CVF Construction

[Prom]

Some proper build news, PoW bow section off to Scotland:

http://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/n...tone_1_1233545

Just passing the Thames estuary according to AIS.

[Geoff_B]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-trebles.html

Daily Telegraph is still pushing this story of the switch back to STOVL, trouble is the MOD quotes are the same as the last time so nothing new, but his sources appear to be confirming this. The trouble is these could be VTOL fans rather than official sources especially if quoting the claptrap about the STOVL problems being largely resolved by the manufacturer, it still has unresolved issues on performance and reliability and its cost is still excessive for the capability delivered.

[pred]

Was also covered by Jane's Defence Weekly back on 1 March.

Plenty of political fallout from another u-turn on defence, but the cost and schedule issues in the near-term appear to be causing a very serious re-think indeed.

[Geoff_B]

The MOD are juggling with various issues, the SDSR stated what we planned to do by going CATOBAR with the F-35C.

However this did leave a serious political issue caused by the timeline would effectively favour the 2nd ship over the first which whilst bad enough having a new capital ship built and tested then mothballed and worse in that the respective ships are named after the monarch and hier respectively.

Now we have problem with the F-35C, whilst the slightly more cheaper and capable variant, it won't be ready in the time scale we need it to be.

The F-35B has come off probation which was the threat hanging over it which forced the initial switch of variants, but even if it may get an earlier IOC thanks to USMC pressure, it may still not be ready in the numbers required to suit our schedule, coupled with a more expensive and less capable aircraft which may be a compromise solution for carrier strike but may not be viable as a Tornado replacement for the RAF. Most of the performance and cost issues about the F-35B have not been fixed for the JCA requirement and it too could still encounter further development delays.

I do wonder if these sources who are leaking the rumours may be biased, so are pushing the F-35B alternative rather than a CATOBAR alternative aircraft to the F-35 as i suspect those options are also being looked as the greater risk is the F-35 rather than the carrier conversions ?

[Fedaykin]

This is the comment I placed on the Defence Management website:

Talk about switching back to F35B is foolish now or going to a fantasy Sea Typhoon. The program needs de-risking and the cost of the F35C needs to be pushed as far as possible to the right. Nominal OSD for Tornado GR4 is 2025, thats when really need F35C as a replacement for that type in the penetration strike role. With current build schedule we probably won't have a carrier fitted out with EMALS and AAG until 2019, that means we couldn't even conduct deck landing trials until 2020! Those landing trials can be conducted with American and French help using the Super Hornet or Rafale. Post 2020 they are talking about operating about six aircraft on PoW during that initial slow work up period. Rather then take the riskier, costlier early F35C this can be done with a lease of Super Hornet or Rafale. It will take about ten years to be in a position skill wise to operate a larger airgroup of 12 to 36 aircraft.

This gives a lower risk and cost schedule:

Operate leased Hornet or Rafale until 2030 with F35C test airframes making occasional visits.

Draw down of Tornado GR4 by 2025 with new F35C taking on role along side Tranche 3A Typhoon from mid decade.

Stand down of leased aircraft around 2030 with F35C purchased from later and cheaper production run of the type entering carrier service.

On a side note if the will is there QE can be dragged back into Rosyth in the 2020 to 2030 time period for a refit to CATOBAR configuration. That keeps skills in Rosyth that would wither otherwise and dovetails with the significant overhaul PoW will need after more then a decade of service.

De-risk the program, de-couple the aircraft choice from the carrier build program and push costs as far as possible to the right in respect of F35C. The USN plans to have the F35C in service for a long time procuring LATER will be cheaper then taking earlier examples!

[Prom]

There has been a semi-official quote from USN over in the US that the issue is being considered.

From what i have heard they will be studying the issue all through 2012, so don't expect a final answer until 2013. If the decision is made before then it will be back to F35-B

[Liger30]

My view on the latest rumors: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogs...orth-some.html

[Fedaykin]

I agree with your conclusions on your blog Liger30 but it does fill me with a certain degree of despair! F35B means we are locked into the success or failure of that program!

If it happens I will be interested to see how the government try to spin it as a positive. Probably lots of smart procurement tosh...

[Liger30]

Rafale never was a realistic option, Sea Typhoon neither, and the RAF does not want to finance F18 for the Navy as they have no interest on it.

So the F35C didn't free the UK from much of the constraints.
Besides, now it is arguably the F35C that's at risk of failure. If this summer the redesigned tailhook fails to grab the wires, extensive redesign of the fuselage becomes necessary, cost grows for sure, and operational capability is delayed, very possibly of several years.

