What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
Big News said:
The cost to convert the carriers to CATOBAR was estimated at £2bn
The per-unit cost of Dave-B is £100m
The per-unit cost of Super Hornet is £28m
So for the cost of the (current) 48 F-35s we could have 170 Super Hornets. Taking into account the 2bn to convert the carriers, that number falls to 100 Super Hornets, with two carriers to fly them off.
Another option would be 60 Super Hornets (two frontline squadrons and OCU...let's call them 800, 801 and 899...) and six E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (flyaway unit cost currently at £177m).
Isn't the biggest weakness of any non STOVL platform the inability to equip the RAF with it to surge in support of the FAA? We can't afford to equip the FAA to operate alone and even if we could, didn't the FAA have difficulty recruiting enough pilots for 800/801 in the past? Nor can we afford to equip the RAF with a completely different type of aircraft to replace Tornado GR4 (there will be barely enough Typhoons to cover air defence duties, let alone even some of GR4's duties).The per-unit cost of Dave-B is £100m
The per-unit cost of Super Hornet is £28m
So for the cost of the (current) 48 F-35s we could have 170 Super Hornets. Taking into account the 2bn to convert the carriers, that number falls to 100 Super Hornets, with two carriers to fly them off.
Another option would be 60 Super Hornets (two frontline squadrons and OCU...let's call them 800, 801 and 899...) and six E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (flyaway unit cost currently at £177m).
If the F-35 was cancelled ( or at least if the -B version was ) then the MoD/Government would be left with a number of choices:
a) Convert the carriers to CATOBAR ( at a cost of around £2Bn ) and buy appropriate aircraft ( e.g. Rafale M, Super Hornet ). This would also allow the operation of a proper AEW aircraft such as the E2 instead of the relatively low altitude/short duration helicopter based solution currently planned. Developing a navalised Typhoon would probably be way too expensive by comparioson with buying off the shelf.
b) Leave carriers as they are, and find an alternative STOVL aircraft to operate from them. Simplest solution to this would be to reopen Harrier/AV-8B+ production
c) Operate them as the biggest and most expensive helicopter carriers in the world - this would not meet the operational requirements they were designed for in the first place, and would probably be political suicide for whoever made the decision.
d) Scrap/sell the carriers and rely on other countries navies to look after us - again, political suicide
a) Convert the carriers to CATOBAR ( at a cost of around £2Bn ) and buy appropriate aircraft ( e.g. Rafale M, Super Hornet ). This would also allow the operation of a proper AEW aircraft such as the E2 instead of the relatively low altitude/short duration helicopter based solution currently planned. Developing a navalised Typhoon would probably be way too expensive by comparioson with buying off the shelf.
b) Leave carriers as they are, and find an alternative STOVL aircraft to operate from them. Simplest solution to this would be to reopen Harrier/AV-8B+ production
c) Operate them as the biggest and most expensive helicopter carriers in the world - this would not meet the operational requirements they were designed for in the first place, and would probably be political suicide for whoever made the decision.
d) Scrap/sell the carriers and rely on other countries navies to look after us - again, political suicide
ninja-lewis said:
Isn't the biggest weakness of any non STOVL platform the inability to equip the RAF with it to surge in support of the FAA? We can't afford to equip the FAA to operate alone and even if we could, didn't the FAA have difficulty recruiting enough pilots for 800/801 in the past? Nor can we afford to equip the RAF with a completely different type of aircraft to replace Tornado GR4 (there will be barely enough Typhoons to cover air defence duties, let alone even some of GR4's duties).
The RAF did operate Phantoms and Buccaneers in the 70s at the same time as the FAA. I imagine carrier-qualifying RAF pilots would be tricky though...ninja-lewis said:
Isn't the biggest weakness of any non STOVL platform the inability to equip the RAF with it to surge in support of the FAA?
Only in the eyes of the RAF, who firmly believe that only they should fly fast jets.ninja-lewis said:
We can't afford to equip the FAA to operate alone and even if we could, didn't the FAA have difficulty recruiting enough pilots for 800/801 in the past?
We can, we just choose not to. See above. People join the RAF to not go to sea, otherwise they would have joined the RN. The only reason the RN had problems was because the FAA was effectively killed off by the RAF.Most of this problem is because of the inter service rivalry and arguments over whose train set it all belongs to. This is why we’re wrongly going down the ‘B’ route because of the predominance of the ex-RAF Harrier mafia, that see occasional embarked air as the way to go, and they get to keep/own the toys.
