What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[RizzoTheRat]

Is it? I thought there was some reason the apache could be operated from ships?

[mph1977]

RizzoTheRat said:

Is it? I thought there was some reason the apache could be operated from ships?

the US built apaches don't have folding main rotor blades, the Westland built ones do plus some bits and pieces that allow them to operate from ships

[aeropilot]

Mr Whippy said:

IanMorewood said:

Lower staffing costs though for a VSTOL deck crew. Also less chance of hurting a member of deck crew.

Mind you counter that with the higher fuel costs of having a heavier aircraft that transmits into an inefficient flying machine for landings.

I bet the VSTOL systems on an F35B take more maintaining over the lifetime vs an F35C though

Not to mention the very un-FOB-friendly stealth finish being somewhat maintenance heavy......which again begs the questions as to WTF the USMC thinks it needs a stealth CAS a/c, when they are almost certainley never going to go anywhere 'hot' without a USN CBG.....

[andy97]

mph1977 said:

Mr Whippy said:

So they might end up having a fleet of Lynx helicopters operating from them in the end

plus Merlin and Apache as the Westland Apache is partially marinised ...

Apache certainly has operated from ships, but I don't think they have an auto rotor head fold, and no tail rotor fold.

I certainly think that the QEC will end up in LPH role only (Landing Platform(Helicopter) - ie a Commando Helicopter Carrier) and won see fixed wing aircraft at all.

[Mr Whippy]

aeropilot said:

Mr Whippy said:

IanMorewood said:

Lower staffing costs though for a VSTOL deck crew. Also less chance of hurting a member of deck crew.

Mind you counter that with the higher fuel costs of having a heavier aircraft that transmits into an inefficient flying machine for landings.

I bet the VSTOL systems on an F35B take more maintaining over the lifetime vs an F35C though

Not to mention the very un-FOB-friendly stealth finish being somewhat maintenance heavy......which again begs the questions as to WTF the USMC thinks it needs a stealth CAS a/c, when they are almost certainley never going to go anywhere 'hot' without a USN CBG.....

Good point. Not so much point being 'stealthy' when they arrive in a CBG and then go flying around near stuff with mainly IR guided weapons or just good old pointy shooty AAA

[IanMorewood]

To be honest for CAS I wouldn't much fancy my chances in low and slow in something that isnt wearing a titanium tub and the best jamming and counter measures you can get, two engines and large redunancy of systems would also help.

[Mr Whippy]

It's an aircraft designed for asymmetric fighting though.

No longer does it actually have the pre-requisites for dedicated CAS, it can just 'do' CAS kinda.


All it needs to do is a bit of everything 'ok' because it'll never be expected to do anything properly in a focussed role in a proper war.


Given the looming cold-war type scenario, and the worlds baddies slowly being made out to be these big nations with big armies again, it does make you wonder if a range of specialised aircraft will be vogue again, vs a 'cheap' do it all one.


Imagine a stealthy looking A10, with big fat turbofans that also power a nose mounted laser!

Dave

[IanMorewood]

Mr Whippy said:

All it needs to do is a bit of everything 'ok' because it'll never be expected to do anything properly in a focussed role in a proper war.

Most third and fourth generation jets can undertake any operationally necessary role when the chips are down, you don't need a £100m stealth aircraft to strafe a couple of Toyota Hilux. Yes it may be handy to access and egress the locality but the 50k ton warship parked 20 miles off the coast is a big giveaway.

[Mr Whippy]

I completely agree.

I suppose it was sold on the idea that it'd be cheaper, but because more money was put into one system it'd actually not be a compromise either.

"Look it can do all this"


I'm not sure that has worked out here... the Americans can obviously do what they like. It's just a shame we're now stuck into the deal when other alternatives that are either flying today and are great, or our own kit that could have been developed and provided jobs for people in the UK, could have done the job better for our needs I think.


It would be a serious display of how our short-term government thinks if the new carriers end up fielding helicopters only through the 2020s!

No doubt to save face a handful of F35B will be bought and probably be no more effective for the role than the Ark Royal and modernised Harriers were.


It's pretty depressing to think what could have been had the EF2000 fit the job for the French too. It'd have probably secured a load more international sales too... and probably ended up selling to F18 Super Hornet buyers too.


Oh for hindsight

[Dr Banjo]

OK I admit I am a not a plane techie...

But how have the French managed to develop a twin engined (what appears to be a capable) carrier based variant aircraft and we are left with bugger all to fly off our flat tops?

Edited by Dr Banjo on Friday 19th December 00:55

[Mave]

Dr Banjo said:

OK I admit I am a not a plane techie...

But how have the French managed to develop a twin engined (what appears to be a capable) carrier based variant aircraft and we are left with bugger all to fly off our flat tops?

Edited by Dr Banjo on Friday 19th December 00:55

..because it was a requirement for the Rafale, but not the Typhoon. Not so much a planr techie question as a "how have the French Government decided what aircraft carrier capability they want and stuck to it whereas we kept changing our minds"?

[Halmyre]

Mave said:

Dr Banjo said:

OK I admit I am a not a plane techie...

But how have the French managed to develop a twin engined (what appears to be a capable) carrier based variant aircraft and we are left with bugger all to fly off our flat tops?

Edited by Dr Banjo on Friday 19th December 00:55

..because it was a requirement for the Rafale, but not the Typhoon. Not so much a planr techie question as a "how have the French Government decided what aircraft carrier capability they want and stuck to it whereas we kept changing our minds"?

"Special relationship", innit?

[ralphrj]

Dr Banjo said:

OK I admit I am a not a plane techie...

But how have the French managed to develop a twin engined (what appears to be a capable) carrier based variant aircraft and we are left with bugger all to fly off our flat tops?

1. Carrier capability was something that the French insisted on and was one of the reasons they quit the Eurofighter program. France had a CATOBAR aircraft carrier in service at the time and another being planned to replace it. The remaining Eurofighter partners (UK, Germany, Italy and later Spain) didn't have any.

2. The Rafale has come at some cost. Total program cost is around $63 billion for 133 aircraft ($474 million per aircraft) all of which has had to be paid by the French. In comparison the UK share of the Eurofighter costs is circa $58 billion* for 160 aircraft ($362 million per aircraft). Those figures could change, especially if the French do secure an order from India, but based on current projections of cost and production numbers the Rafale could end up more expensive per aircraft than the F-35.

• Note: I believe this figure includes the projected cost of future upgrades over the life of the aircraft. To date the cost is circa $200 million per aircraft.

Edited by ralphrj on Friday 19th December 08:09

[Dr Banjo]

[quote=ralphrj]

• Note: I believe this figure includes the projected cost of future upgrades over the life of the aircraft. To date the cost is circa $200 million per aircraft.

Thats utter bonkers if the above figures are correct.

[Mr Whippy]

ralphrj said:

Dr Banjo said:

OK I admit I am a not a plane techie...

But how have the French managed to develop a twin engined (what appears to be a capable) carrier based variant aircraft and we are left with bugger all to fly off our flat tops?

1. Carrier capability was something that the French insisted on and was one of the reasons they quit the Eurofighter program. France had a CATOBAR aircraft carrier in service at the time and another being planned to replace it. The remaining Eurofighter partners (UK, Germany, Italy and later Spain) didn't have any.

2. The Rafale has come at some cost. Total program cost is around $63 billion for 133 aircraft ($474 million per aircraft) all of which has had to be paid by the French. In comparison the UK share of the Eurofighter costs is circa $58 billion* for 160 aircraft ($362 million per aircraft). Those figures could change, especially if the French do secure an order from India, but based on current projections of cost and production numbers the Rafale could end up more expensive per aircraft than the F-35.

• Note: I believe this figure includes the projected cost of future upgrades over the life of the aircraft. To date the cost is circa $200 million per aircraft.