I expect that it will catch the wire, but there's no certainty.
And with possibly 1.8 billion bill to convert a single carrier... it just can't work.

The catapults have many merits, and they are no doubt the right solution, and the most future-proof.
But they also appear to be unaffordable.

Between a single catapults carrier, no LPHs, and reduced capability across the board and 2 carriers aviation capable, i'll always chose the second.

[Fedaykin]

One thing that is certain the people in the carrier project office are probably busy smashing cups against the wall at the moment.

Looking aside from the carrier it does throw some interesting light on the GR4 replacement. Certainly the RAFs eyes are turning onto unmanned for the penetration strike component. Also with the noises about project seed-corn in respect of the MPA role I wonder if the RAF are turning their mind to reviving the concept of using the P8 as a CALCM carrier with Storm Shadow much as they were thinking with Nimrod MRA4. With Voyager support P8 and Storm Shadow would give the RAF a quick response global strike capability.

[Liger30]

Certainly the RAFs eyes are turning onto unmanned for the penetration strike component. Also with the noises about project seed-corn in respect of the MPA role I wonder if the RAF are turning their mind to reviving the concept of using the P8 as a CALCM carrier with Storm Shadow much as they were thinking with Nimrod MRA4.

The UCAV program with France will not deliver anything before 2030 at the earliest, though, so i don't know, sincerely.
I think the RAF wants the F35C, but will have to content itself with the B if the financial situation is as bad as is being said. And it is, i suspect.

As to MPA and Storm Shadow, i support that entirely. An MPA is an urgent requirement in my view, and Storm Shadow on such a long range platform is a good idea.
As is that of deploying Storm Shadows out of the cargo ramp of A400 cargo planes, even if the RAF was never too keen on admitting that this is absolutely feasible. They prefer fast and pointy jets for the role, unsurprisingly.

The unfortunate bit of the picture is that the 10-years equipment plan in the making does not include any money for an MPA purchase at all, despite Seedcorn going on, according to what Ursula Brennan told the Defence Committee.

[Fedaykin]

What this does do is fully expose the lie in the farce that was SSDR 2010! As we all know it was purely a cost driven exercise and if this happens the government can't deny that!

[Liger30]

That is clear, Fedaykin.

The problem is that it was poor even as a financial exercise: the F35C decision now turns out being unhappy; Largs Bay is gone to save as little as 12 millions per year, Albion mothballed to save less than 20, even the 40% cut in Challenger II tanks in government figures equates to at most 20 million per year, and the cutting of the Fuchs NBC recce vehicles doesn't total 3 millions.

Disproportionate loss of capability in exchange for often ridiculous savings...

[Fedaykin]

Personally whilst I would of preferred the UK kept Largs Bay it doesn't bother me as much as other decisions. Considering pre SSDR 2010 they were saying Albion or Bulwark would go along with two of the Bay class the RFA/RN got off light. Three Bay and Two Albion class along with Ocean and all the Ro-Ro plus RFA Diligence, RFA Argus and HMS Illustrious our capacity is still significantly superior to what we had in 82 when it comes to putting troops on a beach. If it also helps out an ally the RAN who got themselves into a pickle as well and who have been given a taste for UK ships again its not all bad.

Of course no carrier air whatsoever and you might as well sell on or retire all the amphibious assault capability that has been built up as there will be no way to protect it over a beachhead! - Something the lets get rid of carriers brigade seem to forget !

[kev 99]

I think I'm going to refer to the SDSR as the Nott Review 2 in future.

[Fedaykin]

Yeah problem is with Nott 1 at least the Argentines helped showing the flaws in it prior to the worst aspects being enacted.

[mrmalaya]

my thoughts:

The RAF doesn't want the F35 as a tornado replacement. It does want a mega UCAV and is in a healthy position to produce one. If they have to rely on the short legs of the F35B and Typhoon with all the weapons in the RAF inventory, then so be it.........

I was always a fan of the B, and i think VSTOL is the future for these ships both in terms of manned and unmanned aviation.

And it is the future that we are talking about, not rehashing cold war legacy designs from the 60s and 70s.

As to egg on the face of the government. I think the concept of building the largest warship this country has known and mothballing it whilst waiting for a delayed and flawed programme to produce an airframe to sit on her decks is a much eggier position than reverting to the B.

At least they can claim that events in the US drove the decision....

[RN Phantom]

The thing I don't understand is where the £1.8 billion figure for CATOBAR conversion of PoW comes from. I thought CVF was designed from the outset with future conversion in mind?

[Obi Wan Russell]

The thing I don't understand is where the £1.8 billion figure for CATOBAR conversion of PoW comes from. I thought CVF was designed from the outset with future conversion in mind?

Exactly. I smell a rat...

[Geoff_B]

I rather doubt the figure is 1.8 billion to actually convert PoW, i would hazard a guess that they are roping in a whole string of costs on top of the CATOBAR gear and the ship revisions such as design, compensation to ACA for the longer build, training of aircrew & groundcrew, modifications to the base airfield where ever that may be, etc, etc. Plus thats just a figure quoted from one source trying to spin up the story.

The other aspect is that we're only seeing the pro F-35B aspect of the studies as the source leak may be either a Labour supporter, or a STOVL fan as the official line is much more generalised.

There will be other studies going on, probably a change in the JCA to a Naval Combat Aircraft and a reduced buy to meet the Carrier Strike need, with the rest deferred onto the Tornado replacement. Now those would hurt BAE & LM so they are pushing the F-35B spin to support the rumours, as the alternatives would leave them somewhat expossed !.

The offical line so far is :-

In a statement, the UK Ministry of Defence says it is currently finalising its budget for 2012-13 and balancing its equipment plan. "As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed," it says.

Defence secretary Philip Hammond will announce the outcome of this process before Parliament's Easter recess starts on 27 March, but the MoD says the government remains committed to fielding a new carrier strike capability as part of its "Future Force 2020" plans.

From that we know the Govt is committed to Carrier Strike and they are reviewing the program to validate costs and manage risks, the biggest cost and risk is the F-35 program at present as its still got a long way to go and issues to resolve before it enters service.

Can you really see Cameron doing another Public reversal and at the same time cancelling or having to seriously revise the carrier cooperation agreements made with both France & the USA ?.

As Leiger says we'll have to await the budget review at the end of the month, but unlike him i'm not sure it they can stay 100% committed to the JSF program as meeting the Carrier Strike requirement in light of recent events to the program.

[19K11]

In general I agree with the above but I feel I must point out that a government is allways commited to a project right up until the cancell it.

[mrmalaya]

no, but its true that the reversal of the cooperation agreements would be much more damaging.

Its a non story in my opinion. With LM saying that the C will go to the carrier as planned i don't think there will be a delay to its UK arrival in service.

It does sound like a pro labour source trying to stir things up.

I still stand by my UCAV comments though......

[Frosty]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/201...s&type=article

[Liger30]

I hope in a reversion to the B variant, sweetened by a committment to putting both carriers in service.

Give me this announcement, and i'm happy. The F35C would be better, but i'd much rather have both carriers than a single one with the C.

[Brigstow74]

The Telegraph is reporting this again today.

This is the same newspaper that only a month ago reported that the defence budget was balanced and even had a surplus of £2bn (coincidence?).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-announce.html

From what I've read in it over the last few years it is not in favour of building them in the first place and looking at any opportunity to put it in a bad light.

I guess that this is going to be a political decision rather than a military or financial one. It depends on whether the PM is able to manage the volte-face, both domestically and overseas and from what I've read I'm under the impression we have already lost political capital with the USMC when we chose in 2010 to swap to the C version.

If we did decide to go with the F-35B, would this mean we are able to reintroduce carrier aviation much earlier than 2020 and if so wouldn't that have a financial impact too?

[Geoff_B]

I hope in a reversion to the B variant, sweetened by a committment to putting both carriers in service.

Give me this announcement, and i'm happy. The F35C would be better, but i'd much rather have both carriers than a single one with the C.

To be honest i think the Carrier conversion cost increase is a bit of a red herring, it would be interesting to see how that actually breaks down as i suspect they are roping in alot of the associated costs of training coupled with BAE's fee for drawing out the build schedule rather than the actual costs of converting the carrier to CATOBAR format.

On the plus side it does open the way to make use of HMS Queen Elizabeth when she is ready for service come 2018, and it will be easier to maintain HMS Prince of Wales to the same standard in a rotating service.

On the downside it does leave the PM with egg on his face after making various statements to justify the switch back in the 2010 SDSR, it also brings into question the RAF choice to dump the Harrier in favour of the Tornado as the Harrier force has now gone so we will now have to send crews to maintain their skills with the USMC and Italian navies. It also knocks a hole in the carrier cooperation deals with both the US & French as we won't have a compatible carrier.

I also think the recent arrestor hook issue on the F-35C and the deferral of the USN F-35C orders have had a drastic impact on when the F-35C would actually become available for RN use onboard the CVF, that is probably the biggest factor driving the rethink.