It’s madness.
ninja-lewis said:
Nor can we afford to equip the RAF with a completely different type of aircraft to replace Tornado GR4 (there will be barely enough Typhoons to cover air defence duties, let alone even some of GR4's duties).
But the F-35B isn’t a GR4 replacement either, that was supposed to be the FOAS, but with ever increase budget cuts that got killed off back in 2005. With the change from F-35B to C, extra buys of the C ‘could’ have been used as a GR4 replacement as the A and C have the bigger internal weapons bay compared to the useless B version (in the same way the RAF took on the F-4 back in that late 60’s when TSR2 got binned)With the change back to the B again, it’s all a dog dinner and a typical British clusterf
k of epic proportions.As ever, mil procurement is about politics not what is best for the military or defense of the realm.
MartG said:
Godalmighty83 said:
So in this thread we have lots of suggestion for aircraft that will be unable to anything then generate a loud splash slightly in front of the bow.
Can you explain this please ?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
Not sure about the flight deck length but overall the USS forrestal is within 100ft of HMS QE. I expect something like a Super Tucano would be able to do a similar trick with a useful payload, and we can buy those with the takings from the MOD vending machines.
Recruiting pilots from the RAF to the FAA would be a very simple two stage process...
1, Invite a chinless wonder to walk across a freshly mopped piece of linoleum. This will demonstrate that going feet wet does not always result in a fatal drowning!
2, Inform them that if they stay in the RAF thay will merely remain a pilot, if they join the FAA they can become an Aviator!
Joking apart there is a good argument for abolishing the RAF in it's entirety, the RAF became surplus to requirements when they relinquished the nuclear deterrent.
The Army can take control of transport and ground attack while the FAA can do both carrier and land based air defence with ground attack the same as before.
1, Invite a chinless wonder to walk across a freshly mopped piece of linoleum. This will demonstrate that going feet wet does not always result in a fatal drowning!
2, Inform them that if they stay in the RAF thay will merely remain a pilot, if they join the FAA they can become an Aviator!
Joking apart there is a good argument for abolishing the RAF in it's entirety, the RAF became surplus to requirements when they relinquished the nuclear deterrent.
The Army can take control of transport and ground attack while the FAA can do both carrier and land based air defence with ground attack the same as before.
davepoth said:
I expect something like a Super Tucano would be able to do a similar trick with a useful payload, and we can buy those with the takings from the MOD vending machines......
Would work in a close air support role rather well of course providing you have friends who can make sure you don't need fighter cover. Of course if that’s the case you could use the Longbows that we already have navalised, better still some MQ9's would meet the strike role perfectly. Just leaves the holes that are CAP and AEW, AEW could be met with the Merlin as that's going to do ASW/SAR and Commando Roles anyway. Without the F35 the AMRAM equipped SHAR is your best replacement for CAP without having to reconfigure the entire carrier project of course we officially don't have any of those anymore so the MOD would then have to choose French or American fighters and stump up the £2bn or so that going CATOBAR would cost.
IanMorewood said:
Would work in a close air support role rather well of course providing you have friends who can make sure you don't need fighter cover. Of course if that’s the case you could use the Longbows that we already have navalised, better still some MQ9's would meet the strike role perfectly.
We're not in the habit of starting wars against people who shoot back these days. Of course, you could just skip a generation and buy some drones...Tango13 said:
Joking apart there is a good argument for abolishing the RAF in it's entirety, the RAF became surplus to requirements when they relinquished the nuclear deterrent.
The Army can take control of transport and ground attack while the FAA can do both carrier and land based air defence with ground attack the same as before.
Aye that'll work. The Army can take control of transport and ground attack while the FAA can do both carrier and land based air defence with ground attack the same as before.
'Same as before'
Same as before what exactly?
Tell me, how is the atmosphere in Cloud Cuckoo Land?
davepoth said:
We're not in the habit of starting wars against people who shoot back these days. Of course, you could just skip a generation and buy some drones...
Sure let's buy some combat drones that can take off from the CVF, none actually exist but needn't let that get in the way. Godalmighty83 said:
Sure let's buy some combat drones that can take off from the CVF, none actually exist but needn't let that get in the way.
Getting them (Reapers for example) on and off the deck wouldn't be too difficult given the low stall speeds, I'm not sure how they would handle repeated deck landings though.Good to see the usual anti RAF rubbish coming out.
A few points.
In my experience (more sea time than a significant portion of the RN), the RN use aircraft like naval guns. The boat driver is always 'proper Navy', not FAA, and it shows.
