the Su-25. Not sure how much strengthening it would need to go from STOBAR to CATOBAR and how easy it would be to integrate our own engines, or how bad it’s IR and RCS are, but if dispersed forces with MANPADS and old AAA guns is the most likely conflict scenario then it should be good enough once we get some modern countermeasures installed.
The real problem is squeezing in a radar, as since the Su-25 is a close support aircraft it does not seem to have one.
Assuming that we can play nice with Russia in the future, then we would have a low cost carrier based trainer which had secondary CAS and air defence roles and is basically your CATOBAR Harrier idea.
Gentlemen, the cost of converting an existing combat plane for carrier use (or of resurrecting an old plane) just for the handful that we require would be prohibitive: the unit cost would probably make the F-35 look quite affordable.
And, as has already been said but it bears repeating: the support and training costs involved with each new aircraft type are also huge, so to set up an entire support infrastructure for a handful of planes also doesn’t make sense.
A naval Gripen NG would only make sense to develop and acquire if we also adopted a land-based Gripen NG in large numbers to replace something else – which isn’t going to happen.
Realistically, our carrier plane fighter options have to be off-the-shelf, which in the real world means the F-35C, the Super Hornet or the Rafale.
With the Rafale, we should be able to save on support and training costs by piggybacking onto the French facilities rather than setting up our own – I suspect that would save a huge bundle of money. PROVIDED THAT we bought the French plane as is, and firmly whacked the knuckles of anyone who wanted to fiddle with the plane to “Anglicise” it – a recipe for soaring delays and costs.
There is a problem when defence aquisitions are linked closely with economic issues especially nowadays. IF we are buying equipment to support UK Industry then the GOvernment should be duty bound to increase funding to bridge the gap between a less expensive but effective platform and the one being pruchased.
The current budget is so taught that unless there are very very strong extenuating circumstances the best priced platform that meets the majority of requirements should be chosen, even it it means compromising on some requirements.
Ixion (is that a “Prelude to Dune” reference by the way?)
“Why would we want a strategic bomber anyway? back to the argument about tomahawks launched from ship/ sub doing anything a bomber can do.”
An Astute can carry 40 Tomahawks
A Vanguard could carry a little over 100.
The B2 carry 16.
A B2 can be out and back once a day, the submarines, a week? More the enemy has some capability to hunt them?
@Lord Jim:
“The current budget is so taught that unless there are very very strong extenuating circumstances the best priced platform that meets the majority of requirements should be chosen, even it it means compromising on some requirements.”
I agree entirely. In present circumstances we need to extract the maximum “bang for the buck”, which means following the old principle of KISS – “keep it simple, stupid!”
What this means is that off-the-shelf purchases should be made whenever equipment which meets the needs* is available, rather than incurring the inevitable delays and spiralling costs associated with “perfect” bespoke solutions (which often fail to deliver anyway).
*…and I mean needs, not wants: requirements in the specification should be rigorously examined by independent parties to ensure that the usual gold-plated wish-list isn’t being compiled.
KISS also means acquiring the smallest feasible number of different platform types, with general-purpose capability being valued over specialist ones (as long, of course, as the GP solution can meet the verified needs). This will keep down procurement, support and training costs.
But all of this should be tied to a clear national understanding of what we need our armed forces to do, and what our politicians are prepared to admit that we can no longer afford to do.
“KISS also means acquiring the smallest feasible number of different platform types, with general-purpose capability being valued over specialist ones (as long, of course, as the GP solution can meet the verified needs). This will keep down procurement, support and training costs.”
But we’re pulling different ways here.
Off The Shelf and Commonality dont really go together.
Either we buy a US MRAP and a German Tank and deal with two engine types, or we Britishise both of them.
“Either we buy a US MRAP and a German Tank and deal with two engine types, or we Britishise both of them.”
Depends – if we have a need for two basically similar vehicles, the ideal is to buy off-the-shelf from a family of related vehicles.
However, a German tank and an MRAP are likely to require very different engines anyway, so not much chance of commonality there.
Here’s a question: which do you think will be first to fly a (training or operational) sortie from a carrier? An F-35B, or a UCAV?
US navy’s X-47 made its first flight the other day. The Reaper UCAV (to pick one example) went from first flight to first combat kill in six years. So the clock’s ticking: will there be any F-35Bs in service by 2017?
Maybe the F-35B will be obsolete before it even reaches the flight line…
a – X47, which is why F35 is pretty much irrelevant…..
Tony,
Fair point, but lets say the Best MRAP is American, but the best Cargo Truck is German and the Best Light Tank is French.
If we pick the best off the shelf, we could end up with three entirely unrelated Engines.
It’s easy to be sarcastic about the carriers. Because as realised by uk defence they are just stupid. I will unrelentingly, and unappologetically, continue to point out the carrier king has no clothes; (and in order to relieve the bordom make some bad jokes in the process).
Re 35B i suggest you re read the last paragraph of the link you posted. F35b is not out of the woods. I thought tw we were now buying C (which has its own problems).
Couldn’t give a stuff about our ‘Tier 1 status’ does not look we are getting anything for it that is not swamped/ going to be swamped by some very big bills.
DJ
We’ve been here before the UK is not going to be buying any B2′s under and circumstances ever. So were stuck with submarines, and Tomahawks
Re Differnt vehicles you just do not buy the best, you settle for one famile based on one truck and accept that your truck might be OK and your MRAP brilliant and tank OK/poor or visa versa. In other words you compromise on some of the capabilities of some of the vehicles.
The trade off is you end up with more easier to maintain vehicles.
In reality trucks, mraps, and light tanks are all much of a muchness, any way. Comparing type for type none are that much better than the others.
Ix
You asked why we would want a Bomber, I gave a reason.
I actualy prefer the submarine force, but the air one has advantages too.
Hi El Sid @ 1:09,
Thanks for excellent contributions.
RE “the Indians don’t have the best record of domestic aero engines, after avionics it’s arguably the aspect where they are most dependent on foreigners”
- I know, to give a hint, I started reading aviation mags when their Marut was doing the first test flights. But something has been learned from the manufacture of the as such excellent Russian (Sukhoi; actually they are from a different manufacturer near Moscow)vectoring engines.
- On avionics and especially integrating all the complex subsystems, this is exactly the part of the PAK FA/ T-50 further development that has been allocated to the Indians.
The Russians stopped technology transfer to China after the blatant copying of jet fighters from the licensed production. The Chinese have now eaten ‘ humble pie’ as they have no other way of getting they hyped new planes performing than getting their hands on those engines (in quantity)
a
F35 will be flying off the carrier well be any operational ucav. The x-47 is a concept demonstrator nothing more. As ive said before an effective ucav is a long long way down the line for land based air forces let alone adding significant complications of carrier operations into the mix. Ino these things are being championed as the great white hope of stretched defence budgets but were not there yet and some significant technical challenges remain.
IXION
Every aircraft in service anywhere suffers problems in its development most are of a similar level to those disclosed in the report by gates on the F35a,c variants there just not subject to as much publicity as these are.
As for goshawk ect i firmly believe that when the typhoon production run is over in 2015 BAE will stop all its uk final assembly of jets including hawk. If you want a hawk after that theyll come of the indian production line. Are next aircraft will be bought from overseas as we are now at the point were we no longer have the knowledge to through the whole aircraft design manufacture process to final assembly.
Hi a @ 1:40 & Jed @ 2:49,
Welcome to that camp, I have made the comment on several threads
Hi TW @ 10:25,
RE “…and I mean needs, not wants: requirements in the specification should be rigorously examined by independent parties to ensure that the usual gold-plated wish-list isn’t being compiled”
- I agree, but last time this was tried (with FRES) the integrator-of-integrators party resigned the commission when the cost had ballooned to 1 (!) bn; look where it went without them
RE “KISS also means acquiring the smallest feasible number of different platform types, with general-purpose capability being valued over specialist ones ”
- excellent point, and I agree, but this type of capability evaluation/ management has to be built in-house, for inter-service visibility and continuity – AND THEN there can be a huge improvement in the value-for-money overall
@ Tony Williams,
I cannot but help that feel that support and maintenance costs with regard to new types is a bit of a red herring. While I see your point, we seem to be more sensitive to upfront costs otherwise we would have never agreed to the Puma upgrade and development of the Wild Cat, we would have brought more Merlin’s and gone down the Tiger route, and developed a lower cost version of the Apache for the scout role.
However the current Green paper does indeed say we should go for off the shelf purchases unless there is a strategic requirement. I think fast jets likely will be off the shelf purchase from now on.
Still I see no reason, given the fact that both France and UK will have to train their pilots in the US, and that Brazil wants a larger carrier, for us not to co-operate with France and Brazil and develop an advanced trainer/light attack aircraft, to allow us to bring carrier training in house. If this turns out to be a Super Goshawk, or a new version of the Alpha Jet and new version of the A-4 Skyhawk, so be it, the key thing is that between all three countries we could reach an economical number to be built and keep the support costs down.
If you want to just do long range strikes with Tomahawk from submarines, then you probably need a minimum of 12 Astutes, something the research before the 1997/8 SDR realised.
To take out the defences of a medium sized nation you need an average of 200 precision hits. So 200 Tomahawks or a mix of Tomahawks & something else.
We do not have enough Astutes to strike every dodgy bit of the Globe. No Astute can position itself at 500 mph. I am not anti Astute, I wrote in suggesting the name Audacious & am delighted it was picked for the fourth boat, but there is a limit to where only 7 boats can be. Also some potential targets can only be hit from narrow shallow seas/gulfs that would be difficult for a large submarine to remain undetected in.
So the gap needs to be filled with either carrier strike and/or a long range bomber.
The USAF has been scarred by the B2 cost reducing numbers from 132 to 22. They want the new regional bomber to be affordable. If they keep the cost down, then yes, I think the RAF should get some to replace the Tornado. If UK industry gets some jobs out of it, all the better.
Some think there is no threat & we should spend all the money on the EU/PC non-jobs/ benefit spongers, corrupt third world officials,etc.
I think this is a repeat of the 1930s. The 2007 credit crunch raises the risk of trouble in the 2015-20 period. The riots in Greece, Thailand, London, Tunisia, Egypt are just the start of the instability to follow.
This is a time for some rearmament. We will not get it of course. War will break out & the politicians will say “nobody warned us”.
DomJ said “A B2 can be out and back once a day, the submarines, a week? More the enemy has some capability to hunt them?”
Do you mean this DJ?
Um. I would suggest that by the time it got to stuff going bang in all likelihood the submarine will be on station. And as for finding the submarine well ASW is an art. And lets say your target is 500 miles inland and a TLAM has a range of 1500 that would leave an awful lot of ocean to search.
And B2 costs the same as submarine too.
wonder if the B2′s toilets work though!
@ TD
I am ignoring until tomorrow by which time I shall have thought of a witty retort so witty in its retortedness you will die laughing…….
This talk of long range strike has my Retro-tech radar bleeping; it’s a pity we trashed all the Buccaneers.
Very long range,16000 lbs bomb load with internal bomb bay (4000 lbs?) with extra belly fuel tank, buddy refuelling, up to 4 sea eagle ASM’s, and of course carrier capable. It was sub-sonic but designed to be; improved range and better bomb aiming (days before advanced targeting). Supersonic versions were suggested, mainly for the RAF but they always viewed them as an interim, first for F-111 then Tornado and didn’t want to spend money on them.
Thanks to its area-rule design and BLC it was incredible at extreme low altitude; one story has two yank F-15′s daring each other to fly ever lower only for a Bucc to fly under them! There was a reason it had a windscreen wiper…
Could we re-build the Buccaneer or something similar? Basic design improved with modern materials, techniques, engines and electronics?