Personally rather than switching back to STOVL i would prefer they continue with the CATOBAR CVF and split the JCA requirement from the Tonado replacement program, keeping involved in the F-35C as part of the Tornado replacement come 2025 as that would ensure a carrier capable RAF Strike package in line with our long term force goal. However instead of F-35C for the FAA aspect of JCA go with an off the shelf solution such as Super Hornet or Rafale M of a couple of sqdns worth, then use these to form the basis of the CVF airgroup using shared facilities with our allies to keep running costs down. They can then act in the cap/sea strike roles, make use of the existing buddy tanking capability and if nesessary be replaced by F-35C should it be suitable or sign up for the NGAD.

Of course we'll have to wait and see whats decided next week, it was interesting to note that Hammond has left it to David Cameron to decide as he's the one who will face the music should it become a U-turn.

[kev 99]

The Telegraph is reporting this again today.

This is the same newspaper that only a month ago reported that the defence budget was balanced and even had a surplus of £2bn (coincidence?).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-announce.html

From what I've read in it over the last few years it is not in favour of building them in the first place and looking at any opportunity to put it in a bad light.

I guess that this is going to be a political decision rather than a military or financial one. It depends on whether the PM is able to manage the volte-face, both domestically and overseas and from what I've read I'm under the impression we have already lost political capital with the USMC when we chose in 2010 to swap to the C version.

If we did decide to go with the F-35B, would this mean we are able to reintroduce carrier aviation much earlier than 2020 and if so wouldn't that have a financial impact too?

Yes in theory, but not by much and only at significant cost. The plan from the start was that the first aircraft to fly from these carriers was the Harriers we already had, the RAF and RN would then transition to the F35b. In theory we could buy some low rate production F35bs but I believe they would cost about $200m a pop, whichi sounds like very little saving to me.

I will say that it looks like the MOD are going to make a short term cost saving decision here and go with a solution that is the wrong one in the long term.

[kev 99]

Personally rather than switching back to STOVL i would prefer they continue with the CATOBAR CVF and split the JCA requirement from the Tonado replacement program, keeping involved in the F-35C as part of the Tornado replacement come 2025 as that would ensure a carrier capable RAF Strike package in line with our long term force goal. However instead of F-35C for the FAA aspect of JCA go with an off the shelf solution such as Super Hornet or Rafale M of a couple of sqdns worth, then use these to form the basis of the CVF airgroup using shared facilities with our allies to keep running costs down. They can then act in the cap/sea strike roles, make use of the existing buddy tanking capability and if nesessary be replaced by F-35C should it be suitable or sign up for the NGAD.

The best idea of this type that I saw came from a French Minister who announced that it would be willing to loan the RN some aircraft if needed, that way the F35c purchase could get kicked to the right for a few years while the RN work up with Rafale. I'm not sure how feasible the whole thing would be in practice though.

[Brigstow74]

The best idea of this type that I saw came from a French Minister who announced that it would be willing to loan the RN some aircraft if needed, that way the F35c purchase could get kicked to the right for a few years while the RN work up with Rafale. I'm not sure how feasible the whole thing would be in practice though.

I would agree with that option. Interesting turn of phrase on the MOD website, the part I've put in bold is something I've not seen before in previous press statements:

"There were a number of articles in the papers over the weekend which claim that the MOD is preparing to make an announcement about its purchase of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

The MOD is currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan. This means reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed.

The Defence Secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament before Easter.

The intention to move to a 'cats and traps' based carrier strike capability, which was announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, was always subject to a detailed piece of work to assess the costs and risks involved in converting a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier. That work is ongoing."

I guess we'll find out more on Monday when the next Defence Questions is scheduled.

[Frosty]

Spiralling costs and unknown issues cropping up, this was always destined to happen. The switch to CATOBAR was driven by Liam Fox’s ideological obsession that we need ‘cats and traps’. That’s why I said at the time it was wrong thing to do. (Correct me if I’m wrong but I think Jonesy said something similar)

Yes we’re in 2012 and yes we do now know that EMALs will work and that if the issues with F35-C can be fixed that it will be better than the B version. But back when these were designed and contracts signed off that wasn’t the case.

The F35-B might not be as good as the C but it will be plenty good enough for what we need. All of this stuff about interoperability with our allies is just political smoke and mirrors tactics and nothing to do with real strategic advantage.

The F35-B with a new AEW helicopter (Merlin with Searchwater) is all we really need for the sort of interventions that we will face by ourselves.

If the additional costs really add up to more than £2billion for a single conversion then this is simply shocking. That amount of money would easily pay for a replacement for HMS Ocean.

Switching to CATOBAR is just increasing the length of the capability gap and wasting valuable money that could have been reinvested into other important projects such as a replacement for HMS Ocean.