AHC Harrier replacement

[Ato]

Well yes and no, BAE said they could have easily converted it from VSTOL to CATOBAR configuration at minimal cost - what they meant was they guessed they could without doing their sums first. The new RN carriers were intended to be fitted with EMALS (Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System) instead of the steam catapults used on most modern carriers. Unfortunately, they have had some issues with this and there were also doubts the RN Queen Elizabeth class actually would have sufficient electrical power to run the system...and converting them to steam catapults would mean adding "Donkey" boilers to the design, which would have required considerable redesign and alterations to it. Also BAE wanted a lot of cash to do the work!

By at 'the proper time' I meant from the beginning or near as, not the hasty and ill thought out back and forth wavering that happened mid way though the program. Designing from the ground up as CATOBAR carriers would have produced a much more effective unit with far more options for airwing complement.

The bottom line is that due to design compromises VTOL aircraft can never match the performance of conventional types, and basing the centrepeice of your naval aviation arm around that concept when you easily had the money to do it the right way from the beginning, seem like foolishness at best, criminal incompetence at worst.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

By at 'the proper time' I meant from the beginning or near as, not the hasty and ill thought out back and forth wavering that happened mid way though the program. Designing from the ground up as CATOBAR carriers would have produced a much more effective unit with far more options for airwing complement.

The bottom line is that due to design compromises VTOL aircraft can never match the performance of conventional types, and basing the centrepeice of your naval aviation arm around that concept when you easily had the money to do it the right way from the beginning, seem like foolishness at best, criminal incompetence at worst.

Other than F35C what other modern aircraft is being developed for CATOBAR ops?

The options you talk of are basically modernised older airframe designs

So basically F18 and Rafael

One advantage of STOVL aircraft is their ability to operate of a carrier in very severe sea states and they tend to have quicker sortie rates than CATOBAR Aircraft.

 

[Ato]

Other than F35C what other modern aircraft is being developed for CATOBAR ops?

The options you talk of are basically modernised older airframe designs

So basically F18 and Rafael

One advantage of STOVL aircraft is their ability to operate of a carrier in very severe sea states and they tend to have quicker sortie rates than CATOBAR Aircraft.

Three options is better than one option, and being in thrall to a single program.
The MoD has to buy F-35B no matter what happens with the program, because it has orientated it's entire naval aviation towards that platform. There is simply no other option. (Other than the slightly hilarious one of adding traps and buying Mig-29K.)
The negotiating position that puts them in is not a good one, being able to have an alternative if the conditions of the JSF buy became too onerous would have been intelligent planning. Unfortunately little of that seems to have been done.

And yes marginally higher sortie rates from STOVL, that in now way matches the advantages of CATOBAR, of whicc higher performance aircraft are just one facet. Being able to operate proper high altitude AEW aircraft, and receive COD deliveries, are huge factors. AS is the generally higher takeoff weight afforded to CATOBAR launches allowing heavier weapons load.

Not to mention future developments, BAe and Dassault recently announced a joint agreement to build a UCAV similar to the X-47, based on the Neuron and Taranis programs. A CATOBAR carrier would be capable of operating a navalized version of this platform.


CATOBAR is simply the more adaptable and capable mode of operation. Followed by STOBAR. STOVL is really only good for when for some reason you can't build large carriers, and want to maintain naval aviation anyway. This is obviously no longer the case for the RN as the QE class are in the 60-70Kt range.

There was no doctrinal need for STOVL with the development of CVF, and yet it was retained out of inertia and pressure from the RAF. (Who don't need it either.)

 

[Workable Goblin]

The bottom line is that due to design compromises VTOL aircraft can never match the performance of conventional types, and basing the centrepeice of your naval aviation arm around that concept when you easily had the money to do it the right way from the beginning, seem like foolishness at best, criminal incompetence at worst.

So standard MoD procedure, then?

 

[SunilTanna]

There was no doctrinal need for STOVL with the development of CVF, and yet it was retained out of inertia and pressure from the RAF. (Who don't need it either.)

RAF plan for QE2 class:
1. Push for joint control over the only aircraft capable of flying from the carrier
2. Make unfavourable comparison between the performance of the only aircraft capable of flying from the carrier, and conventional aircraft
3. Use the unfavourable comparison as justification for scrapping the only aircraft capable of flying from the carrier
4. Carrier is now redundant, and should be retired, thus freeing up a larger slice of the defence budget for the RAF.

It's worked before!

 

[sparky42]

Other than F35C what other modern aircraft is being developed for CATOBAR ops?

The options you talk of are basically modernised older airframe designs

So basically F18 and Rafael

One advantage of STOVL aircraft is their ability to operate of a carrier in very severe sea states and they tend to have quicker sortie rates than CATOBAR Aircraft.

I wouldn't rate the current build Rafale's and F18's as older airframes, both are modern 4.5 gen systems with future growth capabilities still yet to be realised (ie the enhanced Super hornet that Boeing are trying to get interest in)

My issue with the boneheaded decision of the CVF isn't just the fighters, but the AWAC's, you have a wide range of international users of the Hawkeye, with the USN just starting to accept the upgraded version. But instead the UK has to go off and develop the Crowsnest system. It seems bloody stupid to me, I highly doubt a Merlin can match the capabilities of the E-2D's, nor have the opportunity to spread upgrade costs with international partners etc...

 

[Pseudo]

I wouldn't rate the current build Rafale's and F18's as older airframes, both are modern 4.5 gen systems with future growth capabilities still yet to be realised (ie the enhanced Super hornet that Boeing are trying to get interest in)

Given that buying the Rafale would be politically impossible, I would have thought that the obvious thing to do would have been to buy F/A-18E's (wired for Growler) for the carriers initially and then replace them with F-35C's after about ten years with the F/A-18's being upgraded to the EA-18 standard of the day and transferred to a joint RAF/FAA electronic warfare wing.

My issue with the boneheaded decision of the CVF isn't just the fighters, but the AWAC's, you have a wide range of international users of the Hawkeye, with the USN just starting to accept the upgraded version. But instead the UK has to go off and develop the Crowsnest system. It seems bloody stupid to me, I highly doubt a Merlin can match the capabilities of the E-2D's, nor have the opportunity to spread upgrade costs with international partners etc...

Absolutely, the Merlin solution cannot possibly match the capabilities of the E-2D simply because it can't fly anywhere near as high. Of course all of this would still have not given the UK an operational carrier task force before 2020 simply because we would have selected and subsequently screwed up EMALS.

 

[sparky42]

Given that buying the Rafale would be politically impossible, I would have thought that the obvious thing to do would have been to buy F/A-18E's (wired for Growler) for the carriers initially and then replace them with F-35C's after about ten years with the F/A-18's being upgraded to the EA-18 standard of the day and transferred to a joint RAF/FAA electronic warfare wing.

Yes god forbid the horror of buying anything those bloody frenchies came up with, but yeah your suggestion would have been my leading choice for selection.

Absolutely, the Merlin solution cannot possibly match the capabilities of the E-2D simply because it can't fly anywhere near as high. Of course all of this would still have not given the UK an operational carrier task force before 2020 simply because we would have selected and subsequently screwed up EMALS.

Was the UK just going to licence the USN EMALS, or design their own? I thought it was already fitted to the Ford and she's meant to be operational by 2016, now given the BS fecking around with the construction that would still have been an issue, but now what it's looking like mid 2020's for operational deployments for the CVF?

 

[GarethC]

Given that buying the Rafale would be politically impossible, I would have thought that the obvious thing to do would have been to buy F/A-18E's (wired for Growler) for the carriers initially and then replace them with F-35C's after about ten years with the F/A-18's being upgraded to the EA-18 standard of the day and transferred to a joint RAF/FAA electronic warfare wing.

That wouldn't give anywhere near enough money to BAe Systems. All UK defence procurement has as one of its primary goals the shovelling of wheelbarrowfuls of wonga into the that gaping maw.

Absolutely, the Merlin solution cannot possibly match the capabilities of the E-2D simply because it can't fly anywhere near as high. Of course all of this would still have not given the UK an operational carrier task force before 2020 simply because we would have selected and subsequently screwed up EMALS.

Same again. E-2 is completely US-built, providing no jobs for UK defence contractors, and no non-executive directorships or consultancy day-rates for ex-MoD civil servants. I mean, they've had to live out in the west country for so long they've started to speak Brizzle - you can't exile people to Abbey Wood and not reward them for the hardships they've had to endure, which means BAe. Or maybe EADS. But not Northrop Grumman.

 

[Ato]

That wouldn't give anywhere near enough money to BAe Systems. All UK defence procurement has as one of its primary goals the shovelling of wheelbarrowfuls of wonga into the that gaping maw.

And is BAe really coming off that well from the JSF program?

Not to mention that recently US defense companies have not at all been adverse to work sharing export contracts.
Just look at the F-15K, large parts of that were made in Korea, a similar deal could have been easily had for BAe with both F/A-18s and E-2s.

If pork barreling was the only obstacle to doing this right, then someone fucked up big time.

 

[Pseudo]

Yes god forbid the horror of buying anything those bloody frenchies came up with, but yeah your suggestion would have been my leading choice for selection.

I was more thinking about Rafale being the Typhoon's most direct competition in export run-off's... And national pride.

Was the UK just going to licence the USN EMALS, or design their own? I thought it was already fitted to the Ford and she's meant to be operational by 2016, now given the BS fecking around with the construction that would still have been an issue, but now what it's looking like mid 2020's for operational deployments for the CVF?

The EMALS on the Ford carriers is being developed by General Atomic, whilst the original development for QE was by Converteam UK which is a GE subsidiary. I don't know how much crossover between the two there was planned, but let's be honest, the US had it's fair share of problems developing EMALS, even if the QE development was a carbon-copy we'd still manage to go over budget and generally screw it up even without BAe being directly involved in the development.

 

[sparky42]

I was more thinking about Rafale being the Typhoon's most direct competition in export run-off's... And national pride.

Fair point though, the exports haven't been doing massive for Eurofighter anyway

The EMALS on the Ford carriers is being developed by General Atomic, whilst the original development for QE was by Converteam UK which is a GE subsidiary. I don't know how much crossover between the two there was planned, but let's be honest, the US had it's fair share of problems developing EMALS, even if the QE development was a carbon-copy we'd still manage to go over budget and generally screw it up even without BAe being directly involved in the development.

It's sad that Bae's production returns have been so bad that nobody can disagree with that, the question being how long can the UK just ignore the systemic issues that BAe bring to the table.

I shudder to think what the Type 26 will end up at, and if they get even close to the planned 13 purchase?

 

[GarethC]

There was a study done before the Sea Harrier FA.2 was decommissioned into the costs of shoving the radar into a GR.9 airframe to retain some BVRAAM capability in the FAA. It wasn't done, in the end, because of the combination of cost and not working very well. There's a bit in a parliamentary report about it, if you're interested - it's quite readable. I think we're going to need to change the premise mentioned in that report, that the RN will never conduct serious power projection without allies that can provice proper air-to-air capability. Malvinas II is a bit of a cliché, to be honest, and a clash over Gib is ASB.

Have the US let the RN down, maybe over Iran at some point, when shooting breaks out while supporting the Basra operation, and have some Fencers that put a Kh-series into whichever Invincible-class is out there. Maybe the 2007 incident where some RN sailors were seized by Iranian patrol craft goes hot or something.

In 2011, I guess something to do with the Unified Protector intervention in the Libyan civil war - if the US does not commit to military action and France does not manage to intercept a Libyan air raid on the Ocean group, that might drive a late requirement for a STOVL air-to-air capability - which if the F-35 won't do the job, might seriously look at yet-another Harrier revision.

 

[Riain]

The cost of an aircraft, in orders of magnitude terms, is decided during the specification. The F35 was specified to be stealthy, sensor fused and fully networked, and none of this comes cheap or easy. As for LM having gold buttons on coffee machines, with the amount of global scrutiny the project is getting I doubt they can do too much graft and corruption. Similarly programme slippages are not good for business, potential customers may start looking elsewhere for their fighter requirements.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The cost of an aircraft, in orders of magnitude terms, is decided during the specification. The F35 was specified to be stealthy, sensor fused and fully networked, and none of this comes cheap or easy. As for LM having gold buttons on coffee machines, with the amount of global scrutiny the project is getting I doubt they can do too much graft and corruption. Similarly programme slippages are not good for business, potential customers may start looking elsewhere for their fighter requirements.

Some ones attempting to use common sense on this forum

I completely agree with you - after the "All American" F22 fiasco - where for those of you who don't know - the USGov forced (for reasons of winning votes etc) the industry to spread the building of the Aircraft across 48 states......Ayn Rand would not so much as roll in her grave as dig her way out and stalk the halls of Capitol Hill with murderous intent - I cannot see the Aircraft industry willing or indeed being allowed to do it again.

 

[Riain]

L-M would make a lot more money building and delivering completed aircraft than they are with these delays and cost overruns, it's ludicrous to think L-M are living high on the hog by not building aircraft.

 

[Pseudo]

L-M would make a lot more money building and delivering completed aircraft than they are with these delays and cost overruns, it's ludicrous to think L-M are living high on the hog by not building aircraft.

I agree. My issue is that the programme was fundamentally flawed from the outset, mostly because of the requirement for a STOVL variant that the other variants were then based upon and compromised by. I wonder how things would have been different if there were no STOVL requirement or if that requirement was developed separately. Maybe it could be an earlier development such as the development of P.1216 instead of the Sea Harrier FA2, and that aircraft having plenty of growth potential and the ability to be modified to reduce it's radar cross-section.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Just because a particular aircraft or system is bought from out of country doesn't mean that the purchasing nation doesn't get something out of it.

Normally a decision isn't just based on the capability of the item but also on what are called industrial offsets for example assembly can take place in the customer country, undertakings to purchase services or products, subcontracting equipment to domestic manufacturers, technology transfer agreements even agreements to allow the domestic manufacturer to market their own version (see Westland Sea King). Greek and Turkish F16's were assembled in Turkey and Greece respectively, they also got significant offset agreements from GD and later LockMart.

If we had purchased E2D, it is highly likely that BAE would have had some sort of contract to either assemble it here, fit UK avionics etc. BAE produces large chunks of the F35 fuselage as part of the consortium. Also bear in mind that BAE now does a huge chunk of its business in the US.

 

[Riain]

Just because a particular aircraft or system is bought from out of country doesn't mean that the purchasing nation doesn't get something out of it.

Normally a decision isn't just based on the capability of the item but also on what are called industrial offsets for example assembly can take place in the customer country, undertakings to purchase services or products, subcontracting equipment to domestic manufacturers, technology transfer agreements even agreements to allow the domestic manufacturer to market their own version (see Westland Sea King). Greek and Turkish F16's were assembled in Turkey and Greece respectively, they also got significant offset agreements from GD and later LockMart.

If we had purchased E2D, it is highly likely that BAE would have had some sort of contract to either assemble it here, fit UK avionics etc. BAE produces large chunks of the F35 fuselage as part of the consortium. Also bear in mind that BAE now does a huge chunk of its business in the US.

Marand Engineering is building over 700 vertical tails and over 30 engine change crane/cradles for the F35 programme, and they're doing here in Geelong. The value of this work goes a long way to cover the couple of hundred million we kicked in to be a tier 3 partner.

 

[Pseudo]

Marand Engineering is building over 700 vertical tails and over 30 engine change crane/cradles for the F35 programme, and they're doing here in Geelong. The value of this work goes a long way to cover the couple of hundred million we kicked in to be a tier 3 partner.

IIRC work on the F-35 is expected to be worth about £1.5 trillion to the UK economy over its service life. Though I expect that estimate is largely pulled out thin air and pretty much meaningless.