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
  • MisterQ
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2008
    • 475

    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
    Sensible.
    But then again, it is no cuts then. T3B is no real cuts since it is not even contracted for and anyway it would be years away still in any case. And there's likely no way to recede from current contracts for the planes the RAF is receiving (thanks god!!!).
    At the most, they can... mothball more T1 as reserve planes and have less active airframes, i guess. Reduce flying hours or something. I don't see other ways to achieve relevant savings over Typhoon at the moment, sincerely.
    Not possible, T1 airframes are burning flight hours at a serious pace, not to mention all of our 2 seat trainers come from T1 and the fact that T1 cannot be upgraded to the common standard of T3 as T2 can

    Comment

    • Colombamike
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Nov 2009
      • 130

      Hmmm.
      British Typhoon:
      The initial 232 fighters hopped were now clearly a dream, with +/- 160 expected
      Tranche 1: 53 delivered by 2003/2007
      Tranche 2: 67 delivered by 2007 to around 2012 ?
      Tranche 3A: 40 expected, delivered by 2013? To 2018 ?
      Tranche 3B: 72 last british Typhoon initially expected, likely to be cancelled or drastically reduced (and deliveries seriously slowed...)

      British F-35 B
      150 originally planned, figure +/- officially reduced to 138 by 2009. Now the best optimistic view look around 80/90 aircrafts (the most pessimist around 25/30 or a pure cancellation).
      The first 3 aircrafts (testing aircrafts) is likely to be delivered by 2012+
      The first production aircrafts delivered by 2017+
      When, around 2020, +/- 15/20 F-35B will be delivered, the most ageing Typhoon have +/- 17 years (not dramatically ageing)

      My personnal scenario look around 160 Typhoon and +/- 40 F-35 (for a total of 200 combat aircrafts)

      Wait & see, by mid/late october ...
      Visit my blog on news about all combat fleet of the world !
      http://combatfleetoftheworld.blogspot.com/

      Comment

      • swerve
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2005
        • 13612

        Originally posted by Colombamike View Post
        My personnal scenario look around 160 Typhoon and +/- 40 F-35 (for a total of 200 combat aircrafts)

        Wait & see, by mid/late october ...
        See above. Yet again, & despite being reminded, you're ignoring time. A total buy of 160 + 40 won't give us 200 combat aircraft, as I explained above.

        Also, we won't know from the defence review how many F-35B are going to be bought, because of time. We've always expected to order them in batches, & this review will only cover the size & timing of the first batch. It probably won't tell us anything about how many F-35B will be delivered between 2020 & 2030.

        Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
        Not possible, T1 airframes are burning flight hours at a serious pace, not to mention all of our 2 seat trainers come from T1 and the fact that T1 cannot be upgraded to the common standard of T3 as T2 can
        More reasons to doubt that we can sell 'em all off.
        Last edited by swerve; 16th September 2010, 10:57.
        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
        Justinian

        Comment

        • Fedaykin
          Fueled by Tea
          • Dec 2005
          • 5295

          Navy Matters editorial update!

          Well after two years Beedall has done an editorial update on his excellent website.

          Strangely whilst he goes into details of how cuts might have to work his suggestions do make up to a reasonable solution (except for his suggestion about the RFA - well unless the useful types are transfered to RN service).

          Certainly his conclusions about the carriers make sense, finish QE as a Ski Jump Harrier carrier whilst PoW is fitted with Catapult. This all dovetails the Harrier and Oceans retirement dates together. With QE taking over from Ocean until funds permit outfitting the same as PoW and the Harriers being replaced with F35C (or Super Hornet). Also allows time for the PoW build strategy to be adapted and risk reduced for catapults. The fact is QE construction is too far gone to change to catapults now and running Harrier off her to the intended OSD of that type makes sense. It also gives some flexibility if they do decide that a reduced purchase of F35B is desirable allowing a mixed F35 fleet. Finally by going for F35C with service introduction when PoW comes into service pushes their procurement to the right as well putting off the cost if we had wanted F35B for QE.
          Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

          Comment

          • nocutstoRAF
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2010
            • 954

            Can I ask a dumb question - I know there has been lots of discussion of refurbishing Harrier's but has a study been done in say the last 10 years of how much it would cost to do a limited run of new build Harriers and if so did it ever make it into the public? Also was there any consideration given to transferring the technology to India or Thailand so they could re-capitalise their Harrier fleets?
            If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

            Comment

            • Fedaykin
              Fueled by Tea
              • Dec 2005
              • 5295

              I would think any project to restart Harrier poduction would require Boeing support. A significant proportion of Harrier II structure came from MACAIR (now Boeing).

              Whilst there has been significant new structure work for the US AV8B remanufacturing program new build is another kettle of fish. I would think Boeing is in the Business of trying to sell new Super Hornet so it isn't going to help make new Harriers financially attractive.

              As for Bae Systems they would see any Harrier II construction as eating into potential F35 work...
              Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

              Comment

              • benroethig
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2010
                • 487

                Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                Well after two years Beedall has done an editorial update on his excellent website.

                Strangely whilst he goes into details of how cuts might have to work his suggestions do make up to a reasonable solution (except for his suggestion about the RFA - well unless the useful types are transfered to RN service).

                Certainly his conclusions about the carriers make sense, finish QE as a Ski Jump Harrier carrier whilst PoW is fitted with Catapult. This all dovetails the Harrier and Oceans retirement dates together. With QE taking over from Ocean until funds permit outfitting the same as PoW and the Harriers being replaced with F35C (or Super Hornet). Also allows time for the PoW build strategy to be adapted and risk reduced for catapults. The fact is QE construction is too far gone to change to catapults now and running Harrier off her to the intended OSD of that type makes sense. It also gives some flexibility if they do decide that a reduced purchase of F35B is desirable allowing a mixed F35 fleet. Finally by going for F35C with service introduction when PoW comes into service pushes their procurement to the right as well putting off the cost if we had wanted F35B for QE.
                That makes sense only if she's used for training in friendly waters only until refit. QE with Harriers equipped with no radar or BVR capability makes a very tempting target.

                Comment

                • Fedaykin
                  Fueled by Tea
                  • Dec 2005
                  • 5295

                  Well Illustrious and Ark Royal with Harrier that are not equipped with Radar or BVR capability is our current situation. The UK has in effect taken a capability holiday pending induction of F35, so no real differences.

                  The argument is Type 45 and remaining Type 42 will offer anti air capability until that time.

                  So running Harrier on QE for several years, which was always the plan doesn't change the situation we are in now.
                  Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                  Comment

                  • benroethig
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2010
                    • 487

                    They'll take an even longer one if someone was to sink her. There is a night and day difference in how militaries view the invincibles as opposed to a 65k ton fleet carrier. QE being there changes the plan a lot because she represents a much greater threat to a potential enemy. One that someone may try to eliminate when she's most vulnerable.

                    Comment

                    • Liger30
                      Armed Forces supporter
                      • Jul 2010
                      • 901

                      Waited a long time to hear from Beedall! I had lost my hopes!

                      For sure, he draws a realistic scenario that fits in the press reports and in the modern history of the RN. A history of neclect and betrayal.
                      Unfortunately, i'm unable to find a single flaw in his reasoning. I share his pessimism fully, and i can only hope the SDSR is a bit less of a catastrophe than it promises to be.

                      Other than this, i can only notice, once more, that shattering the Royal Marines amphibious capability is ignoring the aspect of almost every conflict from the 1930s to yesterday and most likely tomorrow.
                      The IIWW saw massive use of amphibious assaults and royal marines.
                      The Royal Navy was involved in the landings in the early phase of the Korea War.
                      The Suez crisis saw a royal marines assault (and for the first time, helicopters were used in support of it).
                      The Falklands also.
                      Sierra Leone saw HMS Ocean in action.
                      The second gulf war too.
                      The first troops in Afghanistan came from HMS Ocean's deck.

                      Almost every war fought by the UK has seen marines and amphibious operations of some scale happening.
                      I truly can't believe there's any other motivation that should be brought forwards to make the case for strong amphibs and RMs.

                      At times i think the focus on the amphibs comes from the fact they are arguably the only good thing Labour did for the navy after the 1998...


                      Anyway, about Harrier modernization ideas, they are old: in 1990 BAe had proposed the "Harrier III" and there was even suggestion of a largely re-engineered Super Harrier.
                      The two possible STOVL type JCA aircraft considered were an advanced derivative of the current Harrier design, and the STOVL variant of the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) which is currently under development.

                      superharrier.jpg (31505 bytes)
                      A hypothetical "Super Harrier"
                      It seems that a development of the Harrier was quickly ruled out for JCA. While a development (Harrier III or Sea Harrier FA.3?) of the existing Boeing/BAE Harrier II+ would be relatively cheap, it would not be supersonic and there's not much potential improvement left in the original 40-year old Harrier design. A radically re-worked supersonic "Super Harrier" concept was considered back in the 1980's but no work has been done since as studies indicated the development costs wouldn't be much less than would be spent developing a far more capable all-new fighter, such as the JSF.

                      With a new version of the Harrier an unattractive option and effectively ruled out, JSF was always considered by far the leading contender for meeting the FCBA/FJCA requirement. Three major versions of the JSF are planned, one for each for the US Air Force, US Navy and US Marine Corps. The USMC variant will will be STOVL capable and is therefore always an attractive choice for the RN and RAF.
                      From http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm
                      "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

                      • Jonesy
                        Neo-conversative
                        • Jan 2000
                        • 5097

                        as opposed to a 65k ton fleet carrier.
                        Who has a 65k ton Fleet Carrier Ben?. QE isnt a Fleet Carrier!. She is a Strike Carrier which is a very important distinction in how the ship is deployed.

                        BTW Ben just who do you think there is, who we would fight alone and in the first 3 or so years of QE's life (i.e the GR9 lifespan), who could take advantage of the lack of BVR and radar?.

                        Comment

                        • swerve
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2005
                          • 13612

                          Originally posted by benroethig View Post
                          That makes sense only if she's used for training in friendly waters only until refit. QE with Harriers equipped with no radar or BVR capability makes a very tempting target.
                          For who? Is anyone who is not at war with us going to start a war just because they see a chance to sink a carrier?

                          She'd be in danger only within range of a country which already intends to go to war with us, & has an air force capable of getting past a Type 45 (QE won't go anywhere alone), defeating Harriers cued by the radars of the ship, escorts & AEW helicopters, & delivering enough ordnance to sink a 65000 ton warship.

                          How much ocean qualifies?
                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                          Justinian

                          Comment

                          • benroethig
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2010
                            • 487

                            Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                            Who has a 65k ton Fleet Carrier Ben?. QE isnt a Fleet Carrier!. She is a Strike Carrier which is a very important distinction in how the ship is deployed.
                            Typical. Facts don't work out, try play semantics.

                            BTW Ben just who do you think there is, who we would fight alone and in the first 3 or so years of QE's life (i.e the GR9 lifespan), who could take advantage of the lack of BVR and radar?.
                            Venezuela comes to mind, so does Iran, Libya well you pacify them by letting a couple more mass murders go home to a hero's welcome.

                            Comment

                            • mrmalaya
                              Generation 4.75+++
                              • Jan 2010
                              • 4664

                              so if everyone is happy with that, how much more would it cost to operate 2 types of F35 I wonder?

                              I have got that right haven't I? QE runs harriers and helos like a combination of invincible and ocean until PoW starts F35C operations? What happens to QE after that?

                              What are the RAF supposed to make of the potential loss of VSTOL strike aircraft if the F35B is not adopted?

                              Comment

                              • Liger30
                                Armed Forces supporter
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 901

                                If F35B is not adopted, the RAF loses STOVL capability. Simple like that.
                                "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

                                • swerve
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2005
                                  • 13612

                                  Originally posted by benroethig View Post
                                  -Venezuela comes to mind, so does Iran, Libya well you pacify them by letting a couple more mass murders go home to a hero's welcome.
                                  I see that paranoia is alive & well over there.

                                  BTW, if a US citizen had been convicted in Libya on the evidence against the 'mass murderer' I think you're referring to, I'm sure you'd be one of the millions complaining about wrongful conviction.
                                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                  Justinian

                                  Comment

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    I don't believe in paranoia.

                                    You probably do not know it, but Lybia is a touchy nation. Last time it fired machine gun bursts on an italian fishing boat was three or four days ago, and it was just luck that no one died on board.
                                    And it is not the first time it happens either.

                                    You never know what can happen. I totally agree it is higly unlikely... But i also have to say that any potential enemy, from Argentina to Lybia, would do its best to exploit the lack of BVR radar and air-to-air missiles.
                                    I don't know who that enemy could be... but for sure, whoever it is, it would exploit that pretty dangerous fault in the air coverage of the fleet.

                                    The fact that there will never be a war right now and so no one will need to exploit that weakness is another fact. But the weakness exists, and it is a very dangerous one.
                                    "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

                                    • RVFHarrier
                                      Rank 3 Registered User
                                      • May 2010
                                      • 105

                                      It does take quite a touchy nation to literally declare a 'line of death' .

                                      Comment

                                      • Liger30
                                        Armed Forces supporter
                                        • Jul 2010
                                        • 901

                                        Bah. It seems the italian fishing boat did not stop readily when the patrol boat issued a stop order... But normally, even so, you don't open up with a machine gun on the damn boat, do you?

                                        Some time ago, an italian fishing boat had been captured and escorted into a Lybian port if i recall correctly, and it was some time before they were released.
                                        And this just for fish.
                                        Figure what may happen for the control of a more precious resource!

                                        And we formally have all sorts of "friendship treatys" with the lybia guy Gheddafi, besides! God knows how much friggin' money he's been able to obtain from Italian government with absurd claims about colonial damages and other idiocies like that...
                                        Last edited by Liger30; 16th September 2010, 16:00.
                                        "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

                                        • Jonesy
                                          Neo-conversative
                                          • Jan 2000
                                          • 5097

                                          Typical. Facts don't work out, try play semantics.
                                          Ben you dont even understand what the UK MoD's Carrier Strike requirement is. Dont talk about facts when you dont understand what they are. The fact that you think the difference between a Strike Carrier and a Fleet Carrier is semantics speaks volumes.

                                          Venezuela comes to mind, so does Iran, Libya well you pacify them by letting a couple more mass murders go home to a hero's welcome.
                                          OK. Venezuela's combined ocean recon assets are what - check it out!?. How about Libya's?. You cant sink what you cant find. Neither of those nations have the IADS to protect their airbases and C3 infrastructure from TLAM strikes either. So IF we accept the delusional concept that we would need to sail across the Atlantic to put 3Cdo brgde ashore on Venezuelan territory all by ourselves the absences of BVR and radar aboard the GR9's would be the least of our worries!.

                                          Perhaps you need to put the Janes book down for a little while Ben and look at the operational art and world events a bit more closely.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X