Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Oct 2009, 00:59

Geez that is obscure. Thanks. :-)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Oct 2009, 01:43

Just to bring the thread 'back on topic' (if that is possible).... I can see how there have been many comments lately about the apparent loss of one of the RN CVFs - whatever. However often adverse comment is made about the 'super carrier' size of the CVF. Bigger is better for lots of reasons including deck handling/deck shuffling space let alone for landing or taking off. As we don't have anyone operating JSF-Bs (Daves in RNspeak) as yet we can only speculate. To help that speculation perhaps it is useful to look at how these GIGANTIC RN SUPER CARRIER DECKS will be used PERHAPS. :-)

Article mentioned before now is from the Naval Aviation News May-June 1990 edition. The entire PDF could be downloaded from here (however all relevant text is in the GIF graphic below): http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 0/mj90.pdf

So what, youse genteel readers may ask? Well as indicated in the text by Major Art Nalls USMC a ski jump (not ramp) and a bigger deck can be very, very useful as he explains.

jetnerd · by **jetnerd** » 27 Oct 2009, 02:51

I am personally bummed out hearing the UK's decision, as prudent as I'm sure it had to be. The major benefits of the CVFs to the UK collapses like a house of cards without 2 of them and enough F-35's to fill them: unit price goes up for both USMC (or USN) and the RN, unit price probably goes up now with 2 "different" CVFs which also collapses the argument for the French version (is it still going to get built?). Plus, having only 1 fixed wing hull dramatically lessens UK's ability to project power whenever needed.

Unfortunately recent grumblings http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... 5-jet.html that JSF costs might go much higher than anticipated may partially vindicate this move.

It would have been nice to have our closest ally operating big deck carriers again. Would have loved to see them put EMALs catapults on them so they could operate F-35C's, bringing their reach/strike capability closer to that of our CVNs.

Jetnerd

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 27 Oct 2009, 02:56

jetnerd wrote:I am personally bummed out hearing the UK's decision, as prudent as I'm sure it had to be. The major benefits of the CVFs to the UK and collapses like a house of cards without 2 of them and enough F-35's to fill them: unit price goes up for both USMC (or USN) and the RN, unit price probably goes up now with 2 "different" CVFs which also collapses the argument for the French version (is it still going to get built?).

Unfortunately recent grumblings http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... 5-jet.html that JSF costs might go much higher than anticipated may partially vindicate this move.

It would have been nice to have our closest ally operating big deck carriers again. Would have loved to see them put EMALs catapults on them so they could operate F-35C's, bringing their reach/strike capability closer to that of our CVNs.

Jetnerd

Sorry, one article hardly makes it fact.............. :wink:

Just the usual politics.

jetnerd · by **jetnerd** » 27 Oct 2009, 03:04

Corsair, I sincerely hope you're right both regarding CVF construction and JSF costs. I'm a fan of the original 381+ F-22 order who has conceded that y'all on here are right - that, save the 160-unit silver bullet force, the F-35 is our key for the next 20-30 years to controlling the air.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 27 Oct 2009, 03:10

jetnerd wrote:Corsair, I sincerely hope you're right both regarding CVF construction and JSF costs. I'm a fan of the original 381+ F-22 order who has conceded that y'all on here are right - that, save the 160-unit silver bullet force, the F-35 is our key for the next 20-30 years to controlling the air.

Well, the article even says that both Carrers are to be constructed. Plus, the fact that the RN could live with just one Air Wing and then rotate it between Ships.

Regardless, what does it really matter at this stage. As the first Carrier is many many years off. Let alone the second.......

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 27 Oct 2009, 03:14

IIRC, the article said that the time to stop buying F-35Bs will not happen for MANY years.

By that time the MYB price for the F-35 program will be fixed, the economy will likely be better, and they could decide to continue purchases "in light of clearer cost numbers, a better economy, etc".

