Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Liger30
    Armed Forces supporter
    • Jul 2010
    • 901

    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
    If i can find the article again, i'll link you to that. The article said that the unitary cost of each plane in flyaway condition was "in the region of the 60 millions".

    I guess the rest of the bill for Canada is about training and spare parts.

    Anyway, i'm looking around the internet to see if i can find that article again. I should have saved it somewhere, goddamn it.
    Found!

    [...] The version the Canadian Air Force is buying is the least expensive of the three variants and in today's dollars it will be around $60 million per aircraft, said Lockheed spokeswoman Kim Testa.

    DoD officials told lawmakers in June that the F-35 fighter program could cost as much as $382.4 billion, with an average through-life per-plane price tag of $92.4 million. [...]

    From http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...18&c=AME&s=AIR Defense News is quite respected as source, so i think it can be given some trust. Obviously, mine are speculations however, this is clear.
    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

    Comment

    • pjhydro
      Rank 4 Registered User
      • Apr 2009
      • 886

      Originally posted by Wanshan View Post
      Brokeback mountain alert
      mmmmmmwwwwaaaaaa! Thank you sweetie! x

      Comment

      • pjhydro
        Rank 4 Registered User
        • Apr 2009
        • 886

        Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
        Heads on the F-35 is rugged in a Clint Eastwood pushing 80 sort of way from the side it looks like someone has botched a nose job on a ugly lass. Still from the videos I have seen of its sensor fusion, the cockpit and the STOL capabilities the F-35 is definitely one of the planes you might describe as having a "great personality"
        I thought it looks like a YAK141 crashed into an F22 just as a Harrier fell from the sky.

        The F35b when it is all gear and doors out looks great, add on pylons full of stuff under the wings and I think it will look the dogs in the warplane stakes.

        Comment

        • nocutstoRAF
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • May 2010
          • 954

          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
          Found!

          [...] The version the Canadian Air Force is buying is the least expensive of the three variants and in today's dollars it will be around $60 million per aircraft, said Lockheed spokeswoman Kim Testa.

          DoD officials told lawmakers in June that the F-35 fighter program could cost as much as $382.4 billion, with an average through-life per-plane price tag of $92.4 million. [...]

          From http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...18&c=AME&s=AIR Defense News is quite respected as source, so i think it can be given some trust. Obviously, mine are speculations however, this is clear.
          Just to mention the story says "The version the Canadian Air Force is buying is the least expensive of the three variants and in today's dollars it will be around $60 million per aircraft, said Lockheed spokeswoman Kim Testa".

          This means that Canada will pay a lot more than $60 million a plane in 2016 and the story in the news thread in the main forum suggests the price tag is actually in the region of $100 million Canadian dollars per plane which is equivalent to €73 million euro's or 62 million sterling a plane. Still cheaper than what some nay-sayers have been quoting but not a million miles away from what some other estimates I have seen are for the cost of the F-35 in that particular time frame.
          If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

          Comment

          • swerve
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2005
            • 13610

            Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
            Found!

            [...] The version the Canadian Air Force is buying is the least expensive of the three variants and in today's dollars it will be around $60 million per aircraft, said Lockheed spokeswoman Kim Testa.
            Thanks.

            The problem with that is that it isn't a definite statement about what Canada will pay. If you examine it carefully, all she actually said is "F-35A will be about $60 mn in today's prices".
            Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
            Justinian

            Comment

            • StevoJH
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2008
              • 1024

              Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
              Highly doubtful either carrier will carry an airwing of 36, more likely rotating 36 aircraft for a wing of no more than a dozen. Which still gives the RN a bigger punch than they currently have and keeps naval air power alive in these times of austerity.
              Yes, but if you want to be able to doploy that size force in an emergency, you need that many active airframes that are assigned to flying squadrons so that pilots can be assigned and kept current.

              You can't have 12 active airframes in a squadron, plus six in an OCU and keep enough pilots current to fillout to 36 aircraft in an emergency unless you have your 12 aircraft flying 24/7.

              Fairly sure you'll find that you have multiple pilots assigned to each aircraft as well.

              For example.

              Australia has 71 F/A-18A/B's (54A+'s & 17 B's)

              These 71 airframes are spread over 3 Active squadrons plus an OCU.

              Now. You (and Lord Jim) are suggesting buying 60-80 aircraft for an active force of at minimum 3 squadrons plus and OCU (minimum ~48 aircraft).

              You then plan on operating these aircraft in an environment where accidents are more likely result in the loss of an aircraft then it is for land based aircraft. Plus because of corrosion, wear on the airframe is likely to be higher then for land based assets.

