UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[1st503rdsgt]

RE: Budding Tanking:
Is buddy tanking really that effective compared to developing an aircraft specifically designed for the task?
There are some examples out there I suppose but it always seemed like if you need a fleet tanker you would be better off designing an aircraft that is fit for that purpose rather than drag along all the extra gear needed for a fullup attack aircraft.
Wouldn't such a craft be far cheaper and effective than committing one of your attack aircraft to that purpose?

It's almost always more expensive to operate an extra type of aircraft. The USN has been reducing the biodiversity of its flightdecks for decades. It might be better to operate the old S-3s or KA-3Bs in the role, but not cheaper.

[outlaw162]

biodiversity??

[1st503rdsgt]

biodiversity??

Well, I thought it was funny.

[spazsinbad]

It is a 'birdfarm' after all. http://www.combat.ws/S4/SAILOR/SAILOR.HTM

[outlaw162]

I had this vision of tons of plankton washing across the deck in heavy seas (sea state 9) and being caught here and there in nooks and crannies.....

never to fulfill their intended existence as food for the whales and penguins.

[spazsinbad]

They could build an RAF Carrier complete with Golf Course? There is a version on the forum somewhere. Plankton could nourish the grass (for softer VLs). Any holes burnt in the deck could become sand traps etc.

[1st503rdsgt]

I thought golf courses were a USAF thing.

[spazsinbad]

Both...

[sufaviper]

And on a similar note, you know how to tell the difference between a USAF and a USMC base durring construction?

USAF builds the Golf Course, Pool, and other fun stuff first
USMC base builds the runway, hanger and other necessities first

Why?
USAF knows that they can get more funds to build the runways and hangers, but they will not get more money for the fun stuff.

(At least that is what a Marine buddy told me)

Sufa Viper

[maus92]

RE: Budding Tanking:
Is buddy tanking really that effective compared to developing an aircraft specifically designed for the task?
There are some examples out there I suppose but it always seemed like if you need a fleet tanker you would be better off designing an aircraft that is fit for that purpose rather than drag along all the extra gear needed for a fullup attack aircraft.
Wouldn't such a craft be far cheaper and effective than committing one of your attack aircraft to that purpose?

It's almost always more expensive to operate an extra type of aircraft. The USN has been reducing the biodiversity of its flightdecks for decades. It might be better to operate the old S-3s or KA-3Bs in the role, but not cheaper.

The rumor mill has the KS-3Bs coming back (again.) Although they pass about the same amount of gas as a Super Hornet, the Hoovers have better endurance.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2012/ ... f-day.html

[spazsinbad]

SelfSameSalamanderSays This: "...Without Flag Support, sponsorship, and in the face of funding challenges - do I think it will happen? No, very small to zero odds...." So WhY Bother in an UK thread after all?

[spazsinbad]

'The government only has itself to blame for any carrier strike U-turn' 23 March 2012

http://www.defencemanagement.com/featur ... p?id=19130

"...It now looks very likely that we are going to see what can only be described as a major U-turn by the government and a reversion to the plane which Labour recommended. The Secretary of State for Defence is going to have to explain exactly why he has made this volte face and at what additional cost. He needs to explain exactly how, should a 'Falklands type scenario' happen where we do not have access to a land-based airfield, and in South America the options are reducing, he intends to project the appropriate force without a strong carrier capability.

The government were so confident of their decision to switch to the C variant that they sold the Harriers for spare parts to the United States leaving us with a carrier strike gap for a decade. Ministers must now say whether this was justified given we are likely to procure a STOVL aircraft in the F-35B and so could have retained the necessary skills and transitioned between planes smoothly. The principal argument for deleting the Harriers and foregoing carrier strike capability will be lost if the government do U-turn, since interoperability with the US and France will be far harder to achieve and limited, if not lost altogether. Britain will potentially be left with one carrier at sea for 200 days a year with no cover.