Another “Crazy (borrowed) idea”; if we view Hi/Lo as altitude as well as numbers, a dedicated CAS aircraft might be considered. Rather than SU-25 what about A-10? What about new folding wings and a tail-hook to create a “Sea-Hog”? Crazy moment over… For now…
@ Gareth:
“Could we re-build the Buccaneer or something similar? Basic design improved with modern materials, techniques, engines and electronics? Rather than SU-25 what about A-10? What about new folding wings and a tail-hook to create a “Sea-Hog”?”
As I posted above: the cost of converting an existing combat plane for carrier use (or of resurrecting an old plane) just for the handful that we require would be prohibitive: the unit cost would probably make the F-35 look quite affordable.
@ Tony – you’re right. Just let my imagination run away with me. The problem is the switch to CATOBAR – where’s before we could have both FAA/RAF Harriers operating from the carriers will the RAF aircraft be carrier capable? Do the RAF want a second aircraft type? Will they train their pilots to land on a carrier? If not, will the FAA get enough aircraft to fulfil their duties?
X
Sorry I just kind of wittered on there.
If we’re refighting the Falklands (why not?) an Astute can forward position itself, fire off its weapons, then it has to sail home, rearm, sail back south and fire again.
A B2 cant forward positon, but it cant be there and back in a day and do it all again the next day.
Submarine hunting is of course an extremely difficult job, but its made much easier if the Astute heads in a straight line at full speed. The enemy ASW assets cant stop the Astutes, but they can slow them down and force them to take a longer route.
I actualy quite like the idea of ditching jets in the FAA, use Apache and its replacement for ground support, use masses of long range missiles to destroy the enemy airforce on the ground and wreck any airfields.
Easy enough if you throw 40 odd StormShadows at one airport.
Mark: As I’ve said before an effective ucav is a long long way down the line for land based air forces
This will come as a bit of a shock to the USAF and the RAF, among others, because they’ve been flying Reaper UCAVs in combat for some time now. Perhaps you mean something different by UCAV?
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/06/brazil-and-uk-ready-to-sign-huge-defence-contract-say-media-reports
ASW in the deep ocean is an art, but in shallow gulfs, looking out the window of an aircraft can spot an obvious black shape in the water.
If you can only hit an enemy one way, then they can take countermeasures. If you can hit them 2 or 3 ways, then defending against the lot is difficult.
a
The is a surveillance drone modified to carry weapons it not very fast and as such has limited effective range but very good endurance. This is inadequate for carrier operation and if you intend to use a drone to do the kind of operation under taken by an f35 then problems rise exponentially. Comparing and armed reaper to that kind of capability is like comparing a sopwith camel to a eurofighter. So yes a reaper is a ucav but a far from perfect and very limited one.
On the whole tomahawk debate as I though that because these were so easy to shoot down that we could not even contemplate using a nuke warhead on them it would strike me as odd we would want our entire first stike conventional capability based on them would it not.
@ Tony Williams re: “the cost of converting an existing combat plane for carrier use (or of resurrecting an old plane) just for the handful that we require would be prohibitive: the unit cost would probably make the F-35 look quite affordable.”
While it is obvious that lower orders of current fighter programmes has lead to higher per unit costs, I would like to debate this a little further to try to understand if this holds true in all circumstances.
For the thought exercise, and on the back of a report that we are about to sign a deal with Brazil, lets pretend that the UK and Brazil decide to do a joint venture to build new Sky Hawks in Brazil, primarily to be used as carrier trainers, but with secondary CAS role, and a limited air defence role.
A bit of a guess here, but I assume that the Sky Hawk is aerodynamically stable and is going to be made from aluminium rather than mixed materials, and therefore the FBW system installed would be significantly less sophisticated than FBW for aerodynamically unstable designs like the Eurofighter and you will need less specialised manufacturing equipment. If we then only used off the shelf components currently in service and certified, surely the development costs would be relatively low and would be mostly software development costs, and if we avoid composites the tooling costs would be low as well?
This of course assume GE still builds the F404 engine, which is a proven replacement for the original Sky Hawk engines.
@ DomJ
Your rattling on his fine with me. You have had to put with more than enough of my crap ramblings over the last year or so!
Um. Yes if the Astutes are travelling in a straight line they would in theory be easy to find. But…….
How difficult do you think it would be to hit a road if you were directly above the UK as a suitable height say 1000 miles (we will extend the atmosphere that far for these purposes.) A 1 in 20 chance? 1 in 5? It is more like 1 in 100; roads only cover 1% of the UK. Why I am saying this? Well imagine you were trying to find a submarine in an area the size of the UK, even if its wake was 20 miles long it would be difficult. Even if your sonar gave you a good fix it would be difficult to hunt the submarine down. Now think how big the sea is. Imagine the target is on the coast and fanning out an area of ocean with a radius of 1500miles. Imagine if that radius was 1000miles it would still be a huge area and there aren’t many countries that are 500 miles deep.
Also you should consider that an nuclear submarine can travel at 30kts-ish. Now compared to a jet that isn’t fast. Compared to a car it isn’t fast. But is can do that 30kts-ish for 24hrs a day 7 days a week; it soon accumulates. Not only does the submarine have strategic reach it has what could be termed strategic endurance too. The latter is something that aeroplanes don’t have; to keep a Nimrod in one place would have taken 5 airframes. And armies don’t have strategic reach or endurance……..
And as I said by the time there is need to go kinetic the submarine would have been deployed. Aeroplanes aren’t cars they need a surprising amount of infrastructure too. You can always call the submarine back unseen. Deploying a bomber wing is a bit overt. And we mustn’t forget the issue of over-flying rights that may mean even in a long range bomber like the B1 (about 6000 miles) might need a tanker or three.
If we use the numbers from the Ohio SSGN for a possible Vanguard based SSGN (16tubes x 7 TLAM) it could carry 112 missiles. A Tornado can carry 4 Storm Shadow. So if we say a big bomber carries 8. And lets say it twice as expensive as Typhoon so 150million; it would probably be more considering B2 costs. To make the program worthwhile you would probably need to buy 20 so that gives a figure of 3 billion. So if we could get all those into the air we could launch a salvo of 160 Storm Shadow or 38 more than a submarine. But the support needed to do that would be taxing for the RAF. For the price of those 20 planes you could buy 3 Vanguards. Or if you bought B2s all you could buy is three aeroplanes. If you could stretch the cost of the bombers so you could buy 4 submarines the planes are even less cost effective.
Another thought is that if all we are doing is bombing Europe we don’t even need submarines we just need launchers on trucks. Imagine the RA had TLAM and Spain grabbed Gib’ the RA could bombard Madrid from Cornwall…….
Lastly good high economical cruising speeds are important for sea power. The US build their amphib’s to move at 500miles a day; 20kts an hour. We build our amphib’s with an economical of 15kts. 5kts doesn’t sound much but if a crisis blows up getting there quickly could mean the difference between stopping a war and fighting one.
Congress is moaning the next gen USN SSBN will cost $8 Billion each.
The is a surveillance drone modified to carry weapons it not very fast and as such has limited effective range but very good endurance. This is inadequate for carrier operation
Why? If X-47 can take off and land on a carrier, then it’s not “inadequate for carrier operations”. As for performance, 0.45 Mach isn’t great, but a range of 2100 nm is pretty good; that’ll get you from a carrier in the Eastern Med to strike anywhere in the Middle East and back again.
and if you intend to use a drone to do the kind of operation under taken by an f35 then problems rise exponentially.
Granted. That’s not actually what I was asking, though: what I was asking is “will an X-47 fly off a carrier before an F-35B?” No, X-47 can’t do combat air patrols or dogfight with MiGs. (Yet.) But it will be able to do what the F-35B will actually be doing most of the time: dropping JDAMs from a friendly sky.
Maybe I was a bit hasty in saying that the F-35B would be completely obsolete before it even reached the flightline; but it’d certainly be obsolete in its most important role before it even reached the flightline. It is, let’s not forget, a joint strike fighter.
Which makes it look as though buying only 12 JCAs for the Royal Navy’s carriers might prove to be a really smart move. You won’t need more than 12 to keep your defensive combat air patrol up, and all the offensive business can be handled better by UCAVs.
@ Tubby
Clearly all the A4 Skyhawk jigs are long gone, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the technical drawings have disappeared too. Even if they haven’t, they’ll be non-metric which means the whole design would have to be revamped to metric standards to suit modern production, right down to the standard sizes of screw fittings.
Basically, the plane would have to be reverse-engineered by getting hold of an existing example and stripping it right down to the smallest components, then redesigning everything to modern standards. I suspect that this would be almost as expensive as producing a new, clean-sheet design.
Even rebuilding and upgrading existing aircraft isn’t necessarily as simple and cheap as you’d think – as BAE have just ably demonstrated with the Nimrod…
@ a
Simply buying a dozen of any combat plane would be extremely expensive in terms of support costs. This would need its own maintenance team, spare parts etc on board the carrier (using up a lot of space), even if all of the major maintenance and training ashore are contracted out to another country (and they’d better be, because the cost of that infrastructure spread over a dozen planes would be huge).
And with a pool of just a dozen or so pilots trained and experienced in flying the things, you could lose the lot to a very attractive offer from the commercial aviation sector…
Tony: sorry, misspoke: the plan is not to buy a total of just 12 JCA, but the carrier will normally deploy with an air wing of 12 JCA, with the potential to expand this to 36 if necessary; the total buy could be as small as 50. I’m suggesting that a good alternative to this, not now but in ten years’ time (when the carriers are fully on line) might be an air wing of 12 JCA plus, say, 40 UCAV.
X
With the range/speed issue, my point was that an on site astute, even going 30 mph / 700miles per day has a 10 day homeward voyage from Argentina, a day to refit and a another 10 days back. So it can launch 40 missiles in 21 days, 2 missiles per day average.
A strategic bomber can do 8 per day average.
If the enemy doesnt buckle under the first onslaught, he has 3 weeks to dig in before submarines can hit him again.
Admitadly, he has to stay “dug in” forever because he has no idea if the submarines came back or not.
I prefer Submarines for the reasons you give, one could be a mile off the coast of Rio for all anyone in South America knows, but Big Bombers are still cool.
Medium bombers, less so.
“Another thought is that if all we are doing is bombing Europe we don’t even need submarines we just need launchers on trucks. Imagine the RA had TLAM and Spain grabbed Gib’ the RA could bombard Madrid from Cornwall…….”
Thats just scary.
Davey Crocket Nuclear Armed US ARMY Lootenant scary.
A
“Mach isn’t great, but a range of 2100 nm is pretty good; that’ll get you from a carrier in the Eastern Med to strike anywhere in the Middle East and back again.”
And “Back Again” isnt all that important.
The US has “lost” quite a few UAV’s because it was decided that providing ongoing intelligence reports to troops in contact was more important than getting a UAV home.
I’m not sure if it was an embelleshment, but a piece I read implied one rammed an insurgent in its fuel less death spiral.
Considering a Storm Shadow costs £1mn, it is really a stretch to use a £10mn UAV as an improvised battering ram if the target is juicey?
@ DomJ
It is just fun to play with numbers. I knew what you were saying.
As for Madrid. It was just a silly example. But it demonstrates why don’t need a medium bomber.
If you want scary I could have said the RA could bombard Moscow from Kent with TLAM …………!!!
If we wanted to defend the Falklands in depth we should just cover West Falkland in silos for TLAM all aimed at Argentina’s five closest airfields! :)
I like big bombers and silly fast aeroplanes too. Google AVRO 730.
a ref: “No, X-47 can’t do combat air patrols or dogfight with MiGs.”
Well lets face it, if your into visual range dog fights with latest generation Migs, your F35 is probably going to loose anyway :-)
If we wanted to defend the Falklands in depth we should just cover West Falkland in silos for TLAM all aimed at Argentina’s five closest airfields!
Or South Georgia? Is South Georgia in range?
Here it is, the Nirvana moment for all those “why don’t we develop” types out there, the official unveiling of the SeaPhoon…..
