Forum: F-35 Lightning II

1st503rdsgt wrote:

lb wrote:

Right then so let's build a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier and then decide to maybe operate it marginally, or not at all, perhaps sell it eventually, or try and find the money someday to rebuild it, say 10 to 15 years after it's completed.

One might be forgiven for suspecting that switching to the F-35C was a smoke screen for cutting the total buy to around 50 and going from two to a single carrier. It's rather telling that the decision was made before anyone did any serious analysis of the costs of converting the carriers.

Actually, the switch was probably just a shortsighted accounting stunt by the MoD to show some quick savings on the books (fewer planes are necessary with the C model), more bureaucratic incompetence than a smokescreen, as they utterly failed to account for the ancillary costs of switching to a CATOBAR deck arrangement.

Works for me - I firmly believe the sole driver for the decision was to move the larger chunk of expense involved in CVF outside the life of the incoming government. There's not a lot of evidence that the decision was carefully thought through at all. On the plus side, C is probably a better bird for the *country* as it's got longer legs and more weapons capacity internally - and of course, it's probable that the thing will now replace Tornado in RAF service.

It'll come good, it's just been a pain that the damn things have had such a protracted and winding path to the sea.

F-16.net Sponsor

It's a brilliant move over their previous shortsighted decision. They get a much better platform and a better price, even taking adding changes to the carriers.

It's a brilliant move over their previous shortsighted decision. They get a much better platform and a better price, even taking adding changes to the carriers.

Yeah brilliance by whatever means eh. Here is some idea of the cost but true cost of change may not be known for some time.

One CVF to be converted to EMALS

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/09/p ... mber-2011/

Question: Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North, Conservative)
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost of fitting cats and traps to (a) one and (b) both Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers; whether he plans to fit cats and traps to (i) HMS Queen Elizabeth and (ii) HMS Prince of Wales; and if he will make a statement.”

Answer: Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer 12 September 2011
“The Strategic Defence and Security Review called for one Queen Elizabeth (QE) class aircraft carrier to be converted to operate the more capable and cost-effective carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The National Audit Office’s report on Carrier Strike, published on 7 July 2011, estimated the cost of converting a single carrier at £800 million to £1.2 billion, a reasonable estimate based on the maturity of information currently available. We are developing more detailed cost estimates as part of our on-going work.

A revised design is being developed to consider the cost differences between a post-build refit of the first in class, HMS Queen Elizabeth and an in-build conversion of the second, HMS Prince of Wales. On current plans, we expect to take firm decisions on the optimum conversion solution for the operational carrier [POW?] in late 2012.”

"Better price" of what? The entire matter is smoke and mirrors in that instead of buying 100+ B's they can buy 50 C's and only operate a single carrier. If however they do one day decide to rebuild the QE and buy more C's they will have ended up spending significantly more than just sticking with the B.

Here is another viewpoint - notice the ratcunning of the RAF AVM Bagwell (named for NOT 'bagging' carrier landings but probably flying hours). Very Happy

Aircraft carriers with no aircraft….. December 22, 2010

http://theaviationist.com/2010/12/22/ai ... -aircraft/
&
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... &s=TOP

RAF: Harrier Retirement Won’t Hurt F-35C Skills By ANDREW CHUTER 17 Dec 2010
Long Quote from this article follows:
"...“Effectively, we need to build the skill sets for the new aircraft and carrier configuration from scratch. We all ready have plans in place to begin that build up over the next 10 years with our allies and partners.” He said it was a “tall order,” but regaining carrier skills is a problem Britain had previously faced and overcome. One senior Royal Navy commander agreed with Bagwell’s assessment and said there was a much bigger question mark over regaining deck skills than the capabilities of pilots Bagwell, who commands all of Britain’s fast jet operations, said the RAF and the RN “have 10 years to get our act in gear and understand what operating the F-35C variant means for training and other preparation. Some we will have to learn from the USA and France,” he said. The British already have a pilot exchange program with the U.S. with officers flying carrier operations with the F-18. Bagwell said he was confident British pilots would also be flying French Navy jets as well “We will be flying Rafales from French carriers within a few years. I’m sure of it,” he said.

