Fleet Air Arms F18Fs.
Discussion
Well according to the Times (I dont have a link) Superhornet and Cat and traps for the carrier is being proposed to save a lot of money.
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/spike7451/Mi...
They were reckoning on JSF being as low as 13.8 Billion, but a 50 aircraft or so purchase of F18F being about 4-6 billion there are clear savings to be made.
Good idea? Bad idea?
Personally I think it is better to have the cat and traps for potential future growth, a capable aircraft however inferior it is to Typhoon that is ready to fly and fight from day one really. Boeing have delivered the Super hornet on budget and on time. We would have the same asset as the US Navy, potential for EW versions and the same aircraft as the RAAF which is good for exchanges and so on. Training the deck crews and so on is going to be painful but there is plenty of oppertunity to learn from the Americans. Just hope if they pursue this option that the electric catapults work OK.
Boeing are also offering mid life buy back so we can always switch to JSF later on when the bugs have been worked out of it.
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/spike7451/Mi...
They were reckoning on JSF being as low as 13.8 Billion, but a 50 aircraft or so purchase of F18F being about 4-6 billion there are clear savings to be made.
Good idea? Bad idea?
Personally I think it is better to have the cat and traps for potential future growth, a capable aircraft however inferior it is to Typhoon that is ready to fly and fight from day one really. Boeing have delivered the Super hornet on budget and on time. We would have the same asset as the US Navy, potential for EW versions and the same aircraft as the RAAF which is good for exchanges and so on. Training the deck crews and so on is going to be painful but there is plenty of oppertunity to learn from the Americans. Just hope if they pursue this option that the electric catapults work OK.
Boeing are also offering mid life buy back so we can always switch to JSF later on when the bugs have been worked out of it.
Whilst I doubt the cost savings mentioned in that article I think it makes a lot of sense - as nice as stealth capability would be I don't think it is worth the additional cost, and the carriers are crying out for catobar.
The questions raised in my mind against it would be -
How would changing to F-18s affect the size of the air wing?
How would we overcome the lack of a short take off / rough field capability? or would we just use Ocean to ferry harriers about?
How would the loss of stealth capability affect the survivability of the aircraft operating in similar environments to those currently, and potential future combat environments? (I'm thinking a resurgence of the Russian threat or a european conflict)
I'd also be looking to find out if there was potential for a naval version of the Taranis project and the feasability of operating UAV's from a carrier - can't imagine landing one of those automatically on a pitching deck would be simple.
The questions raised in my mind against it would be -
How would changing to F-18s affect the size of the air wing?
How would we overcome the lack of a short take off / rough field capability? or would we just use Ocean to ferry harriers about?
How would the loss of stealth capability affect the survivability of the aircraft operating in similar environments to those currently, and potential future combat environments? (I'm thinking a resurgence of the Russian threat or a european conflict)
I'd also be looking to find out if there was potential for a naval version of the Taranis project and the feasability of operating UAV's from a carrier - can't imagine landing one of those automatically on a pitching deck would be simple.
Mr Dave said:
The origional requirement to replace Harrier was 66 so maybe thats closer to what we will get?
Would give enough for 3 Squadrons, OCU and few spares and pretty much replace Harrier 1 for 1?
That sounds far too low. The Queen Elizabeth class can carry an airwing of 50. Never mind that the Joint Combat Aircraft is supposed to be replacing Sea Harrier, Harrier and some of the Tornado GR4s. The last figure I saw was 138 - 4x FAA sqns of 12, 2 RAF Sqns of >8, 20 OCU/OEU plus spares.Would give enough for 3 Squadrons, OCU and few spares and pretty much replace Harrier 1 for 1?
I can't see the F/A-18 being cheaper overall. Sure the cost of purchasing the aircraft will be cheaper but what about the costs of converting the carriers to CATOBAR (including an EMALS very much still in the prototype stage), maintaining the CATOBAR systems and training to retain currency? All of which would be borne alone by the RN. I believe JCA is actually an RAF programme - not just a case of sharing facilities but the FAA are actually hangers-on taking advantage of the RAF budget. Obviously going down the CATOBAR route would take away the flexibility to augment the FAA with RAF squadrons - so you either need a larger FAA at the expense of the RAF or buy even more aircraft to meet both requirements separately.
This sudden talk of Super Hornets smacks of Farnborough PR spiel.