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/aero-india-naval-eurofighter-typhoon.html
More on the SeaPhoon from FlightInternational – try to not to laugh too much, or choke (!):
“If Typhoon wins MMRCA then India will have the indigenous skills to develop a navalised version,” says Paul Hopkins, BAE Systems’ vice-president business development (air) India. “This is a perfect opportunity for the nation to add aircraft with both land and sea capabilities.”
So, UK is broke, could never afford to develop a naval variant, but hey India could afford to…. perhaps this points out the dichotomy between our defence and aid budgets ??
Link to full article: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/09/352925/aero-india-eurofighter-reveals-offer-to-produce-navalised.html
@ Jed
SeePhoon makes me think of Seagoon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neddie_Seagoon
Yes the aid for one year would pay for the programme and all the airframes. And a third carrier.
@ a
No not to hit all 5 principle Argentine air fields in their south. Argentina is a long country. All we would have to do is put one Mk41 vls cell per hectare/acre in a missile farm of 100 hectare/acres, put a fence round it, and seed the ground with AP mines. For the cost of the 4 Typhoons we could put a SeaViper system. Before anybody thinks I am being serious, um, no I’m not. All I am trying to say is in theses days of 50million pound plus airframes with £50k per hour flying missiles for some things just offer more bang for your buck.
@ Tony Williams
In attempt to keep the discussions at a conceptual level, what you are saying is the detailed design and toolings stage of any aircraft build will be the same if we build a new aircraft or resurrect an old one. Presumably though we would save some money if we stick to aluminium as machine tooling for aluminium is a lot cheaper than for composites? Also if we brought of the shelf components we would not need to pay to develop new components? Also surely we would have a much shorter testing programme as we would know for example that any new build A-4 are safe to +8 g’s and what there safe fatigue lives are?
With regard to the numbers, when does numbers of aircraft introduced make the cost of introducing a new type irrelevant (it must do at some point other wise we would never add any new capabilities ever). So in my hypothetical example if we built new Sky Hawks with Brazil, and Brazil made a 1:1 replacement of theirs (23) and we decided that we could not face being a laugh stock and operating a carrier with just a flight of F-35C’s we decided to field one training squadron plus two front line strike squadrons and brought say 64 would this be sufficient numbers to justify bringing in a new type?
@ Jed
What are the chances that if India buys the Typhoon, part of the deal will be that we end up having to partner them in developing the SeaPhoon?
a
I know I didnt make it clear but the first part of my last post was directed towards reaper not x-47.
Im not expecting either the f35 or x-47 to get into dogfights most engagements would be BVR in a first night of war scenario. The whole idea of ucavs was that they would be cheaper than there manned equivalents. But take global hawk the closest current comparison to a production x-47 is costing the Germans 450m euro for 5 systems. Not exactly cheap and that doesnt include the satellites required to operate them. So were not going to want to just send them on kamikaze missions. Also suppose for any reason the automated landing system on a carrier fails or the satellites are knocked out by the enemy or atmospherics are these things going just fall in the sea very expensive. X-47 is only supposed to carry 2 x 1000 pound bombs 1/3 the war load of a jsf on fist night stike mission. Also a cruise speed of M.45 is dreadful for this type of mission thats about a 7 hour round trip to hit a target 1000 miles away not going to get a very good sortie rate. To be effective its speed would need to closer to M.85.
I do agree IF they are significantly cheaper than jsf they could be used to supplement (but not replace) fast jets but that’s not the way there heading.
Tomahawk is not suitable for all targets. Some sensitive sites need a smaller warhead, while hardened targets need a larger warhead.
A bomber aircraft can carry a variety of bombs, so you can load the right bomb for the right target.
@ John Hartley
What you mean some targets will require 2 TLAMs. TLAMs are designed to hit hardened targets. They would be little point in not having them do so.
As for the smaller warhead, what scenarios do you envisage?
X
When some chief nasty hides himself amongst civilians. Thats when a smaller warhead is needed.
500lb, 250lb & even smaller warheads give flexibility.
A bomber can do this. Look at the WW2 Lancaster. Could carry everything from small incendaries, 4000lb cookies, 12000lb Tallboy or 22000lb Grand Slam.
Today you would want every option from Hellfire/Brimstone to 6ooolb Bunker Buster to MOAB.
@ Tubby
I don’t think it’s possible to comment on exactly what a new-build Skyhawk would cost – except that it can be said with confidence that it would be a multiple of whatever figure an aircraft manufacturer bidding for the project first gives you.
The basic point I am making is that there are large costs involved in introducing any new aircraft, whether it’s a new design or a resurrected one. So the smaller the number of aircraft built, the higher the unit cost would be. As a result, you could afford a very much better aircraft for the same money by buying from an existing production line.
Jed
Has anyone told that blogger that a model flying towards a carrier doesnt make it carrier capable in real life?
X
I’m a strong believer in a similar concept, Jets are needed for persistant fighting. Missiles are much more cost effective for a short war, or deterant.
John
I suppose not every missile needs to be armed with a 450lb BROACH warhead, however, if a chief nasty hides himself amongst civillians, its the chief nasty who is commiting a warcrime, not the person who bombs him.
Regardless of what the Grauniad might think, a Childrens Hospital housing an artilery battery is a valid military target.
@ DominicJ
“Regardless of what the Grauniad might think, a Childrens Hospital housing an artilery battery is a valid military target.”
True, but you’re ignoring the fact that wars are as much about winning publicity battles as anything else these days. And what the TVs of the world would be showing would be the dismembered and mutilated bodies of sick children as a direct result of such an attack. A PR disaster, and a huge publicity bonus for the enemy. How could those responsible claim any moral high ground after that?
a Childrens Hospital housing an artillery battery is a valid military target.
No it isn’t, or not necessarily, anyway. Depends on the degree of military necessity.
Tony makes a good point too about the PR effect. Never forget that the purpose of any weapon system is to change the enemy’s mind. If you use it in a way that makes him more determined to fight, then your weapon is actually working for the enemy.
What are the chances that if India buys the Typhoon, part of the deal will be that we end up having to partner them in developing the SeaPhoon?
Oh, Lord, you mean we’ll have to buy _even more_ Eurofighters? Will we have enough hangars to store them all?
Back to the Super Hornet. Hope you’ve all seen this video –
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/aero-india-guided-tour-of-the.html
Conformal tanks, IRST, uprated engines and optional “stealthy” weapons pod. Silent Hornet also appears to have become “International Road Map” Hornet!
At almost two Super Hornets for the same price as a F-35C, it makes sense to buy a fleet of them for air defence with a secondary strike capability and a smaller buy of F-35 for “Alpha” strike first day of war operations. With FAA/RAF pilots already undergoing carrier operations on the SH it will reduce costs at the OCU level as well.
@ Tony
Thanks for the debate, I was trying to understand if the high cost of new aircraft was due to over specification, and that if we brought back an older design with modest design goals would be significantly cheaper. Taking Sky Hawk as example would it be a £25 million aircraft once you factor in development or would it be a £50 million aircraft. If it is the latter then as you say you get more bang for your buck buying an existing fighter.
@ a
There will be no Typhoon’s sitting around, as according to today’s Daily Express, MoD’s just in time system for spares means that we have had to cannibalise 6 Typhoon’s to keep front line Typhoon’s running.
Re: Sea Typhoon
Part of me hopes that the India does develop the Sea Typhoon (though why they would operate LCA (N), LCA II (N), Mig-29K’s and Sea Typhoon’s off their carriers is beyond me). We could then argue that we are saving money by buying an all Typhoon fleet, and push our R&D money into large UCAV’s for deep strike role.
JimSW
Any upfront capital savings would be lost within a couple of years to increased operating costs.
@ Tubby,
One of the problems with resurrecting an aircraft is that the military would want it to have a lot of the capabilities that modern planes have: the sensor suite, smart weapons capability, fire control system, self-defense aids etc. Without those it wouldn’t be a lot of use. I believe they make up a substantial wodge of the cost of a modern combat plane.
@Tubby – if you’re going Russian, then Mig-29K/35 is probably the realistic option, Flankers would be nice but neither are going to happen. There were some Su-25 variants with avionics upgrades, although you had to either give up the back seat of the trainer version or put it in a pod on a weapons station. Elbit did a version with glass cockpit + NATO comms, HUD etc for Georgia, the SU-25KM.
@Tony Williams – don’t worry, I’m vigorously agreeing with you! As far as I’m concerned we’re getting 40-odd F-35′s and that’s our lot; if the tooth fairy does throw some more money towards the FAA in 2020-2025, I think I’d rather spend it on something less sexy than stealth FJ’s – fixed-wing AEW and ASW for a start. Those timescales might work for the USN too – once the F-35 is out of the way, they might notice that they’ve lost the varied capabilities of the S-3, and as I’ve said elsewhere, they might start resurrecting the CSA idea in a limited fashion, with a new(ish?) airframe for the E-2D electronics, COD, refuelling and perhaps even a small tactical transport for use on land. Time will tell.
In the meantime, it’s just kinda fun to steer people away from the 110% solutions that British flyboys have been used to, and towards something more in keeping with our current status in the world. I know the reality is that the F-35 is our cheapest option thanks to our industry’s position within the programme, which would be lost if we pulled out. It’s just kinda fun to talk idly about properly cheap options, qv as I said :
I’m interested in a CATOBAR equivalent of the Harrier – I don’t mind if it’s subsonic as long as it’s cheap, and can take some half-decent avionics and weapons. When I say cheap, I’m talking £20m, £25m, no more than that – talk of Sea Typhoons is just utter fantasy, we just don’t have the money. If that means resurrecting the Skyhawk, the Buccaneer or the Phantom, then fine, I’m not proud, although I accept that resurrecting designs has issues of its own. At least look at the economics of subsonic aircraft
I am aware of the whole “minimise the types in use” thing. But Goshawk is interesting because Hawks are already part of our warfighting OOB (at least notionally), so we have logistics in place, all our FJ pilots are Hawk-qualified, and the Hawk is in production, and produced in the UK.
And Gripen is interesting just because the numbers quoted by the Swedish airforce in that Canadian parliament link are soooo much lower than the competition – US$4-4.5k/hour, compared to $19k or so for the F/A-18 and more than that for the F-35. At 25h/month over 20 years, you’re saving £60m per airframe relative to most fourth/fifth-gen alternatives, which does let you soak up quite a lot of fixed costs, and could work even for a naval-only fleet that had a servicing deal with Sweden similar to what you propose for the Rafale. We might be talking something the same size as our F-35 fleet. But as I said, I just don’t see the timing/capex/economic stuff quite ever working for us on Gripen, even if the Brazilians did pay to navalise it for us.
The Kahu project is an interesting one for what can be done by a small nation like NZ to upgrade old-tech planes with half-decent (not bleeding edge) MOTS avionics. Half the problem with the RAF is that on that kind of project they wouldn’t just carry across a radar from the F-16, they’d insist on it being powered by pixie dust and unicorn poo. It _is_ possible to do 60% solutions pretty cheaply these days. Given that this would hopefully be happening after CAESAR was in serial production, one might think of cutting down the CAESAR array and driving it with the same software.
Getting off-topic from the British carriers, I know the pros are wary about calling the end of the dogfight after what happened in Vietnam, but just maybe, that time really has come with the advent of HOBS missiles. In which case perhaps the future lies not in spending $$$$ on making planes super-agile, but instead we need to spend the money more on quantity rather than quality, (without going stupidly incapable), and on something more along the lines of the Phantom – rubbish agility, but high speed and large missile load compared to its contemporaries. These days that might be Mach 2.5 and 10-12 AAMs. So something more along the lines of many slightly stealthed but affordable Mig-31′s is the way ahead, rather than a handful of super-stealth F-22′s? Certainly if the Yanks want to take on China, it would seem that they need a lot more AAMs in the air, and generally more endurance than they have now, and agility might be the thing they have to sacrifice.
@IXION – OK, how would you do things differently, starting from where we are in 2011, not in some alternate reality bathed in hindsight but changing decisions taken in 1999 or whenever? You are quick to moan, quick to invent alternate realities, but refuse to deal with the situation we find ourselves in today.
As for the F-35B, of course it’s dead to us now, I only mentioned it in passing as a wry comment on how the procurement process is all about PR as much as engineering.
If you don’t give a stuff about our industrial involvement in F-35 then either learn to give a stuff or just don’t bother commenting on the relative economics of F-35. The £5bn or so HMG will be making out of BAE’s involvement alone looms pretty large in any sensible analysis of the economics of F-35 versus alternatives.
@ACC I read the Russians handing over avionics to the Indians as more to do with them hoping to get their mitts on Western technology via our tech transfers to the Indians. And of course, these days most of the cost is in the software, MiG wouldn’t be the first company to outsource software development to India. I’m sure it’ll come out OK, but probably not in the timescale that the Russians would like….
@John Hartley – first you have to ask the question – will we ever want to make 200 hits on a country on our own? Strategy should dictate procurement, not the other way round. Personally I don’t think this is a repeat of the 1930s – economically it’s much closer to the 1870s. Which would imply that there could be a “world war” in a generation’s time, but the nascent hyperpower will largely stay out of it and let the old powers destroy each other. I’m relatively relaxed about 2011-2020, but 2031-40 scares the bejesus out of me for all sorts of reasons.
@Mark – on UAV costs, the RAF paid the US about $107m each for their Reapers, which seems to include most engineering support costs but ??not “RAF” costs like pilot salaries and the Skynet bandwidth??? So the through-life costs are similar to a Hawk or Gripen.
@DominicJ and others. On the whole “not our fault if bad guys hide near civvies” – it’s not, but the need to reduce civvy casualties has been a driving force of a lot of NATO’s weapons development recently. That means reducing warhead sizes and putting a man in the loop to satisfy ROE – hence things like Viper Strike with a 1kg warhead (see page 2 of this presentation for blast zones), and dual-mode Brimstone. On the other hand, if you’ve decided you’re throwing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at someone, then you’re properly at war. However, even then you may still care about the civvy population, qv GW2.
@Jimsw – I’ll say it again, F/A-18′s cost the Aussies US$100m, or US$205m lifetime cost. Serial production of F-35′s won’t be nearly double that.@Tubby – if you’re going Russian, then Mig-29K/35 is probably the realistic option, Flankers would be nice but neither are going to happen. There were some Su-25 variants with avionics upgrades, although you had to either give up the back seat of the trainer version or put it in a pod on a weapons station. Elbit did a version with glass cockpit + NATO comms, HUD etc for Georgia, the SU-25KM.
@Tony Williams – don’t worry, I’m vigorously agreeing with you! As far as I’m concerned we’re getting 40-odd F-35′s and that’s our lot; if the tooth fairy does throw some more money towards the FAA in 2020-2025, I think I’d rather spend it on something less sexy than stealth FJ’s – fixed-wing AEW and ASW for a start. Those timescales might work for the USN too – once the F-35 is out of the way, they might notice that they’ve lost the varied capabilities of the S-3, and as I’ve said elsewhere, they might start resurrecting the CSA idea in a limited fashion, with a new(ish?) airframe for the E-2D electronics, COD, refuelling and perhaps even a small tactical transport for use on land. Time will tell.
In the meantime, it’s just kinda fun to steer people away from the 110% solutions that British flyboys have been used to, and towards something more in keeping with our current status in the world. I know the reality is that the F-35 is our cheapest option thanks to our industry’s position within the programme, which would be lost if we pulled out. It’s just kinda fun to talk idly about properly cheap options, qv as I said :
I’m interested in a CATOBAR equivalent of the Harrier – I don’t mind if it’s subsonic as long as it’s cheap, and can take some half-decent avionics and weapons. When I say cheap, I’m talking £20m, £25m, no more than that – talk of Sea Typhoons is just utter fantasy, we just don’t have the money. If that means resurrecting the Skyhawk, the Buccaneer or the Phantom, then fine, I’m not proud, although I accept that resurrecting designs has issues of its own. At least look at the economics of subsonic aircraft
I am aware of the whole “minimise the types in use” thing. But Goshawk is interesting because Hawks are already part of our warfighting OOB (at least notionally), so we have logistics in place, all our FJ pilots are Hawk-qualified, and the Hawk is in production, and produced in the UK.
And Gripen is interesting just because the numbers quoted by the Swedish airforce in that Canadian parliament link are soooo much lower than the competition – US$4-4.5k/hour, compared to $19k or so for the F/A-18 and more than that for the F-35. At 25h/month over 20 years, you’re saving £60m per airframe relative to most fourth/fifth-gen alternatives, which does let you soak up quite a lot of fixed costs, and could work even for a naval-only fleet that had a servicing deal with Sweden similar to what you propose for the Rafale. We might be talking something the same size as our F-35 fleet. But as I said, I just don’t see the timing/capex/economic stuff quite ever working for us on Gripen, even if the Brazilians did pay to navalise it for us.
The Kahu project is an interesting one for what can be done by a small nation like NZ to upgrade old-tech planes with half-decent (not bleeding edge) MOTS avionics. Half the problem with the RAF is that on that kind of project they wouldn’t just carry across a radar from the F-16, they’d insist on it being powered by pixie dust and unicorn poo. It _is_ possible to do 60% solutions pretty cheaply these days. Given that this would hopefully be happening after CAESAR was in serial production, one might think of cutting down the CAESAR array and driving it with the same software.
Getting off-topic from the British carriers, I know the pros are wary about calling the end of the dogfight after what happened in Vietnam, but just maybe, that time really has come with the advent of HOBS missiles. In which case perhaps the future lies not in spending $$$$ on making planes super-agile, but instead we need to spend the money more on quantity rather than quality, (without going stupidly incapable), and on something more along the lines of the Phantom – rubbish agility, but high speed and large missile load compared to its contemporaries. These days that might be Mach 2.5 and 10-12 AAMs. So something more along the lines of many slightly stealthed but affordable Mig-31′s is the way ahead, rather than a handful of super-stealth F-22′s? Certainly if the Yanks want to take on China, it would seem that they need a lot more AAMs in the air, and generally more endurance than they have now, and agility might be the thing they have to sacrifice.
@IXION – OK, how would you do things differently, starting from where we are in 2011, not in some alternate reality bathed in hindsight but changing decisions taken in 1999 or whenever? You are quick to moan, quick to invent alternate realities, but refuse to deal with the situation we find ourselves in today.
As for the F-35B, of course it’s dead to us now, I only mentioned it in passing as a wry comment on how the procurement process is all about PR as much as engineering.
If you don’t give a stuff about our industrial involvement in F-35 then either learn to give a stuff or just don’t bother commenting on the relative economics of F-35. The £5bn or so HMG will be making out of BAE’s involvement alone looms pretty large in any sensible analysis of the economics of F-35 versus alternatives.
@ACC I read the Russians handing over avionics to the Indians as more to do with them hoping to get their mitts on Western technology via our tech transfers to the Indians. And of course, these days most of the cost is in the software, MiG wouldn’t be the first company to outsource software development to India. I’m sure it’ll come out OK, but probably not in the timescale that the Russians would like….
@John Hartley – first you have to ask the question – will we ever want to make 200 hits on a country on our own? Strategy should dictate procurement, not the other way round. Personally I don’t think this is a repeat of the 1930s – economically it’s much closer to the 1870s. Which would imply that there could be a “world war” in a generation’s time, but the nascent hyperpower will largely stay out of it and let the old powers destroy each other. I’m relatively relaxed about 2011-2020, but 2031-40 scares the bejesus out of me for all sorts of reasons.
@Mark – on UAV costs, the RAF paid the US about $107m each for their Reapers, which seems to include most engineering support costs but ??not “RAF” costs like pilot salaries and the Skynet bandwidth??? So the through-life costs are similar to a Hawk or Gripen.
@DominicJ and others. On the whole “not our fault if bad guys hide near civvies” – it’s not, but the need to reduce civvy casualties has been a driving force of a lot of NATO’s weapons development recently. That means reducing warhead sizes and putting a man in the loop to satisfy ROE – hence things like Viper Strike with a 1kg warhead (see page 2 of this presentation for blast zones), and dual-mode Brimstone. On the other hand, if you’ve decided you’re throwing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at someone, then you’re properly at war. However, even then you may still care about the civvy population, qv GW2.
@Jimsw – I’ll say it again, F/A-18′s cost the Aussies US$100m, or US$205m lifetime cost. Serial production of F-35′s won’t be nearly double that.@Tubby – if you’re going Russian, then Mig-29K/35 is probably the realistic option, Flankers would be nice but neither are going to happen. There were some Su-25 variants with avionics upgrades, although you had to either give up the back seat of the trainer version or put it in a pod on a weapons station. Elbit did a version with glass cockpit + NATO comms, HUD etc for Georgia, the SU-25KM.
@Tony Williams – don’t worry, I’m vigorously agreeing with you! As far as I’m concerned we’re getting 40-odd F-35′s and that’s our lot; if the tooth fairy does throw some more money towards the FAA in 2020-2025, I think I’d rather spend it on something less sexy than stealth FJ’s – fixed-wing AEW and ASW for a start. Those timescales might work for the USN too – once the F-35 is out of the way, they might notice that they’ve lost the varied capabilities of the S-3, and as I’ve said elsewhere, they might start resurrecting the CSA idea in a limited fashion, with a new(ish?) airframe for the E-2D electronics, COD, refuelling and perhaps even a small tactical transport for use on land. Time will tell.
In the meantime, it’s just kinda fun to steer people away from the 110% solutions that British flyboys have been used to, and towards something more in keeping with our current status in the world. I know the reality is that the F-35 is our cheapest option thanks to our industry’s position within the programme, which would be lost if we pulled out. It’s just kinda fun to talk idly about properly cheap options, qv as I said :
I’m interested in a CATOBAR equivalent of the Harrier – I don’t mind if it’s subsonic as long as it’s cheap, and can take some half-decent avionics and weapons. When I say cheap, I’m talking £20m, £25m, no more than that – talk of Sea Typhoons is just utter fantasy, we just don’t have the money. If that means resurrecting the Skyhawk, the Buccaneer or the Phantom, then fine, I’m not proud, although I accept that resurrecting designs has issues of its own. At least look at the economics of subsonic aircraft
I am aware of the whole “minimise the types in use” thing. But Goshawk is interesting because Hawks are already part of our warfighting OOB (at least notionally), so we have logistics in place, all our FJ pilots are Hawk-qualified, and the Hawk is in production, and produced in the UK.
And Gripen is interesting just because the numbers quoted by the Swedish airforce in that Canadian parliament link are soooo much lower than the competition – US$4-4.5k/hour, compared to $19k or so for the F/A-18 and more than that for the F-35. At 25h/month over 20 years, you’re saving £60m per airframe relative to most fourth/fifth-gen alternatives, which does let you soak up quite a lot of fixed costs, and could work even for a naval-only fleet that had a servicing deal with Sweden similar to what you propose for the Rafale. We might be talking something the same size as our F-35 fleet. But as I said, I just don’t see the timing/capex/economic stuff quite ever working for us on Gripen, even if the Brazilians did pay to navalise it for us.
The Kahu project is an interesting one for what can be done by a small nation like NZ to upgrade old-tech planes with half-decent (not bleeding edge) MOTS avionics. Half the problem with the RAF is that on that kind of project they wouldn’t just carry across a radar from the F-16, they’d insist on it being powered by pixie dust and unicorn poo. It _is_ possible to do 60% solutions pretty cheaply these days. Given that this would hopefully be happening after CAESAR was in serial production, one might think of cutting down the CAESAR array and driving it with the same software.
Getting off-topic from the British carriers, I know the pros are wary about calling the end of the dogfight after what happened in Vietnam, but just maybe, that time really has come with the advent of HOBS missiles. In which case perhaps the future lies not in spending $$$$ on making planes super-agile, but instead we need to spend the money more on quantity rather than quality, (without going stupidly incapable), and on something more along the lines of the Phantom – rubbish agility, but high speed and large missile load compared to its contemporaries. These days that might be Mach 2.5 and 10-12 AAMs. So something more along the lines of many slightly stealthed but affordable Mig-31′s is the way ahead, rather than a handful of super-stealth F-22′s? Certainly if the Yanks want to take on China, it would seem that they need a lot more AAMs in the air, and generally more endurance than they have now, and agility might be the thing they have to sacrifice.
@IXION – OK, how would you do things differently, starting from where we are in 2011, not in some alternate reality bathed in hindsight but changing decisions taken in 1999 or whenever? You are quick to moan, quick to invent alternate realities, but refuse to deal with the situation we find ourselves in today.
As for the F-35B, of course it’s dead to us now, I only mentioned it in passing as a wry comment on how the procurement process is all about PR as much as engineering.
If you don’t give a stuff about our industrial involvement in F-35 then either learn to give a stuff or just don’t bother commenting on the relative economics of F-35. The £5bn or so HMG will be making out of BAE’s involvement alone looms pretty large in any sensible analysis of the economics of F-35 versus alternatives.
@ACC I read the Russians handing over avionics to the Indians as more to do with them hoping to get their mitts on Western technology via our tech transfers to the Indians. And of course, these days most of the cost is in the software, MiG wouldn’t be the first company to outsource software development to India. I’m sure it’ll come out OK, but probably not in the timescale that the Russians would like….
@John Hartley – first you have to ask the question – will we ever want to make 200 hits on a country on our own? Strategy should dictate procurement, not the other way round. Personally I don’t think this is a repeat of the 1930s – economically it’s much closer to the 1870s. Which would imply that there could be a “world war” in a generation’s time, but the nascent hyperpower will largely stay out of it and let the old powers destroy each other. I’m relatively relaxed about 2011-2020, but 2031-40 scares the bejesus out of me for all sorts of reasons.
@Mark – on UAV costs, the RAF paid the US about $107m each for their Reapers, which seems to include most engineering support costs but ??not “RAF” costs like pilot salaries and the Skynet bandwidth??? So the through-life costs are similar to a Hawk or Gripen.
@DominicJ and others. On the whole “not our fault if bad guys hide near civvies” – it’s not, but the need to reduce civvy casualties has been a driving force of a lot of NATO’s weapons development recently. That means reducing warhead sizes and putting a man in the loop to satisfy ROE – hence things like Viper Strike with a 1kg warhead (see page 2 of this presentation for blast zones), and dual-mode Brimstone. On the other hand, if you’ve decided you’re throwing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at someone, then you’re properly at war. However, even then you may still care about the civvy population, qv GW2.
@Jimsw – I’ll say it again, F/A-18′s cost the Aussies US$100m, or US$205m lifetime cost. Serial production of F-35′s won’t be nearly double that.
Hey guys,
This could be another crazy idea by me but according to wiki there are about 700 USN F4′s lying around at the boneyard. Im guessing most of them are gonna have very few cat n trap cycles left in them. How about we do a deal on them (lets face it there are 700 of them, they cant cost that much) do a basic systems upgrade (i mean basic) and then just fly them till they fall apart then dump them for some more. If we could get 24 f-35c for the navy and at least 24 f-4′s, we could form 3 carrier air wings each with 16 planes (8 of each). It pads out the CVF’s a bit more and those 4 extra planes may come in useful. Or we get enough F4′s to man the carriers and 1x 12 plane squadron of f-35c’s for the navy which they can cycle pilots through so that we can deploy a squadron for alpha stike if its needed.
This is not a permanant fix but it might make the carriers more “economical” and give us breathing room to work out the fighter situation, i.e. buy something, because as I see it, it is going to be very hard to have a Joint Force Lightning with CATOBAR (there will be a need for dedicated Navy pilots and planes).
@ TMCM – Hmmmm, if we added modular upgrades to the cockpit and used pods for sensors, etc, we could give them a reasonable up to date capability which we could remove and give to the next airframe when we burned through the last one.
Could we also do this with other ex-USN aircraft? I’ve suggested the Viking already but what about others; any F-14′s hanging about? Blue Vixen radar from Sea Harrier, some meteors, RAPOTOR pods, etc.
I’m going to stop being crazy now and go to bed…
@ Gareth – i did consider sugesting the tomcat, however from what i can find online they are getting/have been chopped up to stop the iranians getting spare parts. Which is a shame as they were good aircarft not long retired.
While it would be terrible idea to invest in developing the Sea Typhoon, Eurofighter seem to be pushing it outside of the pitch to India.
http://www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-carrier-version-under-development-31926/
If anything it reads like it is preparing the ground for the UK to announce we are going to develop the Sea Typhoon.
El Sid
I am not saying the UK would choose to launch 200 precision hits. Clearly the mood is anti war. So it was in 1938. How the crowds cheered when Mr Chamberlain held up his piece of paper.
We may have a war thrust on us.
I hope Egypt gets liberal democracy with rule of law, but what if the Moslem Brotherhood take over & want to avenge 1956 by attacking British bases in Cyprus?
Egypt has quite an arsenal, all those F-16s.
Unlikely, but not impossible.
Who knows the future?
I still think 2015-20 may be dodgy as the fall out from the credit crunch hits the fan.
A naval Typhoon would give us one common aircraft save on spare parts etc. Its a good idea so under typical MoD procurement practices it will take another 15 years to develop and then be dropped for 10 of the the new U.S.N stealth attack UAV/Manned space orbital fighter due in service in 2040
Harltey;
Not tomention the impacts of accellerated climate change… I think the main flashpoint in the region to come will be over resources; water most likely. The River Jordon in that area is already vastly reduced…and the amount of military hardware in the region is pretty massive… and so are the numbers of people wanting said reducing resources… but I cant see us embroiled into that conflict unless Cyprus is affected; which reminds me…the lobby for the UK to hand over the Soverign territories there is still alive, but I cant see armed conflict there involving us brits…and I am sure the Mulsim brotherhood have bigger priorities in the region than to try and kick britania… (lol wouldn’t they also target the french too then?)
And jesus! El Sid, you’ve got the award for the longest reply on TD!
Lloyd George would have liked Britain to sit out the First World War. Chamberlain tried to avoid the second. Korea mucked up UK industry post war recovery. Nobody wanted UK troops stuck in NI. Argentina was deemed unlikely to invade the Falklands. Most countries were wrongfooted by Iraq invading Kuwait.
Grandly saying we see no threat, soon falls apart when the bullets fly.
Britain’s entry in the Great War was due to Germany’s invasion of Belgium – we couldn’t have Germany in control of the Channel ports (you can the problems we had in WW2 with the fall of France). One idea I heard which I think deserves study was the suggestion we should have sent the combined fleets and the BEF in to the Baltic and performed a amphibious landing on the German Baltic coast. We would have lost many ships and men to the German High seas fleet, U-boats and Mines and the initial landings may well have been contained as in the Med but if successful Germany would have found itself fighting on three fronts, possibly shortening the war and avoiding more loss of life that occurred later. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing and yes it may well have ended in disaster but it would have played to our strengths, which we should do today.
Crazy rant over, sorry for the tangent…
Tubby
Thanks for that link. I am quite surprised, as we have discussed a SeaPhoon before, many times, and I have always been in the “too expensive to even countenance” camp.
However, apart from the obvious caveat that the link is basically Eurofighter marketing, it does suggest it might not be overly expensive, and this is what I find most interesting.
Thrust to weight ratio seems to be key to the ski-ramp take off capability. They say they have done lots of simulations, and of course its easy to build a ski jump type ramp on an airfields runway and test it for real.
More interesting are the two assertions about arrested landing:
1. Thrust vectoring engines can be used to further reduce landing speed. Well the TVN version of the Eurojet engine has always been part of the pre-planned growth, and as the article notes they are on the test stand now. So how long before they could be airborne in a test aircraft and used to validate any simulations would be key.
2. Typhoon airframe is strong and robust thanks to 9G maneuvering requirements. They are suggesting it might not take much airframe strengthening to achieve an arrested landing capability (although they don’t mention strengthened undercarriage at all).
If these assertions are in fact based on solid engineering ‘truth’ rather than pure marketing BS, it MIGHT not be too expensive to develop a carrier based variant. I based that on what we might end up paying for the ‘first day of the war” stealth capability of the F35.
Of course, if development of the carrier variant seals the deal with India, for both the land based MMRCA programme and an Indian Naval variant, then it becomes even more interesting……
SeaPhoon on the QE – maybe not so far fetched after all…..?
I think the F-35C will be a great carrier strike aircraft, but I doubt its abilities as an air defence fighter. That is why I took the unpopular position of wanting a few more agile F-35B in a mixed fleet.
Now however, a dream QE airgroup might be Seaphoon air defence fighters & F-35C attack jets. A modern version of the Phantom/Buccaneer combo of the old Ark Royal.
@ Jed,
I am still not a fan of the Sea Typhoon and I think there is a lot of risk and this usually means lots of costs involved, but if it is true that it would be easy to develop the Sea Typhoon and it really can take off a STOBAR carrier with full payload then it could be the answer we are looking for.
After all if it works we would not need to spend a fortune modifying QE and PoW, all we would need to do add arresting cables. No EMAL/EMCAT means no dedicated crew to operate it, and keeps the air crew numbers close to the original STOL carrier. Plus a ski ramp and arresting cable can be set up an airfield and I imagine training on them is reasonably close to carrier operations. On top of this there is apparently 95% commonality between Sea Typhoon and a Typhoon, which means that the operational costs would be lower, and converting between types for the RAF would be cheaper and easier as well.
Of course, even if the article says that the Sea Typhoon could take off with a full load of fuel and weapons I cannot believe that the current 7,500 kg payload of the Typhoon would not drop by around 500 – 750 kg due to structural strengthening, and payload & range may be key in our choice of future fighter.
When I hear Seaphoon mentioned it just sends alarm bells off in my head no matter what the marketing people say. I cant recall any land based jet successfully re-roled to be a carrier aircraft many have gone the other way though. With Typhoon ive always consider the canards to be in the wrong place for carrier landing and I dont necessarily think thrust vectoring will improve the situation enough. Carrier aircraft also tend to have deeper wing roots to take the bigger landing gear loads. If BAE are serious they should put their money where their mouth is and self develop a couple of aircraft and test them before 2015. I thought the Indian deal was important for uk before it may now define the UK fast jet inventory for the next 20 years.
@ Mike
Did you hear that the Italians have declared a state of emergency because of the influx of Tunisians?
It started me thinking that perhaps in a year or twos time the southern shore of the Med will be hostile territory.
The generals in Egypt say they will honour the peace treaty with Israel, but who knows what the future will bring.
@ Mark,
Just read the latest link under “Updates and Links of Interest” that TD kindly posts for us, and it seems that Eurojet is putting it’s money where it’s mouth is with regard to TVN, so that is roughly half the work done, as they will need to update the FCS for TVN. So all BAE needs to do is strengthen the airframe and incorporate the changes to the FCS for the change in weight and centre of gravity.
@ Tubby
That is an interesting piece if it provides reduced operating cost and longer life that is good news as the engine maintenance is a large part of any aircraft’s thru life cost. That would suggest they have a business case even if there isn’t a naval version.
BAE on the other hand only have a business case for modifying the aircraft structure if they feel confident they can sell them to someone. Its also remains to be seen if they can do the mod to an existing development aircraft or would they have to take one off the production line and mod it during build if they decided to do it. So for me Ill be more convinced when/if bae move forward with there bit.