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 27 Oct 2009, 03:28

The RN could order enough F-35B's for the first CVF shortly. Then when the economy and defense budget improves. Just order second batch for the Prince of Wales.

geogen · by **geogen** » 27 Oct 2009, 06:41

SpudmanWP wrote:I can understand your looking at the "Weapon system cost", I just feel it is less relevant with LRIP aircraft, especicilly early ones.

btw, I am just glad you are not a card caring member of the "Can't turn can't climb, can't run" crowd

Believe you, me... I look forward to see the first Youtube airshow demo USAF puts on for us. No doubt it should be able to buzz around just like legacy jets in these airshows (yet with an even nicer reheat decibel).

Regarding pricing definitions as listed in the finance.mil pdf link you provided, it is very important to look at these carefully in order to determine how one agency/insitution is defining a certain cost terminology vs another institution, such as US Congress for example. (the break-down is slightly different).

Forinstance, one budget estimate may declare a line under 'Total Flyaway Cost', whereas another may define such costs as only the 'Basic Flyaway'. Or, one estimate may include 'Advanced procurement costs' as part of the weapon sys cost, while another will list such 'Adv proc' separately, apart from the weapon sys cost (and total Procurement Cost). One of the most confusing definitions on the 'finance.navy.mil' estimate pdf though, was their apparent splitting of the terms 'Weapon System Cost' and 'Total Flyaway Cost' into two completely separate definitions.

Furthermore, in the finance.mil pdf they apparently define 'Total flyaway' as is traditionally defined under the 'Basic Flyaway' cost definition: i.e. Recurring + non-recurring costs only. No biggie, just good to realize this when making an assessment of course.

So yes, it's pretty important to do some finer analysis of what one is looking at, when a particular price is being declared.

As for what price is important though?? It should be the bottom line total, 'Procurement Cost' which includes initial spares + 'Total flyaway' cost (minus, perhaps, the Advanced Procurement line item).. the cost when divided by the units procured in the FY budget will give the 'UPC' - perhaps a cost which can be best defined as the 'real purchase price'. This is what taxpayers are essentially paying per jet, that year, to have each jet with all associated costs necessary to operate.. delivered to the service in operational order. Hence, the more expensive this UPC cost, the fewer units able to be afforded as part of the budgeted 'Procurement Cost' portion of the budget, allocated by Congress to DoD.

As for non-recurring costs... yes, they are there as a fluctuating fraction of the Basic 'Flyaway cost' every year, on such a complex weapon system as F-35. They will jump around as an actual fractions of the 'FAC' year to year of course, depending on what block is being procured, e.g., and depending on start-up costs for new equipment and special updates ordered by customer, etc. (for example: the higher Block 2 non-recurring costs can be noted in the budget line item vs Block .5 and block 1 non-recurring costs. And FY11 initial LRIP lot block III non-recurring costs could be higher yet, per unit).

However, as is expected; future MYB orders when bought at higher annual procurement sizes and especially when under repeat Block-variant orders, said non-recurring costs will be lowered per unit.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 27 Oct 2009, 07:09

2011 and 2012 are going to some very interesting budgets indeed.

One item of interest in defining the "Non-recurring" costs, I found this line in the budget.

Nonrecurring Costs includes funding for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) necessary to protect JSF delivery schedule.

btw, I graphed the REC Flyaway, in 2009 dollars, since the beginning.

IMHO, we are well on our way to sub $100 Mil REC Flyaway.
.

geogen · by **geogen** » 27 Oct 2009, 11:10

We can only sincerely hope to see that 'FY' day... I'll pop champagne when I see $90m FY09 dollars, per URF. (and post a vid, how 'bout that) :applause:

But again, the sexy Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF), a la $110m F-15SE and $135m Raptor - while looking good on paper and charts when selling jets - is just one component of the price paid, per a/c unit, per FY year, when buying a fighter aircraft. At the very least... the per unit Total Flyaway Cost (AKA, weapon sys cost) is what what it costs to buy (and actually receive) an operational jet (initial spares not included). And that [Weapon Sys Cost] is the figure shown in Def appr bills for the aircraft's procurement cost and is what Congress decides on when determining how many units to approve each FY.

