Letter Raises Possibility U.K. Could Return to STOVL F-35 in The Royal Navy Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Letter Raises Possibility U.K. Could Return to STOVL F-35

Author

Comment

reiverman

[-]

Posts: 665

Mar 31 12 12:50 PM

Cameron orders independent review into F-35 decision
http://www.janes.com/prod...ence&subChannel=business

Advertisement
	Remove this ad /td>

Bledlow

[-]

Posts: 2492

Mar 31 12 1:00 PM

I can't help thinking that Hammond is influenced by -

- making his mark by reversing his predecessor's decision

- short-term costs (he's talked a lot about hitting short-term financial targets)

I've not seen any evidence that he's paying much attention to either capability, or long-term costs.

kev 99a

[-]

Posts: 1294

Mar 31 12 1:08 PM

Short termism, the eternal achilies heel of the UK Government.

I wonder how much this review is going to cost.

Last Edited By: kev 99a Mar 31 12 1:49 PM. Edited 1 times.

Nauticus27

[-]

Posts: 989

Mar 31 12 4:54 PM

US influence could be playing a part here. It won't have escaped US notice that a UK CTOL carrier is tantamount to a free extra deck for US assets at a time of downward pressure on budgets and numbers. The UK carrier will pootle around with (eventually) a dozen or so UK FJs and (later) some more in reserve but at times of tension we'll usually have a shared interest, the UK "always turns up" and we'll doubtless normally be very happy to host a US squadron or two when needed. Very handy from a US viewpoint and I don't have a problem with that as long as we also have the capability available for times of UK need.

It seems this issue did feature in official level talks around the edges of the recent Cameron visit to the US and it's no coincidence that recently a senior US naval figure was proclaiming much lower EMALS costs in a letter to HMG, with the stated aim of ensuring that the UK bases its decisions on accurate figures. If the MOD had been briefing Cameron on the basis of much higher costs then it wouldn't be surprising if he told them to b*gger off and check their facts, so that there can be some certainty that the eventual decision is based on reliable figures.

Dave

[-]

Posts: 1037

Mar 31 12 7:54 PM

Nauticus27 wrote:
US influence could be playing a part here. It won't have escaped US notice that a UK CTOL carrier is tantamount to a free extra deck for US assets at a time of downward pressure on budgets and numbers. The UK carrier will pootle around with (eventually) a dozen or so UK FJs and (later) some more in reserve but at times of tension we'll usually have a shared interest, the UK "always turns up" and we'll doubtless normally be very happy to host a US squadron or two when needed. Very handy from a US viewpoint and I don't have a problem with that as long as we also have the capability available for times of UK need.

It seems this issue did feature in official level talks around the edges of the recent Cameron visit to the US and it's no coincidence that recently a senior US naval figure was proclaiming much lower EMALS costs in a letter to HMG, with the stated aim of ensuring that the UK bases its decisions on accurate figures. If the MOD had been briefing Cameron on the basis of much higher costs then it wouldn't be surprising if he told them to b*gger off and check their facts, so that there can be some certainty that the eventual decision is based on reliable figures.

This to me is just one of a number of 'Added Value' factors I expect a Treasury led review will either ignore or incorrectly quantify.

http://www.defenceforce.eu/

Graeme65

[-]

Posts: 728

Mar 31 12 8:46 PM

Hammond is the Prime Minister's man, who specialises, it seems, in balancing budgets, I have seen no evidence that he has even the slightest interest in defence. He is interested only in ensuring that the MOD keep within its budget over this parliament. Fox, despite his faults, wanted the defence portfolio, he leaked and politicked for his department, had he survived in office I doubt we would ever have heard about a return to the B.

I hope the USN and Obama are vociferous on the issue of the UK taking defence seriously, because I have absolutely no confidence in this shower, from the PM down, when it comes to investing in the long term best interests of the UK.

IcelofAngeln

[-]

Posts: 6043

Apr 2 12 7:51 PM

Moreover, even the bean-counters should be able to figure out that if they revert to STOVL, then they are bound irrevocably to F-35B; CATOBAR means that Rafale and Superbug are potential options.