IIRC the Yanks built a Canard, thrust vectoring F-15 which could land within 500m and had a landing speed of 25mph.
That of course was clean; return load will increase the speed/landing distance but even so it would be a lot easier and less of a strain on the aircraft when trapping on a carrier.
BAE – the company which argued that upgrading the Nimrod to MRA4 would be a straightforward and affordable task….
The Sea Typhoon is simply a pipecream in the minds of BAe whose spin machine is desparately trying to drum up exports. The only remotely possible buyer is India and with many more semsible and existing platforms available I cannot see them opting for it.
Given the present and future level of defence spending in the UK any national programme is quite simply unaffordable.
The F-35 is starting to look more and more like a stepping stone for the USN. At present they are only buying around 250 F-35C to replace the legacy Hornets and are turning their attention to hte next platform aimed at replacing the F-18E/F down the road. In fact they appear to be more than happy to keep the Super Hornet production line running to ensure force levels are maintained and to cover any delays etc with the F-35C. It is quite possible the F-18E production line will be running for at least another ten years, and the platform will continue to be developed. If is therefore a very viable alternative for the RN in lieu of the F-35C.
I have said it before but the RAF needs to stop fixating on the F-35 and concentrate its efforts on bringing the Typhoon fleet up to full capability and if possible increase the delivery rate. It needs to seriously look at retaing at least 2 squadrons of the earlier batch, to stand QRA at Leuchars and the Falkland. These need not be A2G capable but need theor A2A capabilites fully realised. This would allow the 5 batch 2 and 3 standard squadrons to provide an effective multi/swing role force.
The USAF needs the F-35A to replace its ageing F-16 fleet, though whether it is the right platform to replace the A-10 I have my doubts. In fact I can see the old Worthog soldiering on well past the next decade though mainly in the hands of teh ANG and AFRES. Arguements could be made for additional purchases of the F-15E but the USAF is already looking at its next major programme which will be it new long range bomber which hopefully will not repeat the past and curretn problems they have had with large high technology programmes.
For the USMC the F-35B is life or death for their independant fixed wing airpower. However the powers that be seem to be of the opinion that the USMC will not conduct over the beach assaults anymore and so are re-evaluating many of its current programmes. This also extends to whether the USMC actually needs and independant fixed wing branch or if rotary assets are sufficent in operations on a scale that do not require the presence of a Carrier Group. As with all decisions they will be doing a risk assessment which will hopefully be more logical than our recent SDSR. Remember the funds for the USMC come from the USN’s overall budget and as will all services these are tight and if the F-35B begins to have an impact on other priorities then its existance is uncertain. This will leave the Italian and possibly Spanish navies without a replacement shipbourne fixed wing platform so they will have to retain their Harriers, but as the USMC will probably retain a Harrier FOrce though on a smaller scale, supporting these should not be an issue. In fact it is amazing what can be done to an old platform to keep it relevant, just look what the RAF did with the Jaguar in the 1990′s when previously it had be thought irrelevant in the modern environment. There could be new life in theis legacy platform if funds are made available.
The F-35 programme has promised much but delivered very little. The PR hype that has surrounded the programme has almost become a rope on witch it still may hang itself. LM are going to have to really pull its socks up and take a financial hit on an unprecidented scale to keep all three versions alive. Alternatively it might decide that the ‘A’ variant is the only one that is commercially viable and with it being the one with the lowest rick and furthest developement, the powers that be could agree. After all this is the variant with by far the largest prospective order book
“Pipecream” was a Freudian slip but probably still applicable to the mindset of the BAe Spin Doctors and Sales Team
I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere recently (I see a lot of military news, and only note that which directly concerns me) that the USMC is already looking at an improved version of the AV-8B, presumably as a fall-back in case the F-35B goes TU.
Presumably if Eurofighter wanted to build a demonstrator for the Sea Typhoon using their own moeny, it would require not only BAE to pony up cash, but EADS and Alenia, as the construction of various elements of the Typhoon are built by EADS and Alenia.
@ Tony Williams
Last year Boeing revealed at Farnbourgh that they had as yet disclosed aircraft in late stages of development. Most people assumed it was UCAV, but I harbored a hope that it was company funded demonstrator for new build harrier, so fingers crossed what you read is true.
The problem with a SeaPhoon/F35C AA/Strike mix or – more realistically – a SeaGripen/F35C mix is a small complement of aircraft with different engines/radars/sensors to maintain. Oh, and we are skint.
I’d rather buy second-hand Ozzie F-18E/F for refuellers/Growlers in the next decade. Once they have bought the Lightning IIs of course.
Regarding Civvie Casualties.
In my view, the first goal, is to win the war, once thats done, we look at winning the war with minimal UK casualties, once thats done, we look at winning the war with minimal enemy casualties.
We dont minimise the deaths of the enemy civil populace, and then figure out if we can win or not.
The UK is very unlikely to be fighting an enemy that hides in hospitals, and its unlikely we would care about the consequences if we were.
I certainly agree nations like Israel have other concerns.
not wishing to fuel the seaphoon debate, up until last week i thought it was an absolute no goer. However sent a link to TD yesterday and it was BAe’s stand at aero india and it had a model of a naval typhoon, points to note they had designed the conformal tanks and changed the wing tips etc. So it seems they have done some R&D.
They claim it can fire off a ski ramp fully loaded with fuel and weapons, question i find myself asking is, would the cost of thrust vectoring nozzles and strengthened airframes/undercarriage factor out over F35c plus spares, plus training and £800million for EMCATS. link for photos and info here
http://defense-update.com/wp/20110210_naval_typhoon.html
The 3rd generation of the Eurofighter engine with afterburners going would have a power to weight ratio of under 1 even if the Eurofighter was at its maximum take off weight.
So it can fly verticaly, if my understanding of flight is correct anyway.
The Tornado has a ratio of over 2, which probably explains why it struggle to ever take off.
However, I thought landing was always the bigger problem than taking off?
Take off is always just a matter of more power or less weight.
Sadly, it sounds like conventional Eurofighters cant be converted
I see that the Spaniards are in the process of upgrading their AV-8B Harriers, with a new version of the Pegasus engine, an NVG-compatible cockpit, a new HUD, and improved communications, navigation and targeting systems.
@Tony – sounds like their version of GR9A, CUP etc?
@El Sid, could be, I don’t know the details of our upgrades.
Please do not put any weight behind BAe showing off a “Model” of a naval Typhoon. Every arms fair has hundreds of models on display of proposals that companies belive may find a market supported by literature and statements. The Seaphoon will never get off the drawing board as the only real potential customer is India and they are already spoilt for choice with probably a further order for the Mig 29 and or LCA(N) for their initially STOBAR carriers and then either the F-35 or naval T-50 for the follow on CATOBAR hulls. THe Rafale and F-18E could also be in the mix. Though also a paper plane at present a naval T-50 in in the game as;
1. The IAF will be operating a variant of the land based version.
2. India is investing in the developement of the T-50.
3. Russia is interested in a Naval T-50 to operate from its planned new carriers.
Now the same could be same regarding the UK nad the Typhoon except we do not have the money to invest in such a programme and the powers that be are fixated on getting the latest US toys so even if the F-35 was cancelled we would probably end up with the F-18 as would the USN, with a small chance of us jining our new best friends the French and buy the Rafale to operate as part of a joint strike group.
Some interesting comparative cost info included in these two reports:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/122579/pentagon-budget-request-confirms-jsf-cost-explosion.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/122581/indian-prime-minister-may-force-us-fighters-on-reluctant-air-force.html
To summarise:
F-35A: $110 million
F-35B: $150 million
F-35C: $139.5 million
F/A-18E/F: $86 million
Dassault Rafale and Typhoon – upwards of $100 million each
These are current “flyaway costs” and do not include development or support costs.
Obviously, they also take no account of the extra development and construction costs which would be involved in a “Seaphoon”. Once these are added in it would possibly be no cheaper than the F-35C.
Lord Jim
Just a thought, how would development of a Seaphoon cost?
$6bn?
Because thats what India is expecting to put into the Russian Potemkim Village Future Aircraft.
We’ve already designed the Typhoon, if India carries on with the Seaphoon, they can have commonality that way.
Shame we chopped up Nimrod, we could’ve just given them the fucking things to India to sweeten the pot.
And lets face it, no one likes the Russians.
Just came across this whilst looking for news on the carriers/JSF etc.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d887f56-3a2c-11e0-a441-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EMuvwCT7
Call me young and very sceptical but doesn’t this now me that the f-35 is now, (well) over-budget, locked sorce code, few british weapons integrated to save money and now less industrial benifits. Surely we should now be seriously considering putting the F-35 firmly in the nice to have group.
In my opinion let the RAF be an all typhoon force. Push back the small buy of JSF and cap it at 40 (that includes spares) to allow the navy to carry out first day strike and find the FAA something else to fly off the CVF’s. Be it, Grippen, Seaphoon, Super Hornet, reconditioned Phantoms, etc. Its time we start to shop around for some good deals.
Mintcake
Rolls royce is actually involved with both engines though granted to a much smaller extent on the f135 than with the f136 engine. So not quite as bad as the piece makes out. As for the source code thing this is somewhat over blown. We have equipment currently flying that has significant US restrictions on it but is never mentioned with anything like the same fever.
But in the end of the day american tax payers are prepared to fund high tech defence programs we in this country are not. This will only get worse the more off the shelf we buy. So we get what we get.
I agree the jsf should be navy only but the idea of introducing another smaller fleet would be cost prohibitive.
Surely we should be a bit annoyed over the source code, as while it true that US taxpayers have funded most of the development costs, as tier one partners our outlay has not been inconsiderable and we paid thinking we were getting the source code, and now we are not. I for one would not buy F-35 just on that principal, the F-35 programme is more about the US Government assisting their aerospace industry to deliver a knock out blow to European aerospace industry than it is about anything else.
Tubby
This aircraft will be the most computer software intensive we’ve ever designed. What there talking about if I understand it is we will have a UK team of software people in the US doing any modifications in an overall JSF software team. There will not be a team in the UK or any other country doing it independently. While you could argue its not ideal we are now so interlinked with the US in other ISTAR, intelligence and pilot training I dont see this a huge problem. They cant flick a button and stop it working! As for development for the small but not insignificant amount we have contribute to the program we are getting a larger work share than we ever did from any multi-national program we could have also had a final assembly line but choose not too a sign of the future I think. European civil and heli aerospace is now probably superior to the US in most areas we just dont invest much in it in the UK.
DominicJ
The so called Seaphoon is a complete non starter on a Catobar carrier,it has been offered to the Indian Navy to fly only off carriers equipped with a ski jump.
At the presentation the BAE spokesman stated clearly that to re-design it for cat launch would add too much weight and ‘if that is the case then we are out of the game’
Hi Mark,
The main problem with not getting the source code is that we have to use LM to integrate weapons and other bits of kit. I bet good money that we pay over the odds to integrate what we want to use, and have to hand over information we like to keep to ourselves to LM and the US government to do so. I sure the US governments mantra is going to be buy American. At the same time there is no guarantee we will get access to the same upgrade path as the US. All in all it is a sh!t deal designed to hurt European defence interests more than anything else. I could just about stomach the F-35B as STOL carriers made sense, but as we are going F-35C I think it is time to kick F-35 programme into touch.
I would definitely be thinking of getting out of this project as I think I have mentioned in the past. It is not great VFM, we are locked into the US way of doing things, the F35′s stealth will be overcome by new technology.
I am torn between the FA18E/F and the Rafale. The former means being locked into the US still, albeit at lower cost. The Rafale is not so cheap, but still cheaper than the F35 and gives us commonality with the French. I’d love the Gripen but it is not yet available and the Typhoon, though giving the best commonality (an all-Typhoon/Seaphoon Fast Jet Fleet) would probably end up being most expensive than the F35.
If we decide we do need the F35, lets buy it in a decade when the bugs are ironed out and the unit costs are hopefully cheaper.