It's what NEEDS to be better built into the transparent Procurement calculus when forming policy.. and made bigger focus when estimating long term acquisition schedules - for sake of Program sustainment, strategic planning and ultimately national defense.

bjr1028 · by **bjr1028** » 27 Oct 2009, 15:39

spazsinbad wrote:Just to bring the thread 'back on topic' (if that is possible).... I can see how there have been many comments lately about the apparent loss of one of the RN CVFs - whatever. However often adverse comment is made about the 'super carrier' size of the CVF. Bigger is better for lots of reasons including deck handling/deck shuffling space let alone for landing or taking off. As we don't have anyone operating JSF-Bs (Daves in RNspeak) as yet we can only speculate. To help that speculation perhaps it is useful to look at how these GIGANTIC RN SUPER CARRIER DECKS will be used PERHAPS. Article mentioned before now is from the Naval Aviation News May-June 1990 edition. The entire PDF could be downloaded from here (however all relevant text is in the GIF graphic below): http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 0/mj90.pdf

So what, youse genteel readers may ask? Well as indicated in the text by Major Art Nalls USMC a ski jump (not ramp) and a bigger deck can be very, very useful as he explains.

What the major doesn't say is that most of that 300 feet can't be be used for helicopter ops at all when the Harriers are off the ship. I'll say this again, LHDs are not carriers, they're troop transports. They exist to funnel the Marines into the Ospreys so they can get to the fight, not be a mobile base for Harrier strikes (which they don't have a large enough magazine for anyway). Of course the Harrier pilots want a ramp, its easier for them, but the operations for a ESG don't center around them.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Oct 2009, 21:30

bjr1028, please bring your imagination to the post. It is an example of how the RN might use their new CVF using an admittedly older example of USMC Harrier ops, where a 'real' scenario is imagined (that may mimic how the future RN FAA JSF-B ops may unfold). Forget about Marines. We know they don't like Harriers. [Just kiddin'.] They may like JSF-Bs though but we will leave that for another thread. I hope this will stop the Marine Harrier bashing. If JSF-Bs were flying from ships ,well perhaps real life examples could be used; but we don't have that yet. OK?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Oct 2009, 00:11

From Flight Global online archive 2002 is this PDF from 10-16 Dec 2002: http://www.flightinternational.com/ Relevant except is the GIF graphic highlighting another advantage of 'runny landings' which is more than just the 'bring back more' angle. Rest of article 'old news' becoming relevant again (carriers too expensive).

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 01 Nov 2009, 07:06

More on runny landings from the 100 year celebration of the RN FAA online newsletter (4.4Mb) at:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/ ... tion_3.pdf

An image of relevant bit of the page is shown in the JPG below here. Text follows:

"Successful Trials for New Joint Strike Fighter
The new Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) F35 JointStrike Fighter is another step closer following extremely successful trials of the aircraft’s advanced flight control software which will enable pilots to land onboard ship in all weathers, day and night with ‘centimetric accuracy’. The trials, carried out onboard HMS Illustrious using a veteran two seat Harrier airframe, the Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Flight Control (VAAC) Harrier, put the new system to the test. The Harrier was heavily modified with a conventional control arrangement in the front cockpit and a modern glass cockpit display in the rear seat to simulate the way the new Joint Strike Fighter will fly and respond to different inputs. 66 running landings and recoveries were achieved in varying sea states up to and including sea state six with outstanding results. The test aircraft, XW175 is the oldest flying two seat Harrier in the world. Commander Kieron O’Brien, the Air Engineering Officer, HMS Illustrious said “The VAAC harrier provided a fantastic facility to trial the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) techniques that will be utilised by the Joint Combat Aircraft in the new carriers. It worked brilliantly. XW175 represents an incredible link between the past and the future of the Fleet Air Arm.”