Edited by ralphrj on Friday 19th December 08:09

Imagine if we'd just added carrier capacity to the EF from the start and shared the costs all round.

It'd have been more saleable and divvied the costs out more, and would arguably have been a more robust aircraft than either too.


UK Gov for ya. Looking to the ends of their noses and no further.


Give the cost for the Rafale made just by the French for their own needs it's pretty damn good. Yes a bit more expensive, but it shows going it alone to get an aircraft right for you, vs a consortium, isn't light-years apart on cost.

Dave

[andy97]

Mr Whippy said:

Imagine if we'd just added carrier capacity to the EF from the start and shared the costs all round.

You can imagine all you want, but the Frnch requirement was for a smaller aircraft than EF to fit on their carriers and the remaining nations in the EF programme did not believed that all of their required capability could be fitted in to a 9 tonne aircraft that was also carrier capable.

There was never any real possibility of a compromises that delivered what you suggest.

It would probably have been more cost and capability effective, and timely, for the French to have stayed in EF as their land based fighter and for both the UK and France to have bought Super Hornet for the Carriers. After all the French have bought Hawkeye so they are not averse to buying US when needs must.

Edited by andy97 on Friday 19th December 14:59

Edited by andy97 on Friday 19th December 15:00

[ralphrj]

andy97 said:

You can imagine all you want, but the Frnch requirement was for a smaller aircraft than EF to fit on their carriers

...

After all the French have bought Hawkeye so they are not averse to buying US when needs must.

And ironically it was the purchase of Hawkeye that resulted in the French having to make their carrier bigger.

[Mr Whippy]

andy97 said:

Mr Whippy said:

Imagine if we'd just added carrier capacity to the EF from the start and shared the costs all round.

You can imagine all you want, but the Frnch requirement was for a smaller aircraft than EF to fit on their carriers and the remaining nations in the EF programme did not believed that all of their required capability could be fitted in to a 9 tonne aircraft that was also carrier capable.

There was never any real possibility of a compromises that delivered what you suggest.

It would probably have been more cost and capability effective, and timely, for the French to have stayed in EF as their land based fighter and for both the UK and France to have bought Super Hornet for the Carriers. After all the French have bought Hawkeye so they are not averse to buying US when needs must.

Edited by andy97 on Friday 19th December 14:59

Edited by andy97 on Friday 19th December 15:00

Ah well, with the money saved they could have bought bigger carriers

I don't know all the ins and outs of the development, but in the end their Rafale turned out pretty good all considered.


In the end I suppose trying to squish all the needs into one EF would have resulted in an F35. Expensive and not really fitting anyone's needs outright...

Dave

[aeropilot]

andy97 said:

It would probably have been more cost and capability effective, and timely, for the French to have stayed in EF as their land based fighter and for both the UK and France to have bought Super Hornet for the Carriers. After all the French have bought Hawkeye so they are not averse to buying US when needs must.

Indeed, this would have been the most sensible option.....but, Govt's seldom do sensible.

And the French had been using a US fighter as it fleet defence fighter for the previous 25 years prior to that - and were the last operators of the wonderful Vought F-8 Crusader.

[mph1977]

Mr Whippy said:

It's an aircraft designed for asymmetric fighting though.

No longer does it actually have the pre-requisites for dedicated CAS, it can just 'do' CAS kinda.


All it needs to do is a bit of everything 'ok' because it'll never be expected to do anything properly in a focussed role in a proper war.


Given the looming cold-war type scenario, and the worlds baddies slowly being made out to be these big nations with big armies again, it does make you wonder if a range of specialised aircraft will be vogue again, vs a 'cheap' do it all one.


Imagine a stealthy looking A10, with big fat turbofans that also power a nose mounted laser!

Dave

imagine a compound helicopter version of the Apache ... far more useful , as fast / slow as an A10 but capable of flying like an Apache when you need it to