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
@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.