SpazSinbad

[-]

Posts: 908

Apr 3 12 12:27 PM

Further to the JDW URL posted above [http://www.janes.com/prod...amp;subChannel=business] here is some more:

JDW: Cameron orders independent review into F-35 decision 30 March 2012 By Richard Scott

http://www.pprune.org/mil...-flaps-back-f35b-19.html (SCROLL DOWN)

"Prime Minister David Cameron has asked the UK Treasury to conduct an independent assessment of the costs associated with converting one of the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to operate the F-35C: the carrier variant (CV) of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Cameron's intervention follows a meeting with Defence Secretary Philip Hammond on 19 March, during which Hammond is believed to have recommended backtracking on the CV acquisition plan because of the costs of carrier conversion. He is thought to have instead advocated the purchase of the F-35B, the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of JSF.

The prime minister's decision to seek an independent review is thought to reflect two principal concerns. First, the political embarrassment resulting from a U-turn on one of the central components of the coalition government's October 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR); second, the possible adverse reaction from the US government and the US Navy (USN)....

...Meanwhile, a letter sent by US Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development & Acquisition, Sean J Stackley, to the UK's Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Minister, Peter Luff, in mid-March has provided insight into the projected cost of the US-supplied aircraft launch and recovery equipment (ALRE) earmarked for Prince of Wales.

According to Stackley, the current estimate is in the range of USD733 million to USD840 million. This accounts for USD156 million in non-recurring engineering, plus the costs associated with the procurement of ALRE, including a two-track EMALS system and three-wire AAG configuration."

[https://skydrive.live.com/]?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791 & [http://www.]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos

Last Edited By: SpazSinbad Apr 3 12 12:32 PM. Edited 1 times.

Anthony58

JSF delays

[-]

Posts: 4111

Apr 3 12 9:31 PM

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 4/3/2012 8:17 AM CDT

I spent some time this weekend on the latest Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) for the Joint Strike Fighter. It was an old-school job with a highlighter, yellow Post-Its, pencil and ultrafine rollerball. It hurt my head, but I am in good company: the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments’ budget expert, Todd Harrison, calls it “incredibly dense and frustrating to read.”

Lockheed Martin and its consultants are upset about the by the $1.5 trillion dollar figure for the program’s life-cycle cost, That's ironic, because the first person to talk about JSF being a trillion-dollar program was Micky Blackwell, in 1996, and he was president of a major company aeronautics sector located not a million miles from Fort Worth.

Other details in the document are more interesting.

There have been rumblings over the past year about another “SDD replan”, and here it is: Another three-year slip to initial operational test and evaluation, the culmination of system development and demonstration, which now is due to be complete in 2019 – the target date is February but the threshold date is October.

The program has not made progress, it’s gone backwards: completion of IOT&E is farther off than it was two years ago. In the early 2010 restructuring, IOT&E was expected to be complete in April 2016. The services are not going to announce initial operational capability dates until next year, according to the SAR.

From a Reuters report last Friday, it appears that the main culprit is software and hardware, mainly in terms of the integration functions – sensor fusion and emission control – that take place in the fighter’s main processor banks.

Completion of IOT&E should be followed by a Milestone C full-rate production decision in April or October 2019 – but this is a misnomer, because the plans call for the program to be most of the way to full rate in the 2018 buy year. The FY18 budget is planned to fund the F-35B and C at their full 50/year rate, and the USAF will buy 60 F-35As, against an FRP level of 80. And that means committing to those 110 jets in early 2016, three years before MS-C, to get advance procurement funds into the 2017 budget.

As for the normal ten percent limit on low-rate initial production (as a fraction of total buy) the program has not merely driven a coach and horses through it, but the entire Wells Fargo Stagecoach Company. By the time the Milestone C decision is taken, 695 aircraft will be on the ramp, in production or fully funded in budgets submitted to Congress.

The financial details in the SAR are not made any clearer by two changes versus the 2010 edition: a change in the base year from 2002 (program start) to 2012, and the splitting of airframe and engine costs. On the other hand, the base-year 2012 numbers are no longer unrealistically low, and using the base-year numbers takes arguments about future inflation and the effects of delays out of the picture.

In what follows, I’m going to use average procurement unit cost (APUC) because I am a taxpayer and that’s the bottom line (literally) in procurement budgets. Unit recurring flyaway is the lowest cost, but neither the US nor anyone else can put an aircraft on the ramp for that money. And all numbers are base-2012 unless otherwise indicated.

Some findings: One of my contacts predicted in 2010 that it would be 2015 (buy year) before the F-35A cost less than the last F-22s. Shacked! The APUC for the F-35A in 2013-14 is $184-$188 million, versus $177m (2009 dollars) for the last F-22s. And that is at a much higher production rate, when F-35Bs and Cs are included.

And let's kill the "same price as an F-16 in FRP" meme. If all goes perfectly according to plan, an F-35A delivered eleven years hence, at full rate, will have an APUC tag of $89 million. A Super Hornet today is $81 million, and it's a 50 percent larger airplane than an F-16.

What about the frugal, do-more-with-less Marines? At full rate, the F-35B costs $138 million in 2018, versus $117 million for the F-35C. That’s nearly 80 percent of the price of the last batch of F-22s – you remember, that extravagantly expensive toy for the white-scarf air force – but coming off a 110-per-year line. What would have been the F-22 price at 40 per year, rather than 20?

Finally, all the kerfuffle around the $1.5 trillion program life-cycle obscures the central component of that calculation, which is cost per flying hour. Although the basis of the numbers has been changed, the SAR still compares the F-35A with the F-16, and shows that the estimated CPFH for the F-35A has gone from 1.22 F-16s in the 2010 SAR to 1.42 today – versus 0.8 F-16s, which was being claimed a few years ago. Where is that operations and support money going to come from?

The SAR predictions also rest on several big assumptions.

The first is that the F-35 procurement program will grow from $7.6 billion in FY15 to $13.1 billion in FY21, increasing by $950 million per year. In view of the US fiscal climate, the fact that Obama is still likely to be writing the FY16 and FY17 budgets (the latter including advance procurement for FY18), the USAF tanker and bomber programs and the reorientation towards Asia, this assumption is, to say the least, a little rosy in its tint.

Second, if you look at the forecast changes in F-35A unit costs, there is a 22 percent drop in APUC between FY16 (48 USAF jets) and FY18 (60 USAF jets) although the buy goes up by a quarter. But between FY18 and FY21 the USAF buy increases by one-third -- and the unit cost comes down by less than 8 percent. The explanation, almost certainly, is that the plan assumes large volume partner buys by FY17/18.

Finally, everything in the SAR rests on "if everything goes to plan from now on", which, so far, it hasn’t.

www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a77626f47-3e4e-4a75-99be-604b211bdf73&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

AegisFC

[-]

Posts: 713

Apr 3 12 10:53 PM

I wouldn't trust ANYTHING put out by Bill Sweetman his anti-F-35 bias isn't even funny any more.

Advertisement
	Remove this ad

Anthony58

[-]

Posts: 4111

Apr 4 12 1:05 AM

I know Bill is anti F-35, but there is still problems with the programme, which I hope will be sorted out.

Bledlow

[-]

Posts: 2492

Apr 4 12 11:46 AM

The average flyaway cost is predicted to be, in 2012 prices -

F-35A - $87.3 mn

F-35B/C - $111.3 mn

In 2018, when production will be at full rate for the B & C & at 75% of full rate for the A -

F-35A - $84.2 mn

F-35B/C - $111.2 mn

In 2025, several years into full rate -

F-35A - $77.3 mn

F-35B/C - $100.5 mn

The deflator used to convert from 2002 to 2012 prices is 1.221082. The above at 2002 prices are -

Average flyaway -

F-35A - $71.5 mn

F-35B/C - $91.1 mn

In 2025-

F-35A - $63.3 mn

F-35B/C - $82.3 mn

Anyone remember the prediction of an average cost of $47 mn for an F-35A in 2002 prices?

reiverman

[-]

Posts: 665

Apr 4 12 9:40 PM

IcelofAngeln wrote:
Moreover, even the bean-counters should be able to figure out that if they revert to STOVL, then they are bound irrevocably to F-35B; CATOBAR means that Rafale and Superbug are potential options.

The only "bean-counters" that matter over this seem to be the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence.
The final decision will lie at Cameron's door.

Last Edited By: reiverman Apr 4 12 9:42 PM. Edited 1 times.

bgile

[-]

Posts: 3596

Apr 4 12 11:20 PM

IcelofAngeln wrote:
Moreover, even the bean-counters should be able to figure out that if they revert to STOVL, then they are bound irrevocably to F-35B; CATOBAR means that Rafale and Superbug are potential options.

And Hawkeye.

Anthony58

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[-]

Posts: 4111

Apr 5 12 1:27 AM

(Source: House of Commons; published March 29, 2012)

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be the new multirole fast jet for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. It will serve as the strike capability for the new Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier and will partner the Typhoon to form the future fast jet fleet for the RAF. It is a multinational acquisition programme led by the United States in partnership with eight other nations, including the UK.

There are three variants of the F-35:
• F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL)
• F-35B Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL)
• F-35C Carrier Variant (CV)

The UK selected the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in 2001 to fulfil the requirements of its Joint Combat Aircraft programme. The following year it decided on the F-35B STOVL variant.

However the Coalition Government switched to the F-35C carrier variant in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. The Government argues the carrier variant is more capable, has a longer range and higher payload and will be cheaper overall than the F-35B. The decision has been criticised for the potential cost implications of adapting the Carrier flight deck and for delaying the Carrier in-service date from 2016 to 2020.

The Government is currently reviewing the JSF and there are suggestions it may switch back to the STOVL variant. The Government is expected to make an announcement after Easter 2012. The Government says no decision on numbers of aircraft will be made until the next Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is currently in development. The aircraft has had several problems in development. Orders are being affected by cutbacks in defence budgets by its partner countries. The US recently announced a slowdown in its procurement rate and Italy has cut its order by 41 aircraft because of budget pressures.

Click here for the report (9 pages in PDF format) on the UK Parliament website.

www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/134163/uk-parliament-issues-status-report-on-f_35-plans.html

SpazSinbad

[-]

Posts: 908

Apr 5 12 5:16 AM

Thanks for link 'Anthony58'. Some bits of it below wot interested me especially (not being so involved in it all).

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Standard Note: SN06278
Last updated: 29 March 2012
Author: Louisa Brooke-Holland
Section International Affairs and Defence

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06278.pdf [PDF (200Kb)]

"...The current Government switched to the F-35C Carrier Variant of the JSF in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). In announcing the change, David Cameron blamed the previous government for ordering the “more expensive, less capable version of the Joint Strike Fighter to fly off the carriers.” He argued the carrier version is “more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons.” The SDSR said: “overall, the carrier-variant of the JSF will be cheaper, reducing through-life costs by around 25%.”

The SDSR states that the Government’s intention is “to operate a single model of JSF, instead of different land and naval variants.”...

...2.1 How many, when and how much?
The planning assumption has been for up to 150 Joint Combat Aircraft but the Government said in January 2012 that no decision on the overall numbers will be made before the next planned Strategic Defence and Security Review, which is not expected until after the next election. The SDSR states that it expects the Carrier to have 12 JSF routinely on board while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 aircraft previously planned for. These will be operated by both Royal Navy and RAF pilots.

The Government also said it will not set a firm in-service date for the aircraft until after the next Main Gate decision, currently planned for 2013. The Government has stated its intention to deliver a carrier strike capability from around 2020. The decision to switch to the Carrier Variant, and the subsequent need to adapt the flight deck, means the Carrier will not be operational until 2020, four years later than originally intended....

...The Government says it is not expecting to make a decision on the actual catapults and arrestor gear system until late 2012. The Government said in May 2011:

'Investigations into the aircraft launch and recovery systems—and a wide range of other factors—are under way. At this stage, the US Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapult and the US Advanced Arrestor Gear (AAG) recovery system appears to be the most promising solution, though we have not ruled out steam catapults or MK7 arrestor gear. We currently expect to take firm decisions on the overall conversion strategy in late 2012.

The PAC warned that not knowing the conversion costs leaves “the project at risk of cost growth and slippage, and there are new technical risks and challenges integrating the new aircraft with the carriers.”'
&
2.3 Interoperability
"...However, the National Audit Office July 2011 report on Carrier Strike notes that “the feasibility of flying the JSF carrier variant from the French carrier and the French aircraft (the Rafale) from the United Kingdom carrier is as yet unclear.” The Secretary of Defence told the Commons in March 2012 that the collaboration with the French is more about carrier deployment and “not about interoperability of aircraft as such.”...

...2.4 Reverting back to the STOVL?
"...The Secretary of State for Defence, Philip Hammond, confirmed that the government is reviewing all equipment programmes and has not ruled out reverting to the STOVL variant, saying “if the facts change, we will, if necessary, change our plans”. The Treasury is leading a Major Project Review Group and will submit a report on 16 April, according to the Daily Telegraph.

The costs of adapting the carrier flight deck, which Daily Telegraph reports have “risen from £500 million to £1.8 billion”, is cited by the media as a factor in the debate over which variant to purchase. The NAO Carrier Strike report of July 2011 suggested the cost range for converting one carrier of £800 million to £1.2 million...."

[https://skydrive.live.com/]?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791 & [http://www.]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos

Last Edited By: SpazSinbad Apr 5 12 5:58 AM. Edited 3 times.

reiverman

Argument in favour of the B.

[-]

Posts: 665

Apr 7 12 4:17 PM

10. Yes, Revert to F35B

The magic number, about 40 to 50

This provides the single CVF with a normal operating compliment of between 6 and 18. Some might see this number as too small and no improvement over CVS but the F35B is no Harrier and there would still be the ability to surge, potentially embarking USMC or other operators as needed.

There is also Apache, Wildcat, Merlin, Chinook, Watchkeeper, TLAM, Storm Shadow, Fire Shadow and men with luxurious facial hair to consider, concentrate less on the fast jet element and think about the whole package.

The question on numbers is what is the minimum needed for UK only operations, a Sierra Leone or TITSNBM!

If funds allow this could be increased (the line will be open for a long time) but the concept presented here is to get a reasonable capability at a reasonable cost, one that is aligned with realistic scenarios and actual defence planning assumptions.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/forward-to-plan-b/#commentspost

Dave

[-]

Posts: 1037

Apr 8 12 7:26 PM

reiverman wrote:

10. Yes, Revert to F35B
The magic number, about 40 to 50
This provides the single CVF with a normal operating compliment of between 6 and 18. Some might see this number as too small and no improvement over CVS but the F35B is no Harrier and there would still be the ability to surge, potentially embarking USMC or other operators as needed.
There is also Apache, Wildcat, Merlin, Chinook, Watchkeeper, TLAM, Storm Shadow, Fire Shadow and men with luxurious facial hair to consider, concentrate less on the fast jet element and think about the whole package.
The question on numbers is what is the minimum needed for UK only operations, a Sierra Leone or TITSNBM!
If funds allow this could be increased (the line will be open for a long time) but the concept presented here is to get a reasonable capability at a reasonable cost, one that is aligned with realistic scenarios and actual defence planning assumptions.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/forward-to-plan-b/#commentspost

Does this 40-50 cover Tornado GR4 replacement, rotation and attrition?

If not, one thing certain to cost more to run is F35b AND GR4 replacement. Whatever we buy for the CVs should surely be the exact same thing we buy to replace GR4 so running cost are minimized and flexibility to deploy from CV or land maximized, such an aircraft isn't F35b IMHO, compare GR4 range and payload with F35b if you need convincing.

http://www.defenceforce.eu/

bgile

[-]

Posts: 3596

Apr 8 12 11:42 PM

Dave wrote:

If not, one thing certain to cost more to run is F35b AND GR4 replacement. Whatever we buy for the CVs should surely be the exact same thing we buy to replace GR4 so running cost are minimized and flexibility to deploy from CV or land maximized, such an aircraft isn't F35b IMHO, compare GR4 range and payload with F35b if you need convincing.

Keep in mind that F35B is likely to be closer to the target when launching. Besides CVs it can use significantly shorter runways than GR4. Also, payload weight isn't as important as it used to be, what with precision guidance.

John Civie

[-]

Posts: 124

Apr 9 12 1:32 AM

Unfortunatly i think the B won't be the carrier force the RN wants, although the RAF has been silent on the matter, the X amount of F35's are going to be the only fast jet we buy for the next decade plus to replace the tornado force and with numbers of around '50' the RAF will definaly be getting first 'dibs' so i think the B's will become like JFH post SHAR without dedicated carrier flights and being under intense demand with few airframes and a lot of comitments.

Will an F35B ensure the operation of both CVFs or is that just the speel doing the rounds at the moment as both carriers would still be a big man power draw on the RN.

would the F35B be capable of the long ranged strikes we made at the start of the intervention in Libya before Ocean or CdG arrived unless tiffy would take that role while the B's move into position. but by then its value for the first day of war may have been negated.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Letter Raises Possibility U.K. Could Return to STOVL F-35