Tha army use aircraft like taxi's (small helicopters) or artillery (big ones with guns, quite right in this case
)
When the RAF had to downsize yet again, a fleet had to go, the only way to make the savings required. At this point, the RN/FAA said 'Goodness, don't get rid of the GR9's, we'll have them all!' didn't they?
Er no. Therefore the only people reponsible for the (current)demise of fixed wing Naval air is the RN, so don't blame the RAF.
FF
A few points.
In my experience (more sea time than a significant portion of the RN), the RN use aircraft like naval guns. The boat driver is always 'proper Navy', not FAA, and it shows.
Tha army use aircraft like taxi's (small helicopters) or artillery (big ones with guns, quite right in this case
)When the RAF had to downsize yet again, a fleet had to go, the only way to make the savings required. At this point, the RN/FAA said 'Goodness, don't get rid of the GR9's, we'll have them all!' didn't they?
Er no. Therefore the only people reponsible for the (current)demise of fixed wing Naval air is the RN, so don't blame the RAF.
FF
andymadmak said:
As the thread title says... What would the British Government buy if, for whatever reason, the USA decided to scrap the F35 project? (Assume for the sake of argument that we keep both new carriers and we want something to fly off them)
Cap in hand to the French for Rafales?
Loadsa dosh to BAE for some Navalised Typhoons?
Anything Russian we could look at?
Or, is it the case that with the carriers design now locked into STOVL mode we would have to build some more Harriers?
Could we develope the Harrier further in a short time frame? Supersonic Harrier?
What I can't understand is why we just don't build some brand new Harriers.Cap in hand to the French for Rafales?
Loadsa dosh to BAE for some Navalised Typhoons?
Anything Russian we could look at?
Or, is it the case that with the carriers design now locked into STOVL mode we would have to build some more Harriers?
Could we develope the Harrier further in a short time frame? Supersonic Harrier?
Tango13 said:
Joking apart there is a good argument for abolishing the RAF in it's entirety, the RAF became surplus to requirements when they relinquished the nuclear deterrent.
The Army can take control of transport and ground attack while the FAA can do both carrier and land based air defence with ground attack the same as before.
Why have a RN, RAF or Army, just combine the lot into one force like the USMC. The Army can take control of transport and ground attack while the FAA can do both carrier and land based air defence with ground attack the same as before.
Get rid of independent command structures get rid of inter service squabbling, we're a small county with a small military, it's the logical step. If you were designing a military today with the available budget you'd never decide having three separate groups would be the way to go.
Fat Fairy said:
Good to see the usual anti RAF rubbish coming out.
A few points.
In my experience (more sea time than a significant portion of the RN), the RN use aircraft like naval guns. The boat driver is always 'proper Navy', not FAA, and it shows.
Tha army use aircraft like taxi's (small helicopters) or artillery (big ones with guns, quite right in this case )
When the RAF had to downsize yet again, a fleet had to go, the only way to make the savings required. At this point, the RN/FAA said 'Goodness, don't get rid of the GR9's, we'll have them all!' didn't they?
Er no. Therefore the only people reponsible for the (current)demise of fixed wing Naval air is the RN, so don't blame the RAF.
FF
Your experience must have been with a different RN then or you had your eyes closed during your 'sea time.' Or maybe you've made it all up.A few points.
In my experience (more sea time than a significant portion of the RN), the RN use aircraft like naval guns. The boat driver is always 'proper Navy', not FAA, and it shows.
Tha army use aircraft like taxi's (small helicopters) or artillery (big ones with guns, quite right in this case
)When the RAF had to downsize yet again, a fleet had to go, the only way to make the savings required. At this point, the RN/FAA said 'Goodness, don't get rid of the GR9's, we'll have them all!' didn't they?
Er no. Therefore the only people reponsible for the (current)demise of fixed wing Naval air is the RN, so don't blame the RAF.
FF
Command of small ships from Mine countermeasures / Fish boats upwards is dependent on being Command Qualified. There are sea time requirements and a list of exams to pass and most MM/PP Commanding Officers are from the 'Warfare' specialisation, but aviators, submariners, divers are all represented in the current RN bridge card.
Here's one driven by a WAFU. Only a little one mind:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Assaul...
and another...
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Frigat...
The RN see aircraft as 'just another weapon system' at the disposal of Command. Nothing more, nothing less.
IanMorewood said:
Getting them (Reapers for example) on and off the deck wouldn't be too difficult given the low stall speeds, I'm not sure how they would handle repeated deck landings though.
The figures I have dug up have quite a bit of variance in them but take off distance is between 470m and 520m, be quite a challenge to get them off a 280m deck even with a 30 knot head wind.Landing would also be tricky with around 600m required.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff