Hmmmmm ?

[KenONeill]

17.4 billion pounds on two aircraft carriers, six new Type 45 destroyers and the development of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship.

Fitz

Is that in addition to the 4 in service and 2 on the slips?

[Fitz323]

Completely agree Nick and too many companies literally try and pull down the customers pants and the Uk government do not help matters either.

Currently I am in Saudi Arabia on loan to BAE Systems covering the purchase, supply and Operations of 72 Typhoons and regardless of what my personal thoughts are on the host nation, they are certainly getting their own back from decades of being ripped off by BAE. Something UK MOD could learn from.

Ken, I'm certainly not defending the Governments stance on the procurement of these assets in relation to value for money or operational effectiveness. Just merely saying how much things cost nowadays.

Fitz

[Clunkclick]

Completely agree Nick and too many companies literally try and pull down the customers pants and the Uk government do not help matters either.

Currently I am in Saudi Arabia on loan to BAE Systems covering the purchase, supply and Operations of 72 Typhoons and regardless of what my personal thoughts are on the host nation, they are certainly getting their own back from decades of being ripped off by BAE. Something UK MOD could learn from.

Ken, I'm certainly not defending the Governments stance on the procurement of these assets in relation to value for money or operational effectiveness. Just merely saying how much things cost nowadays.

Fitz

The successor to dear Jonathan's :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

The wiki text expresses the view that was (And probably is) a nice little earner for British Waste of Space, as some of my ex- colleagues used to call them.

Nick

[Fitz323]

It certainly was a 'nice little earner' then and something still at the forefront of Saudi Arabia's thought processes.

BAE are only just about breaking even on this contract and its only the sheer fiscal value that is keeping it from being a disaster. If was a UK - UK deal I reckon the plug would have been pulled long ago. Anything below 6% profit margin just isn't worth it.

[Clunkclick]

It certainly was a 'nice little earner' then and something still at the forefront of Saudi Arabia's thought processes.

BAE are only just about breaking even on this contract and its only the sheer fiscal value that is keeping it from being a disaster. If was a UK - UK deal I reckon the plug would have been pulled long ago. Anything below 6% profit margin just isn't worth it.

You'll be getting a visit for CAS querying why BAE's "Normal rate" isn't being applied .

Nick

[KenONeill]

Fitz - I was asking a serious questoin about whether or not the cited item referred to a second tranche of Type 45 destroyers as part of the budget line.

[Fitz323]

Ken, not really sure on that one. I think 8 were planned but 6 to be actually built.

Fitz

[KenONeill]

Ken, not really sure on that one. I think 8 were planned but 6 to be actually built.

Fitz

I'd understood the original order was for 2 tranches of 6 each, but the ConDems had cancelled the second one, so I was hoping that this was a back door re-instatement of tranche 2.

[Clunkclick]

Wasn't this being hawked as the Tranche 2 substitute. Might make more sense. But, the claimed in service after 2020 may a bit optimistic and really mean 2030-2040.

http://en.wikipedia....i/UXV_Combatant

Thinking about it, with all these navies emerging around the World, they really (Or may be the yanks) need to establish a naval equivalent to "Top Gun" . . . . trying to think of a name for it . .

Nick

Edited 1 February, 2013 by Clunkclick

[KenONeill]

Wasn't this being hawked as the Tranche 2 substitute. Might make more sense. But, the claimed in service after 2020 may a bit optimistic and really mean 2030-2040.

http://en.wikipedia....i/UXV_Combatant

I'm not sure; the "mini-carrier" idea makes sense, but there are all sorts of reasons for not using US kit like Sea Sparrow if you can help it.

Thinking about it, with all these navies emerging around the World, they really (Or may be the yanks) need to establish a naval equivalent to "Top Gun" . . . . trying to think of a name for it . .

Nick

Er, "Top Gun" was a nickname for the "US Navy Fighter Weapons School" (now USN Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor programme).

[Clunkclick]

I'm not sure; the "mini-carrier" idea makes sense, but there are all sorts of reasons for not using US kit like Sea Sparrow if you can help it.

But if every deployed surface vessel/flotilla has one or more of those amongst its number, then carriers become superfluous, well at least for small deployments/engagements.

Nick

Edited 1 February, 2013 by Clunkclick

[GentleGiant]

Not really, the current cost of the two carriers is in the region of approx 5 billion each. Nimitz was originally roughly half a billion but the cost to produce today including the upgrades since the seventies is estimated to be nearer 6 billion.

The jump in technology that our two carriers will have from not only what we had previously, but other nations forces is significant to explain the huge cost.

The new carrier is comparable in size (although not quite as big) as the super carriers the US has but the crew size is less than a third. That means a massive increase in technical spec which also cost a lot of cash.

As I understand it, the newer ships are modular in design, making the first one expensive, but creating massive savings for each extra one made.

Also note I included the aircraft; you can have a full WING of F/A 18 Super Hornets for LESS than the cost of 1 F35C, aircraft that are faster and have a better range AND payload than the F35C will have.

And as someone else pointed out, the fuel cost - the RN cannot afford the fuel for its CURRENT fleet, that is why so many of them remain tied up at the docks for large parts of the year, and why only 1, rather than 2, of the 3 "Invincible" class carriers were kept at sea for much of their last decade of service.

And dont get me started on the Type 45, a multi billion pound gun boat with a missile system that the makers REFUSE to test on a supersonic, sea skimming, anti ship missile, the very thing it was SUPPOSED to be used for!!!

[Fitz323]

Not really sure how many aircraft a wing consists of but I'm gonna assume it must be about 2 because an F35 will be roughly 120 million USD depending on amount purchased and the US offered the F18 for 60 million USD for the Indian MMRCA contract.

And I can assure you, there will be no comparison between the two aircraft mentioned. The stats you have quoted are easy numbers to argue a point on but when it comes down to mission performance there will be absolutely no contest.

Fitz

[GentleGiant]

That is the price for the F35A, We are buying the far less capable, and mega expensive F35C which is currently estimated to cost $237 million each; however this doesnt count the $2.5 billion the UK pumped in to keep the project going, nor the fact that the aircraft still hasnt proven itself, and may yet need further expensive redesign*, either way, it will be another DECADE before it will be in service with the Royal Navy in enough number to provide MINIMAL air cover for one carrier, and the price by then will of course be much higher; in contrast we could buy the F18s and have a full squadron for BOTH carriers for similar money and have them ready to deploy the day the carriers enter trials.

I meant flight, not wing - sorry, although allowing for further inflation of the final cost, it may yet be 1 F35C Albatross = 8 F/A18 Hornets

Flight =4

Wing = 8

Squadron = 16

*Last I read, it was suffering from the SAME problem that got the SHAR II scrapped - an inabilty to hover in tropical climes while carrying a pair of AMRAAMs; not to mention the fact it keeps melting the decks of the test carrier.

[Fitz323]

I agree if you bought some F18's for our carriers they would be more than adequate for our needs. That wasn't what I was saying; and I'm not defending our procurement. However, we've gone down the Lightening route and the F18 is virtually at the end of its design spectrum. It WILL Not be in service for another 40 years or so and if it is it will not be good enough to compete with other nations aircraft.

Something to bare in mind is the 2 aircraft fulfil two very different requirements; although they are not dissimilar in a lot of their roles. The F18 is classed as a conventional aircraft on today's military and can really only carry out conventional missions. The F35 is a day 1 strike fighter I.e. it is capable of full strike capability on day 1 of a war; when all of the enemies air defence is intact, and at full strength etc. it will be used to disable all of this (that's the plan anyway) by use of it's organic capabilities. Something which the Hornet does not or ever will.

Fitz

[GentleGiant]

What organic capabilities? It is "sleathy" not a full steath plane, and even full stealth plans will be barely stealthy as soon as radar technology catches up with the design; how would you rate the chances of a F117 against a modern radar set??

I have yet to see evidence that it will be able to VIFF like the SHAR II is is supposed to be replacing, so wont be as good in a dog fight.

Since the chances of us getting in a fighting war with the US, Russia or China are remote, when are we going to need the supposed organic capabilities you refer to??

it is capable of full strike capability on day 1 of a war; when all of the enemies air defence is intact, and at full strength etc. it will be used to disable all of this (that's the plan anyway) by use of it's organic capabilities.

No sane government/ general officer is going to risk expensive aircraft and crew when a stand-off missile can do the same job.

And you honestly think these aircraft will last 40 years?? They are too complex and already nearly obsolete; they will be replaced with cheaper, pilotless drones before 1/2 that time has passed.

As usual, the JCS and MOD are buying equipment needed to fight the USSR and not bothering to notice that it vanished over 20 years ago.

[Fitz323]

I'll get back to you on that one as I'm off to work and the reply will be lengthy.

[GentleGiant]

(fidget, fidget, looks at watch, checks calendar, then goes to bed... again!!!)

[Fitz323]

(fidget, fidget, looks at watch, checks calendar, then goes to bed... again!!!)

Ha ha, just finished night shift and i'm knackered. I will put my reply down as it's an interesting debate

[GentleGiant]

YOU are knackered?? I have a 2 week old premmie baby to look after!!! :zzz:

[Fitz323]

Ok, where were we,

“What organic capabilities? It is "sleathy" not a full steath plane, and even full stealth plans will be barely stealthy as soon as radar technology catches up with the design; how would you rate the chances of a F117 against a modern radar set?? “

The organic capabilities the F35 has as we all know are primarily it’s ability not to be seen, and I agree it does not have the full spectrum stealth capability of the F-22 but it was not designed to. What it does have is the next best thing from a frontal angle; it’s roughly the size of a small base ball or similar size which is admittedly a lot bigger than the F-22 but a hell of a lot smaller than the F-18.

Radar tech is catching up but the F-35 now has third generation stealth capabilities which are night and day away from the aircraft you are keen to pitch it against. But the F-35 goes beyond the traditional “stealth” concept; the aircraft has been designed to have a very low IR signature (clever use of fuel cooling close to the surface structure) and very low “electronic” noise.

The main organic capabilities I was really referring to are the complete systems that make up the aircraft from a design build stage rather than bolt on additions that the 4^th generation aircraft possess. In clean configurations the performance of this aircraft compared to legacy aircraft it is due to replace may only be comparable or incrementally better at best however when you start adding pods, external stores provisions, fuel tanks, designator pods, ISTAR equipment etc etc etc to the actual basic configuration of these legacy aircraft their lethality actually decreases. By a long way too.

Your last comment on this point was would I rate the chances of a Nighthawk against modern radar, simple answer is no, not really, but it is no longer in service and has not been for many years. I would rate it highly in certain scenarios and this has been proven many more times than you will read in the press.

Next point, you said “Since the chances of us getting in a fighting war with the US, Russia or China are remote, when are we going to need the supposed organic capabilities you refer to?? “

Hopefully we will not get in a spat with the US (that would end quite badly) but Russia is certainly pushing the bounds of friendship with it’s position on Syria and other emerging trouble spots in the middle east. That's another topic though.

China, maybe not in the foreseeable future but I think a certain possibility at some point; especially when you consider it military budget and equipment procurement have increased dramatically over the last decade or so. Coupled with the fact the world’s resources are running out, precious metal deposits required for high technology development are hoarded by this state. Although China’s defense spending is dwarfed by the US it is spending an alarming amount on cyber warfare which may at some point become an issue where military intervention may be required. But again, hopefully not.

Realistically speaking I don’t think there is really much chance of a conventional conflict between two large, powerful countries a la the cold war, but I don’t believe in ignoring the possibility either. We did that at the end of the first world war and we were using WW1 aircaft at the beginning of the second.

Where I do think the capabilities of the F-35 will be used, over the F-18 is in theatre strike, close air support and battle field interdiction; where it’s “organic” capabilities of forward sector stealth, internal stores provision, cruise efficiency etc will make it a far more effective survivable asset.

These arenas could be certain “problem” nations acquiring relatively advanced SAM’s (just take a look at what came out of Libya and where that stuff is now) both highly mobile and semi mobile and the quite effective guerilla trend of shoot your missile and run away quickly – basically denying access to attacking nations due to asymmetric warfighting and unpredictability; these types of tactics do really present a problem for things like combat air support to our intelligence aircraft, and ground troops, ability to use nearby bases and runways due to being within strking distance (this includes host nations in other countries) as well as political affiliation issues that could arise from that. All of this provides the defending nation / terrorist group / whoever, a highly mobile, adaptable persistant air defense threat. Exactly what one of the F-35’s mission profiles is to be used against.

It has been proven that the most effective way of dealing with this type of threat is persistant loitering over station (whatever that may be) and taking out targets of opportunity / known non mobile targets / command and control areas etc etc all while in a complex, moving, ever changing lethal environment. All of this which is incredibly stressful for the pilot with massive risk of information overload. This is where another of the F-35’s organic advantages comes in – sensor fussion.

I work on a 4.5 generation aircraft and have done for nearly a decade and the one thing the pilots always say is the modern way of design imbedded within this type of aircraft will be a life savor and a force multiplier due to their abilty to carry out complex missions in a very extreme environment is all down to sensor fussion. Again, F-18, as good as it is, does not have this level of luxury.

I’m gonna have to wrap this up as I’m off to work but one last point I want to make (well two actually) is that the aircatft we have been discussing is comparative to an F16, F18, F15 in the within visual range arena but does not need to be much better due to high off boresight weaponry, helmet mounted sighting systems, superior probability of kill aiming / firing solutions etc mean it is quite likely the F-35 would get the first shot in in the beyond visual range environment anyway.

Last point, I think we have bought the “wrong” F-35, and I think we should have navalised the Typhoon and spent all of the money on that instead.

[Fitz323]

PS, I do love the Hornet especially in Super Hornet and Growler guise, but whoever came up with that name needs to be shot!!!!

[Brimma]

Threads entitled 'Hmmmmmmm' really annoy me :(

[Richf]

Neither we nor the US will go to war with China since China has the economic power to more or less bankrupt the US

[Fitz323]

Threads entitled 'Hmmmmmmm' really annoy me :(

What about threads titled Hmmmmm as to Hmmmmmmm??? ;-)