Always had a soft spot for the Phantom…. seriously – as a missile platform, new off the shelf avionics, (plenty of refurb packages around) and would certainly be good enough for air defence of the fleet!
I feel we need a new name for the proposed sea-Typhoon; seaphoon not doing it for me… What about Tempest? Or even Hurricane?
George,
I think there are only two logical choices, these being the F-18E/F and the Rafale you mentioned. I’m sure the F-18 offered to India featured the large, touch screen avionics fit similar to that on the F-35. I’m quite sure the technologies the F-35 features could be easily grafted onto/into a 4th generation fighter and give it some 5th generation capabilities long before we see the F-35 over hostile territory. I agree that we should forget the F-35 till its ready, and possibly wait for the F-35D/E/F that will replace it on the production line shortly afterwards.
As for the Phantom, the Israeli’s tried it with the Kurnass 2000, I believe the overall mods made it cost prohibitive compared with buying new. For all its faults, its still in service, not bad for a fighter that first flew in 1960!
Mike 2.
True, but I dont see the problem, ski jumps are cheaper than Cats.
My Big Concern remains getting the thing to land again afterwards.
The stage 2 engines should have a thrust of 27,000lbf with after burners.
Two Engines gives 54,000lbf
Max Take off weight is 51,800lbs
Now, my understanding of flight is extremely sketchy, but I’m fairly sure that means it can fly verticaly, so a take off from a 300m flight deck with a ski jump doesnt sound hard, let alone out of the question.
But as I said, flight is a bit of a grey area in my reading.
Landing it, sounds like more of a problem, becase Traps require a specialy built under carriage.
@ Dominic – my knowledge of flight is also sketchy but I believe with thrust vectoring and canards a Sea-phoon (need a better name…)or Sea-Grippen can land at extremely slow speeds. IIRC the US built an experimental F-15 with TV/canards which could land as slow as 25mph. Obviously carrying back a weapon/fuel load would increase this speed but if the carrier is steaming at roughly 30kts in to the wind, the relative speed is still low. You will still need a tail hook/arrester wire set up but it will be less strain of the airframe/undercarriage… I think… please correct if I’m completely wrong…
I know the land grippen is set up for short field performance, but even that was 800metres.
But if you can mess about with where the engines pointing, maybe.
I did posit an 800metre Carrier deck once, but no one thought it was sensible…
Dominic,
I believe the key to the design is the thrust-vectoring engines, which will have a big impact on landing speeds as well as take-off distances. As for the landing, BAE mentioned that the undercarriage and structure would be strengthened as part of the mods. Is a folding wing included?
Hi Gareth, Richard, Dominic,
@Richard – yeah the Phantom was slightly tongue in cheek, but I did know that the Israelis (and the Turks too) had done some significant upgrades. I guess there are not that many airframes with a significantly large number of hours left anyway.
I agree that you could get most of the benefits of the F35 on an F18E/F – the lastest work on a “Silent” Super Hornet by Boeing shows there is some mileage left in it.
@ Dominic and Richard, I can’t see the point in thinking about buying aircraft that don’t exist. It would be nice for a change to buy something that is proven and we aren’t being Beta testers for (Sorry showing my IT background there).
The one exception I might make would be for a Harrier III – there would be a market for that, especially if the F35B goes belly up and we could actually make some money exporting it.
A report in the Telegraph:
The [British] Ministry of Defence is spending almost £400 million on three fighter jets that will never enter British service.
Britain is paying £389m to buy the F-35B jump jets even though last year’s defence review ruled that the Armed Forces did not need vertical take-off and landing fighters.
Ministers are still engaged in a last-ditch attempt to alter the contract with the United States that obliges Britain to buy the aircraft. The Strategic Defence and Security Review last year scrapped Labour plans to buy F-35B aircraft for the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers.
Instead, ministers said they would buy the F-35C “carrier variant” aircraft. David Cameron said the conventional take-off plane was “more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons”.
Britain’s new carriers will be designed for conventional aircraft, meaning there is no need for jump jet capabilities. However, the Coalition is still spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the new fighters that will take part in “test and evaluation” exercises in the US.
Three F-35Bs will be bought despite a desperate attempt by the Government to renegotiate the sale contract to buy at least one C-variant jet. Lockheed, one of the US defence contractors building the F-35, revealed in December that the MoD had asked if the third jet order could be switched so that the UK would buy a C-variant aircraft instead of the jet.
Sources said British ministers were still negotiating with the US government over the third jet. Lord Astor of Hever, a defence minister, told peers that the UK had no choice but to spend millions on jump jets but insisted they would still be valuable.
He said: “While we are committed to procuring three F-35B aircraft, at a total of $632 million, to conduct joint test and evaluation with the US armed forces, we will gain substantial benefit from operating these aircraft as a part of the F-35C programme.” Britain’s participation in the test exercises was “vital” to the delivery of the F-35C aircraft, he said.
If the USMC goes ahead and buys the F-35B, do we recoup any of development costs through sales as a partner nation?
George
India is currently mulling contributing $6bn to Russias PAK-FA
We’d be mad not to at least offer the SeaPhoon, if nothing else, its far closer to reality than the PAKFA.
TW
Classic.
GJ
Nar, I like SeaPhoon.
Really, Typhoon shouldnt have a maritime name…
If you’ll pardon my blasphemous flourish, Christ on a tricycle…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/10/pol-pbo-page-fighterjet.html
Dominic,
I dunno, Tempest sounds good. Won’t happen though. Better well-armed strike UAVs with crabs on joysticks plus cheap-but-versatile in FAA hands. Former could be son-of-Taranis, though.
Hi DJ,
Let’s keep the terminology “on the road”:
The procurement part is “India is currently mulling contributing $6bn to Russias PAK-FA”
When the joint development intention was announced, the gap from first flying prototype to production was put at $800m – and no formula how to share it.
A quarter of the year later India’s contribution was published as $500m. I bet it was agreed 50/50 and the 800m had turned into a bn in that short time. May be the electronics spec was upped (as that is the part where India will be the lead)
- 4 eyes on something always see better than just two ( a solid internal control principle, obviously discarded in all UK procurement projects, or is it the “revolving doors” principle which blurs the eye sight?)
A statement from the head of the US Government Accountability Office:
DOD continues to restructure the JSF program, taking positive, substantial actions that should lead to more achievable and predictable outcomes. Restructuring has consequences–higher up-front development costs, fewer aircraft bought in the near term, training delays, and extended times for testing and delivering capabilities to warfighters.
Total development funding is now estimated at $56.4 billion to complete in 2018, a 26 percent cost increase and a 5-year schedule slip from the current baseline.
DOD also reduced procurement quantities by 246 aircraft through 2016, but has not calculated the net effects of restructuring on total procurement costs nor approved a new baseline.
Affordability for the U.S. and partners is challenged by a near doubling in average unit prices since program start and higher estimated life-cycle costs. Going forward, the JSF requires unprecedented funding levels in a period of more austere defense budgets.
The program had mixed success in 2010, achieving 6 of 12 major goals and progressing in varying degrees on the rest. Successes included the first flight of the carrier variant, award of a fixed-price aircraft procurement contract, and an accelerated pace in development flight tests that accomplished three times as many flights in 2010 as the previous 3 years combined.
However, the program did not deliver as many aircraft to test and training sites as planned and made only a partial release of software capabilities.
The short takeoff and landing (STOVL) variant had significant technical problems and deficient flight test performance. DOD directed a 2-year period to evaluate and engineer STOVL solutions.
After more than 9 years in development and 4 in production, the JSF program has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable, manufacturing processes are mature, and the system is reliable.
Engineering drawings are still being released to the manufacturing floor and design changes continue at higher rates than desired. More changes are expected as testing accelerates.
Test and production aircraft cost more and are taking longer to deliver than expected.
Manufacturers are improving operations and implemented 8 of 20 recommendations from an expert panel, but have not yet demonstrated a capacity to efficiently produce at higher production rates. Substantial improvements in factory throughput and the global supply chain are needed.
Development testing is still early in demonstrating that aircraft will work as intended and meet warfighter requirements. About 4 percent of JSF capabilities have been completely verified by flight tests, lab results, or both.
Only 3 of the extensive network of 32 ground test labs and simulation models are fully accredited to ensure the fidelity of results.
Software development–essential for achieving about 80 percent of the JSF functionality–is significantly behind schedule as it enters its most challenging phase.
http://defensetech.org/2011/03/16/design-flaw-may-have-caused-f-35-generator-failure/
USMC buying a number of F-35C’s as well as B’s, looks like insurance to me!
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/03/us-marine-corps-to-become-2nd.html
Hi all
Just thought i’d add this bit of info i read off the Guardian website (dont know what there reputation is for accurate sources). Apparently the F-35c wont be in service with the FAA until 2023 based on new whitehall business plan.
Time to kick the F-35c on to the back burner? Id sooner spend money and time trying to design a new CAS/Light fighter (CAS for RAF and strike / AD for the FAA) that is carrier capable. Nothing fancy and nothing stealthy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/13/delayed-aircraft-carrier-lack-jets?INTCMP=SRCH
Hi MCM,
I would not worry to much, the Guardian article insists the QE will be mothballed, yet while they have not decided finally most of the info that has come into the public domain suggests it will be PoW which is the carrier entered into extended readiness – so I do not believe Guardian has any better inside track than anyone else.
We need fighterbombers in service, in quantity & quality.
I am not fussed if they are F-35/Typhoon or Gripen. Just as long as we have them.
I note the prototype F-35A tested the arrester hook. Given the F-35c undercarriage, could the F-35A operate from carriers? Its airframe & internal gun make it a better dogfighter.
The Guardian have produced a dire bit of defence reporting with that F35C 3 years late story.
Here’s the 2011 report just released
http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/MOD-Business-Plan1.pdf
And here’s 2010′s version
http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/MOD-Business-Plan.pdf
As can be seen on page 9 of both reports, the start date for procurement of F35C was 2010-11 and the ‘end’ date 2023. Nothings changed.
The Guardian just thinks we were going to get 50 aircraft all at once and that 2023 is an ISD!
@JH,
The modifications to the F-35C are all intended to make it more suitable for carrier ops: not just the hook and the stronger undercarriage (plus presumably the fuselage strengthening to support them), but the bigger flying surfaces to drop the landing/take-off speeds and improve low-speed controllability.
Interesting comments on this DM article from one Graham in High Wycombe.
“We are working with the US on an API that will allow the UK to maintain full operational sovereignty. This is the same as the Israeli’s are getting for the F-35I and they would not accept anything less than full operational sovereignty.
Although we have only ordered three F-35B (With negotiations currently to convert the last to a CV model) it seems common knowledge plans are a likely purchase of up to 40 in a first tranche that will allow the RAF to have a single large (18-20 a/c) squadron around 2017/18 (The RAF are planning around that according to AVM Bagwell) followed by a NAS (800 probably) in 2019. By ordering a second tranche later it is expected that unit costs will be lower. I would expect that if all goes well the second tranche could be for around a similar number of units.
The first tranche would need to be ordered before the 2015 SDSR to achieve these in service dates I think that what Nick Harvey is stating is that the ‘overall’ or total numbers that the UK will operate will be decided in the future SDSR and thus whether and if so how many would need to be ordered in a second tranche…
it has to be a joint force operated by both the RAF and the FAA with aircraft shared in a joint force structure it will allow fewer aircraft to be purchased as maintenance will be shared as aircraft are rotated through both the RAF and FAA. To achieve the same as we can with 80 odd F-35C we would have to buy 100+ of a mix of F-35A and F-35C…
The RAF also prefers the F-35C as it is longer range while offering the same payload as the F-35A…
he E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is the obvious choice agreed but If we do purchase it then I can’t see more than 5 ordered with 4 deployed on the carrier and a spare.
That is not likely to be decided until the 2015 SDSR and could even end up waiting for the 2020 SDSR leaving the carrier with no AEW for several years. Hopefully the earlier SDSR will make a decision to purchase it.”
Also, from the article itself :
“I wish there was just a little bit more money to meet the challenge that I now have, alongside the Chief of the Air Staff,” said Admiral Stanhope. “Regenerating carrier strike in 10 years time clearly is major challenge.”
Sir Mark said the gap meant the UK faced “a long period of getting back into the saddle again”, but that three naval pilots were ‘in the pipeline’ to train on US F18 aircraft, with a fourth soon to arrive.
That number was described as “sufficient” to regenerate the capability in the long run under plans drawn up by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
The committee also heard that the Royal Air Force would operate around 60 per cent of the Joint Strike Fighters from the carrier, but the suggestion that there were plans to do away with the Fleet Air Arm altogether was strongly denied.”
El Sid, thanks for the update… sounds very sensible.
This 138 number that still sometimes pops up is in the inter-governmental agreement. It is merely options/ time priority between participants, and each production slot actually taken up needs to be confirmed two years prior.
- giving up “too many” will raise hell, but nobody knows the threshold for “too many”
I think well buy between 90-107 f35. Why same as typhoon If you take that out the typhoon 2 seaters. That would leave 5x 12a/c of jsf 3 RAF 2 navy think that 60- 40 split
I think well buy between 90-107 f35.
I don’t think it will be that high, there’s a really big problem at the MoD with budgets. I read the PM has delayed more projects therefore pushing up the cost in the future. 2 Sqns are the best, I think, will be the most we could buy, at best.
there have been hearing in the US today on the F35. Of which there was some interesting info on costs ect. CAPE say the cost of a F35 in 2011 dollars will be $113m this has stayed steady with 2008 forecasts. They expect the F35 to cost the same to operate as the F15C and more the the F16 and F18. They also say that theyre first run thru of total program life cycle costs comes too $1tr for the program but they dont expect anyone to pay that and will reduce it by 30-50%.
Test aircraft are still not meeting the reliablity as quickly as they hoped, design changes are still taking place and software progress remains an area of concern.
The pentagon also says no additional legacy fighter purchases are required for the US to maintain there fighter requirements. The current gap is now manageable due to greater life in the F16 fleet and the additional 41 F18 purchase announced early last year.
Interesting info guys
@ Topman
Totally agree with you I can’t see us buying 90 to 107 jets. Which means we are slightly b*ggered when it comes to keeping 12 a/c permanently onboard the active QEC, if it is still going to be a 40:60 split FAA:RAF. If that is the case we need 90 just so the FAA can have 36. Let’s just let the RAF have the super sexy, super fast pointy things, but retain the ability if we need to, to have them deployed off the carrier and instead buy EJ200 powered HAL Tejas for a cheap point defence/CAP solution (especially if it sways the Indians towards the typhoon) and buy, like Jed suggested, some S-3′s or A-6 from the boneyard for cheap and cheerful strike.
Just read on Reuters that the F-35 maybe facing issues with its combat radius, possibly being up to 15% less than what was previously expected. I also noticed that they seem to think that the total cost for 2,443 a/c is going to be $382bn, if that is correct than that works out at about £100m per a/c if my maths is right. Of course if they do manage to then reduce final cost 25% this comes down to £75m per a/c which is still a lot of money for what we actually get, in my honest opinion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/usa-fighter-range-idUSN1320161520110513
I should just add that “Let’s just let the RAF have the super sexy, super fast pointy things” was meant as a joke, nothing more than that.
TMM
If we dont get around 90 F35 we wont have a deployed fastjet capability unless typhoon numbers increase significantly.
Tejas with a new engine is effectively a new plane (the indians would much rather have a typhoon production line) and to reinstate a airworthiness certificated and set up a new logistics effort for a a6 or s3 would be very expensive as theyve been out of service/production a while.
The 2400 a/c is the US total buy this does not include foreign purchases. Range on the A model is down 1% on the design requirement. This is not affecting the C model we are buying and at any rate is twice that of the a/c its replacing.
As for £75m if that is the price its cheaper than the Typhoon and about £10m more than what australia paid for its super hornets in 2008.
MM said “I should just add that “Let’s just let the RAF have the super sexy, super fast pointy things” was meant as a joke, nothing more than that.”
Sound more like a Freudian slip. :)
If we dont get around 90 F35 we wont have a deployed fastjet capability unless typhoon numbers increase significantly.
Spot on, we won’t we never could afford to have to QE with airwings on board plus enough to replace the GR4. The numbers were always unaffordable.
The latest I’ve seen on F35 is that the operational costs are unaffordable at a total cost of $1 trillion and that something has to give
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6560528&c=AME&s=AIR
there are also moves in congress for a plan B from the likes of sen John McCain
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_cha nnel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/05/20/01.xml&headline=Senators Ask For JSF Alternatives
So I don’t think we yet know how F35 will play out and what is afordable
The F-35A has an airframe stessed for higher G, plus an internal gun. It is probably the only true dogfighter of the three.
The F-35C is a great bombtruck, but a fighter? I doubt it.
The much mocked F-35B may be able to operate in conditions that ground the other 2.
Assuming the low Typhoon numbers are right, my back of envelope UK requirement for F-35s would be FAA 22 F-35B (same as Italy) & 38 F-35C. RAF 25 F-35A + 70 F-35C. I also want 10 US Regional bombers for 617sqn RAF.
Is this affordable. Look at the money wasted on foreign aid, EU contributions, Non-jobs, Quangos , snouts in the trough salaries & druggie welfare spongers. The money is there, it is just a question of what we choose to spend it on.
The F-35 has problems, but the Yanks are in to deep to scrap it. Plus the F-35 has superb sensors way beyond most rivals. Much reduced “friendly fire” than the alternatives offered, I think.
Rw
The 1t number was a parametric modelled numbered not lockheed Martin or the pentagon expect to pay anywhere near that they said so to the committee. Thought even if they did it 1t for 3000a/c until 2065 or the same price as an f15c. It’s like saying 4 trident subs will cost us 100b pounds over the same period. John McCain is playing politics nothing more.
John
The c version is at 7.5g same as most naval fighters I don’t think it too bad. Going two version isn’t necessary and helps logistics to stay at 1. Anyway the RAF want a tornado replacement and f35c meets that requirement better than the a version
JH & others
I was watching TV a few weeks ago (the Hitler channel) about the demmise of the armoured night from the european battlefield.
The cause apparantly was not the musket. Viable hand arms had been arround for 100 years before the demise of the knight, and even in Napolionic times the Lead ball had trouble penatrating plate armour.
The cause of demise was cost, it cost a fortune to be a Knight and to maintain all the kit.
The recently discussed longbow was abandoned not because it was not effective but because the training involved made effective archers very expensive.
Q.
Are we reaching the stage where the dedicated Generation 5,6,7 whatever fighter is so expensive that despite its unique cababilities, they are simply too expensive to afford, if not in unit cost to buy, then to run because of it’s unobtanium structure and star trek systems?
Is the F35 the straw that breaks the cammels back?
Ixion
I think the f22 or the b2 would have been the straw that broke the camels back f35 is significantly cheaper than either.
@ JH
I see what you are saying, but we can’t just order aircraft in the vain hope that the things we don’t like will be cut to pay for it all. It’s not the way to run a budget, as the MoD are rapidly finding out.
Perhaps they were.
Entire F22 Buy could (in numbers terms, Yes i Know in terms of size they would not) )be fitted on 1 Essex class WW2 carrier.
B2 requires permission almost up to presidential level because thye don’t want to loose one anywhere awkward.
And they are only available in very small numbers.
Thats in the country that spends the vastly the most on defence.
The dirty secret is that the latest E/F-18 doesn’t really cost that much less per unit than the projections for the F-35.
@Chris.B:
“The dirty secret is that the latest E/F-18 doesn’t really cost that much less per unit than the projections for the F-35.”
One is an actual cost, the other is still a “projection”, and one which has been moving steadily upwards for years. Also, the F-35s will not be as cheap to run.
Care needs to be taken in comparing “unit costs”: not only in terms of whether or not an appropriate share of the development cost has been included, but also, in any particular contract, what is involved in the way of spares, support, training, weaponry.
Mark , IXION, Topman
From memory , F-35A is stressed to 9g, 1.5g more than the other 2.
Price inflation is a problem, but buying something cheap, discovering it does not do the job & having to buy again, is even more expensive. “Buy it once, buy it right” is a phrase never heard at the MoD/Treasury.
Cynic though I am, I am just wondering if some of the hype for the F-35 may be justified. The optical sensors are light years beyond anything a Jaguar/Hunter pilot had. Yes, other parts not so rosy, but lets not knock the good bits.
None of my back of envelope RAF/FAA fantasy fleet would be ordered unless there was a change in political priorities. Not holding my breath, but “events, dear boy, events” may change plans fast.
Here’s an interesting news item: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/125712/saab-to-design-gripen-carrier-variant-in-uk.html
“Global defence and security company, Saab AB will open new UK headquarters and draw on British engineering expertise in a new Saab Design Centre in London.
With 200 employees already based throughout the UK, Saab is preparing to expand its reach into the British defence industry by opening a central London office to co-ordinate all in-country operations.
The opening of the company’s new UK headquarters will be followed by the opening of an engineering design centre. The facility will capitalise on the UK’s maritime jet engineering expertise and is scheduled to open in the late Summer.
Initially staffed by approximately 10 British employees, its first project will be to design the carrier-based version of the Gripen new-generation, multi-role fighter aircraft based on studies completed by Saab in Sweden.”
Going back on-topic – the F-35 seems to have had 6 months of not much bad news, they seem to have been hitting their milestones pretty consistently.
As of a month ago they’d racked up :
F-35A: 331 Total Flights/589.3 Total Flight Hours
F-35B: 406 Total Flights/522.8 Total Flight Hours
F-35C: 71 Total Flights/115.6 Total Flight Hours
plus 100 vertical landings compared to 10 in 2010. ISTR they needed to do 42 before ship trials of the F-35B, which are scheduled on the Wasp in late October/ early November this year. It’s not done vertical takeoffs yet (they’re still ordering the asbestos? :-) ) but has done most of the short landings it needs before ship testing.
The main problem seems to be that the F-35A has slipped below its target range of 600nm, but they seem confident that they can tweak it back over, the F-35B is looking a bit tight on its vertical-lift bring-back payload target but is currently OK. AF-7, the first series production F-35, has been delivered.
“Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35′s performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft’s energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.
“The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly,”…The pace of software development will ultimately dictate when IOC will happen, he said. The first operational F-35Bs will be delivered in 2012 using Block 2B software”…The C-model aircraft has flown supersonic and has performed the first trial hook-ups for the catapult launchers. I think it’s also meant to have its first carrier trials this year.
Norway is currently expecting to pay US$5.71bn for its 56 F-35′s, and US$26.8bn lifetime (US$102m and $479m per aircraft).
The Dutch are having slight wobbles about their participation in F-35, rumour has it that their plan B is to buy a few Gripen NG or similar to tide them over, and then get really heavily into UCAVs based on X-47/Phantom Ray etc.
Drifting off-topic a bit, this is interesting from a recently-retired head of the USAF Air Combat Command talking big-picture stuff. Like a lot of the real insiders, he gets almost more excited about the networking and sensor capabilities of the fifth-gen aircraft than he does about stealth – it’s hard for outsiders to really get a handle on how that kind of thing increases capability, it could just be hype but it does seem a fairly consistent view among those who can be assumed to really know about these things.
Ah – I meant to add, some of what Corley was saying about getting the most out of legacy aircraft doing non-kinetic stuff in support of the F-22/F-35 can be seen in the plans to use the A-10 for electronic attack against IEDs etc.
Sensor fusion equals targetting data without ever having to switch your radar on. The true ambush could be returning to the air war….