f35b in The Royal Navy Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

f35b

Author	Comment
angelic3000	f35b	Lead	[-]
Posts: 101 ( 7-Feb-2012 12:50:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad With the f35b in a better position than a year ago, could we see u-turn from the MOD and the decision to buy f35c reversed? I was just thinking that with the first carrier to be built without cat and traps it might be simpler to buy f35b and simply either cancel the second carrier or see if it can be sold.
SpazSinbad		#1	[-]
Posts: 282 ( 7-Feb-2012 13:21:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Why not keep two ski jump carrier CVFs and also revert to F-35B? Youse can always sell a job lot later. [http://]adf-history.com/?cat=7 & ([http://]alturl.com/4a4ko) [http://]cid-cbcd63d6340707e6.skydrive.live.com/home.aspx?sa=822839791 & [http://]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos & [http://]filefront.com/user/SpazSinbad
istobie		#2	[-]
Posts: 1226 ( 7-Feb-2012 13:37:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	angelic3000 wrote: With the f35b in a better position than a year ago, could we see u-turn from the MOD and the decision to buy f35c reversed? I was just thinking that with the first carrier to be built without cat and traps it might be simpler to buy f35b and simply either cancel the second carrier or see if it can be sold. Cancelling the second carrier would cost more than building it due to contractual penalties and the fact that the RN quite deliberately bought all the long lead items like engines etc as a single purchase. Additionally, about £200 million has been spent on long lead items for EMALS, and a fair chunk of the work in converting the two carriers to angle deck config has taken place. Switching back to B would be further money down the drain reversing a lot of work and expense, as well as making it impossible to cross deck with US and French carriers, Ian
cloggy85		#3	[-]
Posts: 10 ( 7-Feb-2012 14:52:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The aircraft carrier story is getting more pathetic by the day. How about top it it off by requesting the ship to be redesigned to sail backwards......sigh
SpazSinbad		#4	[-]
Posts: 283 ( 7-Feb-2012 15:03:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	'isotobie' said: "...as well as making it impossible to cross deck with US and French carriers,..." Think of it this way. If one or both CVFs remain skijumpers for F-35B use then these selfsame F-35Bs are able to cross deck with any allied flat deck. Might even visit one of the Chinese or Russian flat decks to say hello? [http://]adf-history.com/?cat=7 & ([http://]alturl.com/4a4ko) [http://]cid-cbcd63d6340707e6.skydrive.live.com/home.aspx?sa=822839791 & [http://]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos & [http://]filefront.com/user/SpazSinbad
istobie		#5	[-]
Posts: 1228 ( 7-Feb-2012 15:09:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	SpazSinbad wrote: 'isotobie' said: "...as well as making it impossible to cross deck with US and French carriers,..." Think of it this way. If one or both CVFs remain skijumpers for F-35B use then these selfsame F-35Bs are able to cross deck with any allied flat deck. Might even visit one of the Chinese or Russian flat decks to say hello? Not seeing how that helps us get any SuperHornets or Rafales aboard the QE's however ? Or launch and recover any fixed wing UAV's or E2? Ian
Jeremy M H		#6	[-]
Posts: 644 ( 7-Feb-2012 15:27:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	istobie wrote: SpazSinbad wrote: 'isotobie' said: "...as well as making it impossible to cross deck with US and French carriers,..." Think of it this way. If one or both CVFs remain skijumpers for F-35B use then these selfsame F-35Bs are able to cross deck with any allied flat deck. Might even visit one of the Chinese or Russian flat decks to say hello? Not seeing how that helps us get any SuperHornets or Rafales aboard the QE's however ? Or launch and recover any fixed wing UAV's or E2? Ian I think the UAV thing is of far more importance than most people realize. EMALS is basically custom designed for that sort of thing. There are huge cost for the UK to go it alone with STOVL carriers when it comes to all manner of things and I would put UAV's up high on that list. The USN will likely develop a variety of UAV's that can be shot off with EMALS which will vastly expand the capability of the carrier to accomplish many missions. They are not going to create these things to work on ski-jumps so if you go that route you basically are going to have to build your own UAV's which would have a very limited resale value and very small production run. I do agree with whomever said that the carrier program in the UK appears to have some cracks forming in it. If the QE is really going to be delivered and stay forever as nothing more than a big helicopter landing ship then the cost versus capability question gets pretty lopsided in my view.
BenRoethig		#7	[-]
Posts: 3307 ( 7-Feb-2012 16:15:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	angelic3000 wrote: With the f35b in a better position than a year ago, could we see u-turn from the MOD and the decision to buy f35c reversed? I was just thinking that with the first carrier to be built without cat and traps it might be simpler to buy f35b and simply either cancel the second carrier or see if it can be sold. Nope. STOVL was a priority for the RAF...until it was made very clear to them the Tornados were going away without replacement. The only way the you're going to see the F-35B on QE is if the US Navy does an about face, cancels the F-35C and the Fords, and goes STOVL. Then you'd probably see the STOL minded F-35D the Air Force proposed with the F-35C wing and the full size weapons bays.
SpazSinbad		#8	[-]
Posts: 284 ( 7-Feb-2012 16:40:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Whatever.... UK MoD seems to do things their unique way - as ever. There will be twists and turns I'm guessing... Britain won't decide on [FINAL] F-35 fighter numbers till 2015 By Rhys Jones Feb 7, 2012 http://uk.reuters.com/art...-f-idUKTRE8160YZ20120207 “LONDON (Reuters) – Britain has deferred to 2015 a firm commitment on how many Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets it will buy, adding to uncertainties over the multinational programme which has re-cently been questioned in the U.S. Congress. "We will not make final decisions on the overall number of aircraft we will order before the next planned Strategic Defence Review (in 2015)," a Ministry of Defence MoD spokeswoman said on Tuesday, adding an initial order would be placed next year [2013].... ...A spokesman for Lockheed, the top U.S. defence contractor, said Britain's total order had not been revised down & remained at 138. Britain was due to receive its first F-35 in June.... ...While there have been reports Britain will cut its order to 50 F-35s, the MoD said it did not recognise that figure. Expectations for the number of F-35s Britain will eventually order have been curtailed since the MoD's decision to use only one aircraft carrier, which will routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations, while retaining a capacity to deploy up to 36....” [http://]adf-history.com/?cat=7 & ([http://]alturl.com/4a4ko) [http://]cid-cbcd63d6340707e6.skydrive.live.com/home.aspx?sa=822839791 & [http://]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos & [http://]filefront.com/user/SpazSinbad
Lord Lieutenant		#9	[-]
Posts: 643 ( 7-Feb-2012 16:41:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"While there have been reports Britain will cut its order to 50 F-35s, the MoD said it did not recognise that figure. " 51 JCAs it is then!
istobie		#10	[-]
Posts: 1229 ( 7-Feb-2012 18:12:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad I'm not seeing anything new there - we always knew the hard decisions would sit outside the life of the current parliament. Pointless mulling over numbers when in truth, the decision simply hasn't been taken.
Jedibeeftrix		#11	[-]
Posts: 424 ( 7-Feb-2012 18:29:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Jeremy M H wrote: I do agree with whomever said that the carrier program in the UK appears to have some cracks forming in it. If the QE is really going to be delivered and stay forever as nothing more than a big helicopter landing ship then the cost versus capability question gets pretty lopsided in my view. I'm personally hopeful that the 2015 SDSR will announce the fitting of cats-n-traps to QE on first refit.
Jeremy M H		#12	[-]
Posts: 646 ( 7-Feb-2012 18:46:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Jedibeeftrix wrote: Jeremy M H wrote: I do agree with whomever said that the carrier program in the UK appears to have some cracks forming in it. If the QE is really going to be delivered and stay forever as nothing more than a big helicopter landing ship then the cost versus capability question gets pretty lopsided in my view. I'm personally hopeful that the 2015 SDSR will announce the fitting of cats-n-traps to QE on first refit. I do too. The money spent is pushing has gone from a lot to really a lot. If all you get out of it is the capability to embark 30 some fighters on one of the ships and a big LHA out of the other would be a really inefficient way to spend resources considering the LHA would not really be optimized for that mission anyway and is probably overkill for it and probably is not optimized for that mission anyway.
angelic3000		#13	[-]
Posts: 102 ( 7-Feb-2012 19:20:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The problem that I see is that one of the carriers will be mothballed - oops, sorry about that! I should have used the Royal Navy's preferred euphemism of extended readiness. Whichever term you choose to use it means the same thing: A 65,000 ton ship sitting around doing nothing but costing the tax payer money. If someone like India or Brazil asks, then a price will be quoted and chances are the ship will be sold. What got me thinking was what if an interested country asked about the Prince of Wales before it is completed. That will be the ship with the new cat and trap installed and if the price is right, I can see the government selling that one instead of the Queen Elizabeth. Even if the purchasing country had to buy it from us at cost, it would represent a real bargain. A modern aircraft carrier in service without having to shoulder any of the technical risk of developing it. Just sign on the bottom line, hand over the cheque and sail her home.
Dave		#14	[-]
Posts: 838 ( 7-Feb-2012 20:38:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Though not totally beyond the realms of possibility I think it would be the final nail in the coffin of defence procurement credibility if having spent a not insignificant amount of money changing our minds once, we then reverted back to the original plan, with associated further costs. Lack of robust change control is a cancer in public sector procurement that needs to be eradicated. We've made a decision now, we absolutely must stick it out to avoid further runaway costs and embarrasing indecision. Your Text Signature ...
Nauticus27		#15	[-]
Posts: 676 ( 7-Feb-2012 20:49:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I agree that this isn't news, I don't think there has been any intention to firm up "final" numbers before then for a while now. What might be news (unless I've missed the announcement previously) is that an initial order (beyond the 3 development aircraft already ordered) will be placed as early as next year. On the original question, not a chance. If nothing else the government has pretty much boxed itself in by its criticism of the previous administration for ordering the "far less capable and more expensive" F35B. A u-turn now would be pretty much untenable politically.
SpazSinbad		#16	[-]
Posts: 285 ( 7-Feb-2012 23:09:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Nauticus27 said immediately above: "... If nothing else the government has pretty much boxed itself in by its criticism of the previous administration for ordering the "far less capable and more expensive" F35B. A u-turn now would be pretty much untenable politically." From my far off view from Oz (and my interest would be that the UK Government make a decision and stick to it) I would suggest that politically in the UK - if money can be saved - by reversing the F-35C decision to F-35B, then that decision will be taken. Why? Bean Counters Win every time. :-) And if UK is really strapped for cash then make the first in class Queen Elizabeth available for sale to Australia! [http://]adf-history.com/?cat=7 & ([http://]alturl.com/4a4ko) [http://]cid-cbcd63d6340707e6.skydrive.live.com/home.aspx?sa=822839791 & [http://]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos & [http://]filefront.com/user/SpazSinbad
Nauticus27		#17	[-]
Posts: 678 ( 8-Feb-2012 00:28:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	As I (and others) have said before, one carrier converted equals 5 years out of 8 availabillity. Two carriers converted equals eight years out of eight availability. In terms of value for money for the taxpayer from the outlay, it's a no brainer. Once converted the second vessel can either sit at reduced readiness while it awaits its turn as the high readiness carrier; or we still use it as an LPH; or we synchronise refits with the French and they pay to use it to maintain currency while CDG is in refit. Sorted.
bager1968		#18	[-]
Posts: 6110 ( 8-Feb-2012 03:17:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	SpazSinbad wrote: "We will not make final decisions on the overall number of aircraft we will order before the next planned Strategic Defence Review (in 2015)," a Ministry of Defence MoD spokeswoman said on Tuesday, adding an initial order would be placed next year [2013].... This is very logical... by 2015 everyone will have a much clearer idea of the problems with the F-35C, and of how well the fixes have or have not corrected them. There will also be a better handle on costs, maintenance needs, etc... enabling the MOD to make an informed decision on how many to buy, and when... rather than just ordering blindly now and hoping for the best. Who'd have thought 30 years ago Hermes would still be in active service when Invincible was at the breakers yard?
istobie		#19	[-]
Posts: 1234 ( 9-Feb-2012 02:20:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	SpazSinbad wrote: From my far off view from Oz (and my interest would be that the UK Government make a decision and stick to it) I would suggest that politically in the UK - if money can be saved - by reversing the F-35C decision to F-35B, then that decision will be taken. Why? Bean Counters Win every time. :-) And if UK is really strapped for cash then make the first in class Queen Elizabeth available for sale to Australia! I'm getting bored with repeating myself but here we go once more : we've just spent several hundred million converting both ships to angle deck configs, scrapping the ski jump and buying long lead items for EMALS and AARG. Reverting to B in the current lifetime of the government that made that decision is politically impossible, and actually pointless. As for Australia buying a QE: you can't afford one, you can't man one and you have no plans to purchase an aircraft that can fly from one. Neither does a QE fit into Australia's plans for the near and medium future in terms of power projection. If you want one, we can however, rattle a third out or pass you the plans for the right price. Ian
SpazSinbad		#20	[-]
Posts: 286 ( 9-Feb-2012 06:56:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad Nah, we would not buy a second hand QE. Some people remember the INVINCIBLE being taken back by the impoverished Brits. What a bunch of Indian Givers. As for plans changing... hmmm, I guess history shows that they do. [http://]adf-history.com/?cat=7 & ([http://]alturl.com/4a4ko) [http://]cid-cbcd63d6340707e6.skydrive.live.com/home.aspx?sa=822839791 & [http://]youtube.com/user/bengello/videos & [http://]filefront.com/user/SpazSinbad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

f35b

f35b