              Plus, even though F-35 will stay in production for a long time, there is the problem that any attrition replacement order will have to wait until the next free spot on the production line, potentially a couple of years after the order is placed.

              Seeing some issues?
              Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

              Comment

              • StevoJH
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2008
                • 1024

                Originally posted by swerve View Post
                Thanks.

                The problem with that is that it isn't a definite statement about what Canada will pay. If you examine it carefully, all she actually said is "F-35A will be about $60 mn in today's prices".
                It tallies with what the RAAF was expecting to pay last time I saw an article. It was about the same amount.

                RAAF Purchases are a bit hard to work out unit cost though, as the ADF tend to quote full-through-life cost.
                Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

                Comment

                • Liger30
                  Armed Forces supporter
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 901

                  Originally posted by swerve View Post
                  Thanks.

                  The problem with that is that it isn't a definite statement about what Canada will pay. If you examine it carefully, all she actually said is "F-35A will be about $60 mn in today's prices".
                  Well, of course. I dunno if and when we'll know the price of the F35. We may very well never know it for sure. I guess that that one statement, though, is the best indication we can hope for at the moment.
                  And we can hope for things to stay roughly the same or even improve a bit, depending on how many F35 are ultimately ordered and build: that will largely determine their cost.

                  Of course, two very important pieces of info to have will be:
                  - price of the 3 F35B ordered by the UK for the trials. It may be a couple of years before they come, through, and i doubt we'll know the price before it happens.
                  - number of the F35B ordered by US marines and their unitary cost.

                  The more F35B the US marines order, the better for UK. Again, the more planes ordered, the lower unitary cost you can expect.
                  Italy will buy a bunch of F35B as well, mainly for Cavour but reportedly some also for the land-based ops. Most of the italian order will be made up by F35A however, so the UK is not really affected by it.
                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                  Comment

                  • pjhydro
                    Rank 4 Registered User
                    • Apr 2009
                    • 886

                    Originally posted by StevoJH View Post
                    Yes, but if you want to be able to doploy that size force in an emergency, you need that many active airframes that are assigned to flying squadrons so that pilots can be assigned and kept current.

                    You can't have 12 active airframes in a squadron, plus six in an OCU and keep enough pilots current to fillout to 36 aircraft in an emergency unless you have your 12 aircraft flying 24/7.

                    Fairly sure you'll find that you have multiple pilots assigned to each aircraft as well.

                    For example.

                    Australia has 71 F/A-18A/B's (54A+'s & 17 B's)

                    These 71 airframes are spread over 3 Active squadrons plus an OCU.

                    Now. You (and Lord Jim) are suggesting buying 60-80 aircraft for an active force of at minimum 3 squadrons plus and OCU (minimum ~48 aircraft).

                    You then plan on operating these aircraft in an environment where accidents are more likely result in the loss of an aircraft then it is for land based aircraft. Plus because of corrosion, wear on the airframe is likely to be higher then for land based assets.

                    Plus, even though F-35 will stay in production for a long time, there is the problem that any attrition replacement order will have to wait until the next free spot on the production line, potentially a couple of years after the order is placed.

                    Seeing some issues?
                    Exactly! You have to go by the rule of three to maintain credability. The RAAF have maintained a 3 sqn force by hook and crook and their active fleet is actually more like 36 aircraft from the 71, discounting the OCU. For expeditionary work they could only deploy 1 sqn credibly, any more and they would struggle.

                    If you want a proper 3-4 sqn force that can be deployed regularly at 3-4sqn (36-48 aircraft) strength you will need 9-12 sqns (108-144 aircraft) To ensure that those sqns are at full strength and you can equip OCU and OEU etc you will need even more aircraft. All of which is beyond the defence budget.

                    A purchase of 80 aircraft will get you a sustainable force of 2-3 frontline sqns (24-36), an OCU (12) and OEU (2-4) ie around 50 active airframes and 30 for engineering and attrition. That will give you a long term deployment force of 1 sqn.

                    Comment

                    • John K
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jul 2010
                      • 311

                      I think we can fairly assume that when and if the CVFs are built, they will sail around looking fairly empty. It seems they will typically carry no more aircraft than a current CVS, despite being three times the size. I doubt the public will be impressed by talk of "surge capacity", they will see a very expensive asset being extremely under used, and I would be tempted to agree.

