Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Navy jet switch to save £10bn

Published: 1 August 2010 Sunday Times London

The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.

It is expected to swap an order for 138 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for a version of a cheaper aircraft currently flown off US carriers, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The cost-saving move was considered at a meeting last weekend between Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and services chiefs to discuss cuts.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” said a senior defence source. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate, and even if we continued with it we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”

The JSF, built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s main American rival, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising. The aircraft were set to replace Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Navy.

F-16.net Sponsor

British newspapers are inundated with leaks from various factions pushing a barrow when these 'defence reviews' are in play. We see various other options below leaked by other factions for various purposes. At some point a decision will be made. There are many other options for public 'dismay' on the web. The story about 'no F-35Bs' is just one of the many options under consideration. The best IMHO is the last one:

RAF Tornado fleet 'faces axe' in bid to save £7.5bn By Katherine Faulkner 30th July 2010

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-7bn.html [and employ some profreders]

"The RAF’s fleet of Tornado jets is expected to be grounded as a result of savage budget cuts imposed on the Ministry of Defence.

Scrapping the 120-strong fleet, which has been a mainstay of the RAF for more than 30 years, would yield cuts of more than £7.5 billion for the MoD, which has been ordered by the treasury to slash its spending by up to 20 per cent.

Grounding the Tornado would save billions more than withdrawing the Harrier jet, which is used by the RAF and Royal Navy, an assessment by the Ministry of Defence revealed.

Scrapping the Harrier Joint Strike Wing, which includes both RAF and Fleet Air Arm squadrons, would yeild(sic) only slightly more than £1 billion, according thot(sic) the internal document, which was leaked to the Times newspaper......
_______________

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Threat-to ... 6440817.jp

Threat to jobs as Harriers plan puts new carriers at risk Date: 27 July 2010 By Andrew Whitaker
_____________________________

Armed forces stunned by Trident bill By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent 31 Jul 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -bill.html

"Defence chiefs have been left stunned and angry by the Treasury's refusal to finance the £20 billion cost of replacing Britain's ageing nuclear deterrent.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Liam Fox, the defence secretary, had assumed that the huge cost of replacing Britain's four ageing Trident submarines would be met by the Government.

In a break with historical precedent, George Osborne, the Chancellor, has ruled that the entire cost of the new system must be found from within the day-to-day defence budget....."
________________

THE BEST! Twisted Evil

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ ... ound.thtml

The RAF is in danger of being destroyed on the ground DAVID BLACKBURN Wednesday, 21st July 2010

"Liam Fox is anticipating the Strategic Defence Review, preparing the
services for what will be extremely bad news. Britain will not engage
in large scale operations in the immediate future. The Telegraph
reports that officials intend to reduce the number of strike aircraft,
warships and tanks. Future strategic emphasis will be on maximising
firepower and range and minimising direct and associated costs.

The service arms have mobilised their writers to prepare a defence.
The Times have hosted a set-to between Air-Vice Marshall Tony Mason
and Major General Julian Thompson. Mason’s argument is simple: warfare
is determined by air superiority. He writes:
‘Since Dunkirk, British Armed Forces have usually fought beneath skies
controlled by friendly aircraft. When they did not, in the Falklands
conflict, surface forces suffered grievous losses. “Command of the
air” is indispensable, and has, for good reason, been recognised as
the primary role of the RAF from its birth.

The RAF is often exposed to ill-informed criticism of the costs of its
aircraft and systems. This overlooks its real operational
cost-effectiveness: its versatility as a multiplier of the power of
other forces on land and sea. The shape and size of the RAF should be
determined by its capacity to contribute at all levels from
counter-insurgency to high-intensity conflict. It will need to control
the skies, attack, provide intelligence and supply airlift over
distances and at speeds unattainable by surface forces.

The Eurofighter Typhoon was conceived in the Cold War, but in its
modern form it guarantees the integrity of British airspace. Overseas,
in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it will enable freedom of movement for
ground forces, while denying similar activities to the opposition. The
costs of the Typhoon are visible, but those who call for its demise
are woefully ignorant of military history and the fate of soldiers and
sailors exposed to enemy air attack. Future opponents won’t allow
airspace to go uncontested.’