Edited by ninja-lewis on Monday 2nd August 19:19
Strictly speaking, CATOBAR doesn't stop the RAF operating off the new carriers, or indeed the FAA if they buy the STOVL F-35. But given how much extra it would cost to install it later it seems silly not to install it now.
Added to that it would seem daft to have a STOVL capability if we don't really need it. If the carriers are big enough for CATOBAR launches and recoveries, it makes the planes able to carry a much bigger load if they aren't hefting around a massive lift fan for no reason.
Added to that it would seem daft to have a STOVL capability if we don't really need it. If the carriers are big enough for CATOBAR launches and recoveries, it makes the planes able to carry a much bigger load if they aren't hefting around a massive lift fan for no reason.
Both the RAF & The RN wanted a CTOL version of JSF originally recognising that it gave the best overall combat performance. There were several studies in to this at 1* level and above. However the Minister (Hoon) overuled the customer experts after being briefed by BAe & RR that it would be better for British jobs to go down the STOVL version of the JSF.
As for cancelling JSF and buying F18F instead, I think thats a good idea - the final unit cost of JSF looks to be huge and at this moment the country cannot afford such an expensive programme. I'd rather have some capability (F18F) than be unable to afford the super capability (JSF) and get nothing.
A fast jet fleet of shore based Typhoon (RAF) and carrier capable F18F (joint RAF & RN) looks pretty capable to meet most scenarios.
As for cancelling JSF and buying F18F instead, I think thats a good idea - the final unit cost of JSF looks to be huge and at this moment the country cannot afford such an expensive programme. I'd rather have some capability (F18F) than be unable to afford the super capability (JSF) and get nothing.
A fast jet fleet of shore based Typhoon (RAF) and carrier capable F18F (joint RAF & RN) looks pretty capable to meet most scenarios.
is there any details on how the new pilots and indeed flight deck crews would be trained etc because i can imaging the last of the british cat and trap pilots and staff hung their caps up a while ago...
also, does the use of the SH means the UK has lost any first day strike capability a LO aircraft like the F35 provides?
also, does the use of the SH means the UK has lost any first day strike capability a LO aircraft like the F35 provides?
Does anyone know how stealthy the JSF actually is? Is it sneaky enough to penetrate prepared defences safely or just slightly less observable than a normal fighter?
Personally, I'm no fan of the JSF. The price just seems far too high for the capability. The Super-hornet suffers because people forget/don't realise how much of a redesign it was. It's not just an old F18A with some bigger jets and better electronics, it's a thoroughly modern aircraft.
Personally, I'm no fan of the JSF. The price just seems far too high for the capability. The Super-hornet suffers because people forget/don't realise how much of a redesign it was. It's not just an old F18A with some bigger jets and better electronics, it's a thoroughly modern aircraft.
Mr Will said:
Does anyone know how stealthy the JSF actually is? Is it sneaky enough to penetrate prepared defences safely or just slightly less observable than a normal fighter?
Personally, I'm no fan of the JSF. The price just seems far too high for the capability. The Super-hornet suffers because people forget/don't realise how much of a redesign it was. It's not just an old F18A with some bigger jets and better electronics, it's a thoroughly modern aircraft.
the answer to your first point is yes, plenty of people at LM and maybe even NG and BAE know the answer; but in the public domain it is all just speculation...Personally, I'm no fan of the JSF. The price just seems far too high for the capability. The Super-hornet suffers because people forget/don't realise how much of a redesign it was. It's not just an old F18A with some bigger jets and better electronics, it's a thoroughly modern aircraft.
my personal opinion is that, when used correctly (as with all so called stealth aircraft) with proper mission planning and systems integration that it will provide a deep strike capability other "non stealthy" aircraft would struggle in...
andy97 said:
The RN already has a number of people over in the US qualifying with the USN.
And first strike capability can be delivered by Sub launched Tomahawk.
still some debate as to whether everything can be achieved with cruise missiles...And first strike capability can be delivered by Sub launched Tomahawk.
Edited by andy97 on Tuesday 3rd August 08:31
anyhow, is the cost of the SH including the cost of setting up and integration costs; both of which are factored into the the F-35 cost. it should be remembered an RN Super Hornet would not be as cheap per unit as an USN one...
I'm thinking from a while back.........could be wrong... but I remember BAe had shares in Saab. Was this an investment for export orders, or was a navalised version of the Grippen ever considered for the RN ?
Could a a version be made ? Would it be a contender ? I read somewhere they are quite cheap to buy ? Any thoughts ?