                      Comment

                      • pjhydro
                        Rank 4 Registered User
                        • Apr 2009
                        • 886

                        Originally posted by John K View Post
                        I think we can fairly assume that when and if the CVFs are built, they will sail around looking fairly empty. It seems they will typically carry no more aircraft than a current CVS, despite being three times the size. I doubt the public will be impressed by talk of "surge capacity", they will see a very expensive asset being extremely under used, and I would be tempted to agree.
                        Will the public even notice?

                        Comment

                        • LordJim
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2005
                          • 343

                          Given the budget squeeze I can see that the maximum number of airframes will be inservice with a much reduced number of reserve/sttrition airframes being purchased. I know this increases wear and tear and reduced airframe life but with only one squadron routinely deployed it is doable. We can no longer afford a large pool of replacements.

                          As it is the MoD and Government are going to be hung by the media if the CVFs are seen to be operating with such small airgroups.

                          Comment

                          • John K
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jul 2010
                            • 311

                            Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                            Will the public even notice?
                            Given the cuts in public spending which are coming, I think the BBC et all will make sure they do. Having a squadron of nine F35s rattling around in a 65,000 ton carrier will be seen as a criminal misuse of scarce resources, and will probably end up being blamed on the Navy.

                            Comment

                            • nocutstoRAF
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2010
                              • 954

                              I think it more likely the BBC et. al. will call it a criminal waste to buy 80 F-35B and only have one carrier at sea at time which can carry a maximum of 36 F-35 and they will imply that the other 44 planes are wasted, and of course the public will lap it up like the idiots they are!

                              In fact given that the head of the RAF has said that the RAF planned to move to only operating two types of fast jet and the out of service date for the Tornado is 2024 I am surpised that there has not been published a badly researched newspaper article talking about converting the Tornadoes - along with some made up figures of how the development costs will be at least a billion and the conversion of costs of each plane will be 20 million followed by some half-ars*d comments about how it is a waste to spend several billion to convert used Tornado airframes to operate on the carriers for decade before they need to be replaced.
                              Last edited by nocutstoRAF; 19th July 2010, 17:55. Reason: To make second paragraph clearer
                              If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                              Comment

                              • Liger30
                                Armed Forces supporter
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 901

                                Rolls Royce opens the manufacturing arm of the vectoring-thrust duct for the F35B: http://www.defpro.com/news/details/16882/

                                But indeed, one only carrier will be at sea at a time with F35s on board, this is going to be the normality, unfortunately.
                                I just hope to see enough F35 bought to see a decent degree of activity and a decent peacetime airgroup deploying on the carriers, however, because it would be a major waste and a sacrilege to see empty hangars and decks waiting for planes.
                                "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                Comment

                                • nocutstoRAF
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • May 2010
                                  • 954

                                  Given how flexible both the CVF and the F-35B has to be I have no problem with carriers sailing around with 1 squadron of F-35B on board for carrier training, a flight of Merlin’s embarked for training in the transport role and four Merlin ASaC.

                                  Given the F-35B squadron need to be both carrier qualified and to be able to operate in land based roles even if there were another 2 - 3 squadrons available there is no guarantee that they would ever operate the CVF's with a full deck just for training.

                                  If the UK had five or six CVF's then I would expect one of them to be full loaded out, but then if the UK had five or six CVF's they would be filling a very different strategic role than to the two we have plans for!
                                  If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                  Comment

                                  • 90inFIRST
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Oct 2008
                                    • 240

                                    [QUOTE=nocutstoRAF;1612729]Given how flexible both the CVF and the F-35B has to be I have no problem with carriers sailing around with 1 squadron of F-35B on board for carrier training, a flight of Merlins embarked for training in the transport role and four Merlin ASaC.

                                    exactly

                                    Comment

                                    • Liger30
                                      Armed Forces supporter
                                      • Jul 2010
                                      • 901

                                      [QUOTE=90inFIRST;1612792]
                                      Originally posted by 90inFIRST View Post

                                      http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6803/hms1k.jpg
                                      Awesome image. Know where to find the second half as well...?
                                      "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                      Comment

                                      • 90inFIRST
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Oct 2008
                                        • 240

                                        [QUOTE=Liger30;1612796]
                                        Originally posted by 90inFIRST
                                        Awesome image. Know where to find the second half as well...?
                                        Sorry my **** up find the whole lot here

                                        http://content.yudu.com/A1ob8a/navyn...tm?referrerUrl

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          [QUOTE=90inFIRST;1612804]
                                          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post

                                          Sorry my **** up find the whole lot here

                                          http://content.yudu.com/A1ob8a/navyn...tm?referrerUrl
                                          Nothing to be sorry about. Thank you for the awesome stuff instead!
                                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X