The British are targeting the availability of a single squadron of F-35Cs by 2020 to equip a joint RAF/RN operation. Briefing reporters last week, Bagwell said that would require an initial order for about 40 aircraft. How the aircraft will be employed in the future has yet to be worked out, but said he thought the aircraft would not be tied to the aircraft carrier. “They are there to project air power. It’s irrelevant where they are launched from. The Royal Navy will hate me for this, but sometimes they will be launched from the deck of an aircraft carrier for good reason. Other times it will be in-country closer to the problem,” he said. Either way, he said the F-35C gave the British better deep penetration, ISTAR and other capabilities than the more limited STOVL F-35B.

Cenciotti says:
"Anything weird? Apparently, not. As Bagwell affirms, the Harrier could not contribute to generate the skills required to fly the F-35C since the conventional carrier variant has not a STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) capability. Right. Unfortunately, what must be underlined is that Britain had originally chosen the STOVL variant before the Strategic Defense and Security Review in October deciced to switch to the C variant making the Harrier GR9s APPARENTLY useless. It’s a matter of logic: the Harrier was not scrapped because of the C variant; the C variant was chosen because the Harrier was sacrificed (along with the Ark Royal aircraft carrier). With this decision, UK will not have aircraft to equip aircraft carriers until 2020. Since the development of the F-35 is taking more than expected in both terms of time and costs, was this the right pick? I don’t think so."

Buy some F-18Fs with EA wiring as an interim solution. Train the aircrews on carrier ops with the Supers, and when the F-35Cs come online, convert the -Fs to Growlers. Bang. You get an EW capability, and then all you have to do is buy some E-2s, and you get a proper air wing. Can't do that with a skijump.

maus92 wrote:

Buy some F-18Fs with EA wiring as an interim solution. Train the aircrews on carrier ops with the Supers, and when the F-35Cs come online, convert the -Fs to Growlers. Bang. You get an EW capability,

Not to mention tanker a capability.

OR the alternative with F-35Bs which the UK/RN FAA was pursuing before the change. Yes the details did not get worked out due to the change but no details exist for an alternative scenario with the F-35C at moment. I think the UK likes to live in this 'fix it tomorrow land'. Or pass the parcel (of problems to solve) down to the next government.

I note the extra cost of 'maus92' proposals also. Cost to operate two fast carrier jet types as well as EW aircraft. Whereas STOVL had F-35Bs and a EW solution of some unknown kind - in the wings.
___________

I note '1st503rdsgt' comment entry about tankers as I typed. IF the F-35B solution followed then - no need for tankers. No need for a second fast jet type to support.

spazsinbad wrote:

I note '1st503rdsgt' comment entry about tankers as I typed. IF the F-35B solution followed then - no need for tankers. No need for a second fast jet type to support.

Pretty sure I already mentioned that before, sheeeesh. Rolling Eyes

I think many people mention many of the same things over and over on this forum. Very Happy

spazsinbad wrote:

I think many people mention many of the same things over and over on this forum. Very Happy

I think Australia should operate F-35B's off it's LHD's...

LMAO

Conan wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

I think many people mention many of the same things over and over on this forum. Very Happy

I think Australia should operate F-35B's off it's LHD's...

LMAO

And that they should use an AWACS version of the V-22 Wink

Youse funny guys should STFU! Very Happy

lb wrote:

"Better price" of what? The entire matter is smoke and mirrors in that instead of buying 100+ B's they can buy 50 C's and only operate a single carrier. If however they do one day decide to rebuild the QE and buy more C's they will have ended up spending significantly more than just sticking with the B.

Mm...no, the F35 will be a "purple" asset - so they'd run between the RAF and FAA so as far as numbers go, the F35C decision has no bearing on how large a buy is required. Some will be on the active carrier, some will be in RAF hands doing land based tasks.

From that perspective, F35C makes a lot of sense for the total user base - the RAF get a longer ranged striker with more punch, the FAA get a carrier capable of operating various types of CATOBAR aircraft, including UAV's.

Remember, these two will be in service for something like 50 years - going CATOBAR now is just bringing forward a task which was assumed to be happening at some point in the future.

It's definitely not a case of "well, we're getting C, so we can buy less B - that's not related in any sense to the situation. Recall, that decision was made while the F35B was struggling as a program and subsequently was put into "probation" - with the very real chance of the B being canned or badly delayed. Switching to C gave us an escape route - if the F35 fell over, we still had options.

Ian

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

UK MOD in a MUDDLE over F-35C