It is hard to believe that such a strategically important programme, both in terms of our national security and national economy, would be subject to such poor decision-making. The Defence Secretary needs to be able to tell us the total cost of this programme, dates of entry, how much time and money has been spent to date and to what end and precisely what capability benefits this government has brought to the programme.

The government has acknowledged the importance of carrier strike but ministerial rhetoric is not being matched by the reality of their actions."

[aaam]

RE: Budding Tanking:
Is buddy tanking really that effective compared to developing an aircraft specifically designed for the task?
There are some examples out there I suppose but it always seemed like if you need a fleet tanker you would be better off designing an aircraft that is fit for that purpose rather than drag along all the extra gear needed for a fullup attack aircraft.
Wouldn't such a craft be far cheaper and effective than committing one of your attack aircraft to that purpose?

It's almost always more expensive to operate an extra type of aircraft. The USN has been reducing the biodiversity of its flightdecks for decades. It might be better to operate the old S-3s or KA-3Bs in the role, but not cheaper.

The rumor mill has the KS-3Bs coming back (again.) Although they pass about the same amount of gas as a Super Hornet, the Hoovers have better endurance.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2012/ ... f-day.html

There are no A-3s left to even consider for this role and they always had a big Achilles heel: They could not tap their giveaway fuel for their own use, and the situation could and did occur where KA-3s were about to flame out from fuel starvation even when they had tons of fuel aboard.

No KS-3Bs were ever built. One S-3A was modified as a tanker using buddy refueling, but was eventually converted to s US-3A. The proposed KS-3B never came to fruition. There were a number of reasons for this, but one big one was that while it would make a fantastic recovery tanker, it would not work as a strike tanker, as it was too slow. The actual bestest thing would have been to convert A-6Es to tanker config, as they could keep up with a strike group and could give away much more fuel than a SH. This got shot down when people started asking, if you were going to use A-6s to refuel the SH, why not just leave the bombs on the A-6. Now, of course, there are no A-6Es left coonvert.

[popcorn]

'The government only has itself to blame for any carrier strike U-turn' 23 March 2012

http://www.defencemanagement.com/featur ... p?id=19130

".... He needs to explain exactly how, should a 'Falklands type scenario' happen where we do not have access to a land-based airfield, and in South America the options are reducing, he intends to project the appropriate force without a strong carrier capability."

The F-35B is very capable of dealing with such a scenario.

[spazsinbad]

I was looking forward to Monday 26th March 2012 UK time so I'm glad I dinna hold me breath.... So breath in before youse start reading this improbable story (probably only half true - but which half?). I think the talk about EMALS and AAG is correct but 'wot about the cost of all the other allterations and fittings for change from STOVLie CVF to CatFlap CVF? Errmmm.....

Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers By Thomas Harding, DefCorr 24Mar 2012


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sters.html

"The US Navy has intervened over the adaptation of a British aircraft carrier for a new generation of fighter jets, to assure ministers that the cost will be less than half the Ministry of Defence’s estimate.

Converting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter will require significantly less than the £2 billion quoted by officials, the assistant secretary of the US Navy, Sean J Stackley, insisted.

In a letter seen by The Daily Telegraph, he told Peter Luff, the defence procurement minister, that the necessary equipment would cost £458 million before installation. Defence experts estimate the installation cost at £400? million....

...Following the intervention by the US Navy, David Cameron has ordered a Treasury-led re-examination of the project.

The Major Project Review Group will submit a report on April 16 which it is understood will be considered by the National Security Council the next day....

...Reverting to jump jets for both of them would not help American military planners, who want to be able to base a squadron of their own jets on a British carrier.

Separate accommodation is being built on board HMS Prince of Wales with communications facilities that would be for “US Eyes Only”. [Wot a bleedin' Liberty! ]...

...“This letter could be a warning shot saying if you Brits go back to jump jet carriers then there might be no planes to fly off it,” said a defence source...."

Best to read the entire story because it is confusing to say the least (see my comment above the headline). Tah.