That is all true, but you do not need squadrons of expensive strike
aircraft to master the uncontested skies of Afghanistan, or Somalia or
The Yemen. And you certainly do not need an independent command
structure to operate that arm, given that Britain’s strategic needs
have changed since WW2 and the Cold War. That, essentially, is
Thompson’s conclusion. He writes:

‘The nuclear deterrent is a vital part of our defence against a direct
attack; it should remain and be replaced eventually. We will still
need high-quality special forces.

We need a strong and capable Navy to protect our vital interests,
including the 98 per cent of the commodities carried on ships that we
need for our prosperity and indeed our survival. We require carriers,
to avoid being forced to base our aircraft in someone else’s country.
Therefore the aircraft carriers should be built. Because 80 per cent
of the cities in the world and 70 per cent of the population are
situated less than 100 miles from the sea, our Navy needs an
amphibious capability. To quote General Sir David Richards, the next
Chief of the Defence Staff: “You need green and brown water fleets ...
that allow you to reach into ungoverned space and make your presence
felt.” The necessary shipping is already built and paid for and will
last beyond 2030.

We need a light, deployable Army, with a strong Territorial element
capable of home defence. The Army should be structured for deployment
in joint operations with the Navy to deal with specific and defined
terrorist threats from abroad, and threats to dependencies. Tanks and
heavy artillery should be phased out.

The RAF should be abolished, and its aircraft divided between the Navy
and Army. All maritime assets would go to the Navy, including maritime
patrol aircraft, search-and-rescue and helicopters for amphibious
operations. The Navy would take over responsibility for the air
defence of the UK, employing the Joint Strike Fighter. The Army would
take over all troop lift helicopters except those in the amphibious
force, and all transport aircraft. Dispensing with the top structure
of the RAF would make substantial savings.’

Fox recognises that substantial cuts in hardware are undesirable,
especially as most of the money has already been spent on future
orders. Procurement and command structure are more obvious targets for
cuts to deliver cheap armed forces in the long-term."

duplex wrote:

Navy jet switch to save £10bn

Published: 1 August 2010 Sunday Times London

The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.

It is expected to swap an order for 138 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for a version of a cheaper aircraft currently flown off US carriers, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The cost-saving move was considered at a meeting last weekend between Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and services chiefs to discuss cuts.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” said a senior defence source. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate, and even if we continued with it we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”

The JSF, built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s main American rival, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising. The aircraft were set to replace Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Navy.

Pure spin as the UK would then have to almost double the size of their new carriers to handle the super bug. Now that would be expencive.

I'm not sure they would have to change the size so much as put in catapults and pretty much change the whole system they've had in place for decades (STOVL with the Harrier).

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

I'm not sure they would have to change the size so much as put in catapults and pretty much change the whole system they've had in place for decades (STOVL with the Harrier).

I slightly disagree , I talked to BAE Systems people in Farnborough two weeks ago they think some people underestimate the Queen Elizabeth carriers when it comes to adding catapults which would not cost much and additional capabilites ,as they're designed to have upgrades in the future. The main problem would be the cash contribution the UK made in the amount of £2bn R&D towards JSF, which would be lost completely. The combat proven SH seems to be a viable option although many people still belive the UK should go for the RAFALE and manufacture a UK version of the aircraft similar to the Westland Apachi Longbow for the British Army.

duplex wrote:

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

I'm not sure they would have to change the size so much as put in catapults and pretty much change the whole system they've had in place for decades (STOVL with the Harrier).

I slightly disagree , I talked to BAE Systems people in Farnborough two weeks ago they think some people underestimate the Queen Elizabeth carriers when it comes to adding catapults which would not cost much and additional capabilites ,as they're designed to have upgrades in the future. The main problem would be the cash contribution the UK made in the amount of £2bn R&D towards JSF, which would be lost completely. The combat proven SH seems to be a viable option although many people still belive the UK should go for the RAFALE and manufacture a UK version of the aircraft similar to the Westland Apachi Longbow for the British Army.

Now, that's more like it. Start from scratch and make a new committee aeroplane. Avoid this annoying economy of scale. Join the French and hope for the best. Have worked great in the past Bang Head

Quote:

We need a strong and capable Navy...

We need a light, deployable Army...

Budget translation: We in the Navy think you should gut the Army and give that money to us! Then, take all those blighters and put them on ships (ie, make them Marines) which makes the Navy the lead service in war and peace. We in the Navy think that's the wise and obvious solution to this problem. Rolling Eyes

lamoey wrote:

Pure spin as the UK would then have to almost double the size of their new carriers to handle the super bug. Now that would be expencive.

The Super Hornet can launch and recover from Charles DeGuelle and CVF is designed for the same size cats the the Nimitz (its a CATOOBAR ship configured for STOVL, not a STOVL design). Its smaller because its designed for half as many aircraft.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

I'm not sure they would have to change the size so much as put in catapults and pretty much change the whole system they've had in place for decades (STOVL with the Harrier).

They changed to that system because of severe defense cuts. Think of it as a return to true FAA operations. As for the system, its already in place and the French, Spanish, Italians, Brazilians, Argentinians, and Indians use it.

Here's the way I see it. Super Hornets, Legacy Hornets, and F-35s are probably going to find themselves sharing the deck of a US Navy carrier at some point before the Legacy Hornets are completely phased out. Afterward the US Navy will be entirely dependent on Super Hornets and Lightning aircraft. Later on, I'm sure the Super Hornets themselves will eventually be retired and the US Navy will have to rely on one airframe, the F-35. They Royal Navy can do the same thing. Let the FAA have some Super Hornets for now and they can buy F-35s once they get back on their feet. To cut costs even further, the US could sell the Royal Navy some decommissioned aircraft carriers. If they were big enough for F-14s, F-4s, and the like, they should be big enough for the Super Hornets, and whatever else the Brits want to operate from them. Plenty of jobs in the UK will still be needed to refurbish and upgrade the old US Navy carriers.

df: One advantage of the new CVFs is reduced manning requirement = reduced operating cost. Giving a small country a large [non-nuclear?] carrier that needs more sailors than that country has available, is not a great idea. For example the US tried this with Australia back in the 1960s - 70s and probably 1980s but the RAN did not have the manpower. Give the Brits a break. They have argued about CVF and JSF/F-35B for decades now. They know what they want and they will get it. Very Happy

The Brits have many backup plans (given their long history of decline). Sure things can look grim but a lot of this is just politics between the various UK Armed Services and the MoD etc.

At moment all speculation about what may happen is - just that. Rather than argue in person in meetings - it seems that British politicians and their MoD like to argue via newspaper headlines/leaks/opinion columns. Whatever. Sure 'options' are discussed (would happen anyway in private) and then decisions are made and promulgated. Until decision made not much store can be put in any published 'speculation'. Sure - discuss speculation but don't take any speculative report in a British newspaper as anything other than that IMHO. Treat it like some Charlie Rangel bombast. Twisted Evil

discofishing wrote:

Here's the way I see it. Super Hornets, Legacy Hornets, and F-35s are probably going to find themselves sharing the deck of a US Navy carrier at some point before the Legacy Hornets are completely phased out.

I don't know about that. The bipartisan panel tasked at looking the defense budget recommended cutting the B/C variants from the budget and ordering additional super hornets for Navy and Marine squadrons.

So if the the B/C variants are gone, then that still leaves from for the A+ and D models, which are still legacy Hornets. Wink

What makes the C model inferior to a rehashed A model?

Not hornets, cutting JSF-B (STOBL) and JSF-C (CV) from the DoN budget in favor a continued Super Hornet to bridge the gap to FA-XX.

bjr1028 wrote:

Not hornets, cutting JSF-B (STOBL) and JSF-C (CV) from the DoN budget in favor a continued Super Hornet to bridge the gap to FA-XX.

"Continued" - I don't understand. There is no US fighter in the RAF/RN to my knowledge. Buying Super Hornets at this stage may not be that much of a cost saving anyway.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

UK to ditch F-35B for Superhornet