Could a a version be made ? Would it be a contender ? I read somewhere they are quite cheap to buy ? Any thoughts ?
From the "Rum Ration" site:
"Carrier a/c are designed to cope with completely different stresses & strains than shore based a/c. The stresses of catapult launches and very short slams in to the deck for arrested lanings, whilst going to full power (in case of the need to bolt - ie take of again) are massive & a shore based a/c would have to be re-designed completely for carrier ops. Undercarriage points would have to be massively beafed; a tail hook would need to be designed in & the internal structures would need to be changed & strengthened. All this leads to increased weight and possible centre of balance problems as the weight isn't now where it was designed to be.
Carrier a/c tend to be designed from scratch for carrier ops & then used ashore later, if necessary (Phantom, F18 etc). I might be wrong but I can't think of a single modern a/.c designed for shore ops that was succesfully coinverted for carrier aviaton except, of course for the .....Harrier (which did not need to worry about cats & traps).
Converting the Typhoon would be next to impossible without a complete re-design at vast, vast expense".
Same goes for Gripen, I guess.
"Carrier a/c are designed to cope with completely different stresses & strains than shore based a/c. The stresses of catapult launches and very short slams in to the deck for arrested lanings, whilst going to full power (in case of the need to bolt - ie take of again) are massive & a shore based a/c would have to be re-designed completely for carrier ops. Undercarriage points would have to be massively beafed; a tail hook would need to be designed in & the internal structures would need to be changed & strengthened. All this leads to increased weight and possible centre of balance problems as the weight isn't now where it was designed to be.
Carrier a/c tend to be designed from scratch for carrier ops & then used ashore later, if necessary (Phantom, F18 etc). I might be wrong but I can't think of a single modern a/.c designed for shore ops that was succesfully coinverted for carrier aviaton except, of course for the .....Harrier (which did not need to worry about cats & traps).
Converting the Typhoon would be next to impossible without a complete re-design at vast, vast expense".
Same goes for Gripen, I guess.
si-h said:
I'm thinking from a while back.........could be wrong... but I remember BAe had shares in Saab. Was this an investment for export orders, or was a navalised version of the Grippen ever considered for the RN ?
Could a a version be made ? Would it be a contender ? I read somewhere they are quite cheap to buy ? Any thoughts ?
BAE did have shares in Saab and until recently was responsible for the marketing of the Gripen...Could a a version be made ? Would it be a contender ? I read somewhere they are quite cheap to buy ? Any thoughts ?
and a navalised Gripen has been spoken of as not being too difficult to achieve as the landing structure of all swedish jets is incredibly rugged (STOL on Mways), the folding wings and arrestor hook would need to be implemented howerver...
seems easier to go down the SH or Rafale route than develop a new aircraft...
andy97 said:
From the "Rum Ration" site:
"...I can't think of a single modern a/.c designed for shore ops that was succesfully coinverted for carrier aviaton except, of course for the .....Harrier (which did not need to worry about cats & traps)...".
The YF17 was designed for shore operations and then successfully developed for naval service."...I can't think of a single modern a/.c designed for shore ops that was succesfully coinverted for carrier aviaton except, of course for the .....Harrier (which did not need to worry about cats & traps)...".
The F18 may have looked similar to the YF 17 but it was a substanial re-design, making it a different aircraft.
I know that Wiki is not the oracle but, "the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17".
I know that Wiki is not the oracle but, "the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17".
andy97 said:
The F18 may have looked similar to the YF 17 but it was a substanial re-design, making it a different aircraft.
I know that Wiki is not the oracle but, "the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17".
I'll double check when I get home but I think Mc D-D and Northrop agreed to divvy up the sales so Mc D-D would sell the naval Hornet and Northrop would sell the land based version the F18L(?)I know that Wiki is not the oracle but, "the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17".
Of course the USN was the biggest customer for the Hornet so everyone bought the naval version because it was the lowest risk option regards cost/spares/upgrades etc. Northrop who were the main force behind the YF17 concept came away with nothing.
andy97 said:
The F18 may have looked similar to the YF 17 but it was a substanial re-design, making it a different aircraft.
I know that Wiki is not the oracle but, "the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17".
That's probably the same when a Spitfire Mark 1 is compared to a Spitfire Mark 24, yet they're still Spitfires. Maybe I should have said Spitfire Mark 1 compared to a Seafire. I know that Wiki is not the oracle but, "the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17".
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff