Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RN Carriers And JSF Get Slashed  
User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9045 times:

The two new RN Aircraft carriers have felt the effects of the recession with 1 being converted into a Commando carrier Assault ship with only Helicopters and no fighters and the JSF buy is being cut to from 138 for Naval use down to 60ish may go as low as 50!

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9027 times:

Do you have a source for that?

User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9020 times:

This came to me in an email this morning!


Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle
Michael Smith
25-10-2009
The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers
to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.
The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton
carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the
American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.
The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of
Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s
four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.
It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two
carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the
Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be
built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters
on board instead of JSF aircraft.
The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes
into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one
from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy,
the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British
aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.
The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of
JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion.
At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could
rise to more than £100m.
Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the
amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship
Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018.
The decision to cut the number of JSF aircraft has been agreed by senior
navy and air force commanders in discussions preparing for the strategic
defence review.
Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to conducting a strategic
defence review after the general election, which must be held by the late
spring.
A senior Royal Navy officer said: “We always knew that the real cost of the
carrier project is the JSF fleet to go on them. It would cost us at least
£12 billion if we bought all the aircraft we originally asked for. We are
waking up to the fact that all those planes are unaffordable. More than half
of the £5 billion contracts to build the two new carriers have been
contracted, so it is too late to get out of building the ships. This way at
least we are covered when Ocean goes out of service.”
Since both aircraft carriers will still be built, there are unlikely to be
job losses at the Rosyth ship yards, close to Brown’s constituency. The JSF
aircraft are being built in Fort Worth, Texas, with the involvement of BAE
Systems.
The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF,
will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft
instead.
The Conservatives said any decision to axe a carrier would be “absolutely
unacceptable” and typical of the government’s “chaotic, inconsistent and
incompetent defence procurement policy”.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the move exposed the government’s
claim that it wanted a completely independent strategic defence review. “The
government is saying it is fully committed to the carriers while at the same
time forcing them to be cut,” he said.
“It is confusing for the navy, it is confusing for industry and it is
completely inconsistent with the whole concept of running an independent
defence review.”
The Ministry of Defence said Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, remained
100% committed to the carriers but “financial circumstances mean some
difficult decisions will have to be taken to prioritise our forces’ efforts
in Afghanistan”.
The Royal Navy currently has three smaller 20,600-ton carriers: Illustrious,
Ark Royal and Invincible. Illustrious is on a visit to Liverpool. Invincible
has already been mothballed.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7827 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8980 times:

Sounds like the RN should convert both carriers to CTOL, buy either the F35C, Rafale or Hornet, all cheaper than the F35B.

Bummer for the RN.

Since Labour will probably lose the leection next year and the Conservatives have said that cutting CVF isn't an option I doubt that the current decision will stand.

[Edited 2009-10-26 07:18:06]
Plus this isn't an official announcement and considering the paper it was printed in who are anti the current government I wouldn't take it too seriously.

[Edited 2009-10-26 07:27:12]

User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8947 times:

The way the F-35 is going the next UK government may well give the JSF the chop and go with CTOL navy Typhoons would be nice and E-2D with Merlins for heli support.

As the carriers would be able to have maglev Catapaults installed in the bow and a navalised typhoon or even raffalles which would mke the french jump for joy as the uk almost never buys French military aircraft.

[Edited 2009-10-26 07:57:31]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8901 times:



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Sounds like the RN should convert both carriers to CTOL, buy either the F35C, Rafale or Hornet, all cheaper than the F35B.

Bummer for the RN.



Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 4):
The way the F-35 is going the next UK government may well give the JSF the chop and go with CTOL navy Typhoons would be nice and E-2D with Merlins for heli support

I agree. If the F-35B is to expensive, look for another carrier capable airplane that is just as good, or better, and costs less. The RN really needs to have both CVFs.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Since Labour will probably lose the leection next year and the Conservatives have said that cutting CVF isn't an option I doubt that the current decision will stand.

This decision is all political with Labor saying "we cannot afford both CVFs, but we will build two ships anyway just to keep people working". Kind of talking out two sides of the same mouth, aren't they?

Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 4):
As the carriers would be able to have maglev Catapaults installed in the bow and a navalised typhoon or even raffalles which would mke the french jump for joy as the uk almost never buys French military aircraft.

At this point, a Navy version of Typhoon, or buying the French Rafale, or F/A-18E/Fs, or F-35Cs would be about the only decision left. As far as the E-2D goes, does the RN really need that capability? If they operate with USN CVNBGs they don't need it. Also the RAF flies the E-3D worldwide. Or, if the RN decided they really need an AWACS capability, they could opt for the much cheaper, but very capable E-2C.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8842 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
At this point, a Navy version of Typhoon

A naval version of the Typhoon would make the F-35B look economical.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
French Rafale, or F/A-18E/Fs, or F-35Cs would be about the only decision left

By default I guess. My opinion that te RN would be better off with cats and arresting gear on their carriers.* Then they would have an actual choice of the type of aircraft carried. Lets say either the Rafale or Hornet augmented by the F-35C.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Or, if the RN decided they really need an AWACS capability, they could opt for the much cheaper, but very capable E-2C.

Northrup Grumman just delivered the last production E-2C. So I guess it would have to be the E-2D. Not that its going to happen.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=173789



* Yes, I know cats/arresting gear is more expensive than a ski jump.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8810 times:



Quoting GST (Reply 1):
Do you have a source for that?

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...fs-in-budget-battle%3A-report.html

Quote:
The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.

It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8799 times:

I woulde dearly love to see a Fleet Air Arm Rafale, or a Joint Rafale Force, that is a hell of a capable aircraft, an all rounder. I dont see the UK buying into an airframe off the shelf though, unless they can get the computer codes etc, and all they need to make their own upgrades, I dont see it being even considered.

If they were going to go with a commando carrier I wonder if anyone has pondered the possibility of some new build, updated harriers, like as if the Sea Harrier was invented today. I know it would never happen, but the harrier is a very compact airframe, they could fit a good number on board to provide CAS and a credible air defence without overly reducing the commando lift capability.

I am certain the F35-B will prove a superb aircraft, but its capability just simply doesnt account for its price tag. The Eurofighter navalised has to be a nonstarter too IMO.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8781 times:



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Or, if the RN decided they really need an AWACS capability, they could opt for the much cheaper, but very capable E-2C.

Northrup Grumman just delivered the last production E-2C. So I guess it would have to be the E-2D. Not that its going to happen.

That doesn't mean the "C" line cannot be restarted.


User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8647 times:

If a CVN option is the end for the UK Carrier force it would need its own AWACS as a CVN with an eye in the sky is just a big floating target.

Navy merlins could do some over the horizon snooping with the search radar but an e-2d would be the best option in the end.

Shame it is to late for a Navalised Tornado GR4!


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8602 times:

Is it possible this press report is a "gambit" of sorts? Why build a CV only to use it as an amphib? That defies logic and sense and would make the ship a very easy target, low hanging fruit in fact, for the next budget crisis.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8603 times:

This article was a typically poorly written bit of 'wiki-google' type journalism.

There has always been a realistic intention of only operating one CVF at a time in the strike carrier role.
Meaning if the other vessel was available, it could cover, if need be, for the dedicated LPH HMS Ocean .
There is a question over Ocean after the 2020 period, officially it could operate to about 2023.
Current RN carriers do this, cover in the Commando Carrier role if Ocean is in refit, HMS Ark Royal most recently, though that vessel is after it's own refit, back in the strike carrier role.

So this arrangement for CVF, is in fact little different from today!

To the F-35B, the ultimate requirement is for 138 frames, which may or may not include the three evaluation examples already on order.

In the same way Typhoon, Rafale or F-22 are ordered in batches over years, to the ultimate planned force level, so too will be the F-35.
Sources indicate that the intial batch was for 66 F-35B, it's quite possible that this first batch has been cut, for short/medium term budgetary reasons, that may now be for 50.

Does not this sort of thing often happen in procurements for the types I mentioned above?
And others?

It could be the ultimate final number of UK F-35B's reduces, 110 has been quoted.
That could support one full CVF air-group and allow the normal training, evaluation, maintenance and attrition requirements.
I reckon the ultimate level of F-35B procurement rests with how many the RAF take.
Two squadrons, now operating Harriers, are the natural homes for RAF F-35B's.

Any savings on F-35C would more than be swallowed up by the need to modify CVF's, plus the cat and trap operation would have to be relearned, on a new, sophisticated type, 35 years after the RN last done it.
CVF has to have EMALS catapults, it cannot use any other type, EMALS is still under development for the USN, so the RN would be tied to developments there.

Long term, F-35C could see UK service, as a partial Tornado GR.4 replacement.
Having the longest range, compatible in flight refueling systems.
It could be the RAF might be cooling on the F-35B since they may see the C version as more in tune to their longer term requirements.
But, the issue of Tornado GR.4 replacement is a 2018-2025 thing, even with the earilest dates this is beyond the main hump of CVF/F-35B spending.

Remember too, F-35's will be in mass production for 3 US services and a number of nations, of which the UK is the second biggest customer.
The costs will decrease as production ramps up, simple economies of scale.

As the debate on future requirements heats up, we are going to hear a lot of stuff like this.
Some might happen, others might be as reliable as the e-mails some get, taken from poor media reporting, that the RAF's Red Arrows display team are for the chop, this one comes around every 2-3 years, but there has never been a shred of evidence and they are of course, still flying.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8545 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
That doesn't mean the "C" line cannot be restarted.

Of course not, however it would make absolutely no sense to do so. The costs of doing it would make it more expensive than the D model. A less capable aircraft at a higher cost that one day will be gone from the USN inventory which means your support costs would go up as well.


User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8473 times:



Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 4):
The way the F-35 is going the next UK government may well give the JSF the chop and go with CTOL navy Typhoons would be nice and E-2D with Merlins for heli support.

As the carriers would be able to have maglev Catapaults installed in the bow and a navalised typhoon or even raffalles which would mke the french jump for joy as the uk almost never buys French military aircraft.

[Edited 2009-10-26 07:57:31]

I can see your only options would be to either supplement with the superhornet like the US navy does or purchase some rafale fighters, the typhoon was never designed to be a naval fighter and maybe just as costly to make it that was as it would be to purchase the JSF. The superhornet would probably be the cheapest and most cost effective choise due to there being so many in the US and Australian inventories parts would not be a problem and they do have good range and have been reliant so far in battle.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8462 times:

It's interesting that the alleged plan is now to equip all of the RAF's front line squadrons with Typhoons when, for a spell, that didn't appear to be anywhere near the plan. Might this carrier/F-35B thing be a way to put more Typhoons into service rather than a genuine "we ain't got the money" kind of issue?


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8317 times:



Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 10):
Shame it is to late for a Navalised Tornado GR4!

 bigthumbsup  That would have been a very good CV aircraft.

It seems that you Brits think this is all just poor news reporting, and may never happen?


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8261 times:

Thats quite big news, but not totally unexpected as the F35 cost has been rising all the time, long since going through the ceiling already. As both carriers will be built as sisterships I guess that the Air Wing of QE can rather easily be transferred to Prince of Wales once the former has to go to a major refit. These ships will be very similar to each other whatever basic use they will have in future.
I´m suprised that PoW shall replace Ocean. For one Ocean is still a rather young ship, 11 years if I remember right? On the other hand PoW will be 3 times bigger, the biggest helicopter carrier by far worldwide.
For me this whole thing sounds like a temporary measure owing to the crisis and the JSF cost overrun. The decision for this fighter put the Admiralty in a dead end street. I expect PoW will in the end be a true a/c carrier with more economical aircraft once they are available.
This decision could probably also mean that Ark Royal might be kept in active reserve for a longer period after PoW is commisioned and the former decomissioned.

As for a tighter partnership with France, the Grand Nation is down to one carrier already. Has the plan to have a French sistership to QE and PoW been cancelled alltogether? That ship could be ready by 2020. By around 2025-30 France needs to replace Charles de Gaulle.

Good that both British ships will be build anyway. They will by far be the biggest and most powerful ships Britain has ever had and certainly cool looking Royal Navy flagships. Btw any news on the future frigate class for the RN which needs to be decided upon rather soon?


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8234 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 17):

As for a tighter partnership with France, the Grand Nation is down to one carrier already. Has the plan to have a French sistership to QE and PoW been cancelled alltogether? That ship could be ready by 2020. By around 2025-30 France needs to replace Charles de Gaulle.

Ooooh, now that would be a gem! It might even provide the political justification for buying french by ordering some Rafales for a carrier air wing, if the flip side is an enormous ammount of British jobs preserved to build the third QE class dinghy.

Again, I am dreaming, but lets imagine the Navy's portion of the F35 cake is halved, with the Prince going back to being a full fleet carrier (which seems highly likely). You then have 2 half air wings made up of F35s, providing stealthy fighters, with reasonable strike capability. Make up the other half of the air wings with Rafales, excellent strike aircraft with reasonable fighter capability, cheap as chips (well, relatively speaking) to boot! Add in some Merlins for the helicopter portion, and you're sweet! I would love to see some radarplanes too, but I just dont see the RN shelling out for D's, and they will see the woes of restarting C production.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8198 times:

KC-135, hard to tell, since almost all non specialist defence reporting is so poor, the article (from the unreliable defence wise The Times ), shows no sign of the writer having a real handle on the subject.
Most likely discussions about the first F-35B batch has been taken as the ultimate number, for which final ordering is years away.
2 + 2 = 5 might be the best way of thinking about it.

One thing is for sure, for the RN, F-35B is the only game in town, that's realistic.
The only possible alternative being F-35C, if it was decided to move eventually to CTOL, after a CVF refit, since doing so at this stage would mean unacceptable and politically dangerous delays, plus the extra funds needed, which a cheaper F-35C would only offset some years later, maybe.

A scroll of boards that have RN members plus those with knowledge of the industry, so far don't give this story much credence.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8183 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 19):
A scroll of boards that have RN members plus those with knowledge of the industry, so far don't give this story much credence.

I'm quite glad to hear that. Does it matter if the government changes? What's the impact if Labor loses? I ask because of this quip from the article I posted earlier in the thread:

Quote:
Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to conducting a strategic defence review after the general election, which must be held by the late spring.


Would they acquire the aircraft to make both carriers true CVs?

[Edited 2009-10-27 15:10:44]

[Edited 2009-10-27 15:29:47]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8098 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 20):

Would they acquire the aircraft to make both carriers true CVs?

They might; the UK tends to buy their aircraft in increments, and it might be the case that they cut the number they plan on buying now down, but later on, they will buy another batch to fill the fleet.


User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7919 times:

If a CVN was buit instead of CVF

The re-design has already been done as lots of Navy Carrier designs were looked at Also as modern warships are constructed in the Modular construction process any thing is possible to build and fit to the ship.

With MAGLEV being the preferd option for the CAT sytem if fitted.

No large steam boilers would be required as MAGLEV = Magnetic Levitation just a large system of Superconducting Magnets and an Electrical charge pushing the Cat stroke towards the Bow.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7847 times:

Lumbetown, Shadow Chancellor George Osbourne has signaled his displeasure at the CVF contract, or rather all the clauses that make cancellation or one or both difficult and expensive.
But it's not up to him, even next year when he's likely to be the actual Chancellor.
Such as decision would go the Prime Minister ultimately, the metal is being cut, much of the contracts are awarded, many jobs would be lost and not just in shipyards.

In truth, the two parties differ little on defence.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10234 posts, RR: 97
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7815 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
This decision is all political with Labor saying "we cannot afford both CVFs, but we will build two ships anyway just to keep people working". Kind of talking out two sides of the same mouth, aren't they?

Don't really think that's the case. The bulk of the money has already been committed, and completing the second vessel is in effect cost-neutral, as it saves us having to replace HMS Ocean with YET another ship.....

Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 22):
Also as modern warships are constructed in the Modular construction process any thing is possible to build and fit to the ship.

They may be constructed in a modular manner, but I can assure you that once the sections are welded up, it's a single entity. Fitting an NSRP would require carving the hull apart. They don't just "unclip".
It could be done, though.  Smile

Rgds


25 Lumberton : It maybe cost-neutral, but will it be an effective amphibious warfare platform, or a large deck carrying helicopters? If the latter, what will substi
26 KC135TopBoom : Maybe I don't have this right, but IIRC, the two CVFs were proposed under Blair, and construction began under Brown, is that correct? Now the Labor pa
27 Evomutant : I guess they could. But in the middle of a recession (which the UK, unlike most of Europe is still in) that would go down like a lead baloon. And rem
28 Astuteman : Ocean isn't an LPD, Lumberton - she doesn't dock. She carries 4 LCVP in davits and that's your lot. I would expect it to be fairly straightforward to
29 Lumberton : Well, that does make things easier, doesn't it?
30 Connies4ever : Just a random thought here @ 0530: if one of the drivers behind converting PoW from CVF role to amphibious assault is the soaring cost of the F-35, is
31 KC135TopBoom : It could, but who really knows right not? Austrailia is getting both the F-35A and F/A-18E/F, and probibly the EA-18G, too.
32 GDB : KC-135, where are you getting this 'cancel CVF' stuff? As I said before, the report that is the subject of this thread, is an unsubstantiated, badly w
33 Astuteman : Funny isn't it? Ocean didn't cost much more than £150m when she was completed in 1998 (even though she was bid at a lot less than that....) Rgds
34 Post contains links GDB : Ocean , to save money when it was ordered in 1993, was not built for a long service life, however I note that the original 2018 out of service date s
35 NA : The QE and PofW are built to last much longer than Ocean and they are 3 times bigger. Also, the pound Sterling of the mid 90s is someting different t
36 ANZUS340 : I am curious and more than just a little ignorant, but why did the UK decide they needed large flattops? If only using STOVL, why did they not go for
37 AirRyan : That's exactly what they should do, the F-35B is going to be a joke, especially when the US Marines will be operating them off of USN CVN's along sid
38 GST : As far as I am aware, the precent company on an Invincible class is over 1000, the new QE class is to be just over 600. Half as many ships = massive
39 ANZUS340 : That's certainly a very small crew for a very large ship. Surely that does not include the airwing and associated personnel too? I always thought tha
40 GST : Going by memory, the Invincible company is around 800 without air wing. I am unsure if the QE company inclusdes air wing personnel, but I would guess
41 GDB : You might think F-35B is a joke Air Ryan, but the USMC, RAF, RN and Italians don't. ANZUS340, the size of CVF is a reflection that at last, the RN (or
42 NA : According to the RN the QE will have a crew of 1450 including air crew - which in comparison to a 1 1/2 times larger US Navy CVN is a very small crew
43 GST : Fascinating. Well, the main reason that the QE class has such a low crew per ton is mainly due to increased automation, at least from the RN sources
44 GDB : Factor in too that the USN carriers are larger, though nowhere near proportionally in relation to crew size, have all the catapults and arrestor wires
45 KC135TopBoom : I didn't say any CVF was canceled, but apoligise if it was interpeted that way. We have the same problem on this side of the pond, too. No, AirRyan,
46 AirRyan : Say the F-35A costs 1.00, the F-35C would be about 1.10, and the F-35B is probably going to be around 1.25 - whatever the actual numbers, the exorbit
47 KC135TopBoom : Whoa, hold on my Marine friend. I don't think the F-35B is replacing the USMC F/A-18A/B/C/Ds. I believe they are replacing the AV-8Bs with the 350 F-
48 AirRyan : No, no that's just it - and this was why I was wondering if we have heard anything further about the Marines JSF aspirations, because the Marines onl
49 GDB : Air Ryan, the ability of the CVF to in the future be converted to an (EMAL) catapult config, is 'future proofing', for most likely a time when UCAV's
50 NA : The RN officially denies the press report, says its rubbish and that both the QE and the PofW will be true a/c carriers with JSF fighters.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic RN Carriers And JSF Get Slashed
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Yak-141 And JSF - Separated At Birth? posted Sun Oct 28 2001 20:59:01 by TransSwede
A Nice JSF Camouflage And Demo Livery posted Fri Nov 14 2008 06:25:03 by OwlEye
Canada To Get Jsf In 2018 posted Sun Feb 6 2005 17:20:51 by BT
F-16's And Aircraft Carriers posted Sun Mar 23 2003 05:57:07 by BartiniMan
F-35B And The New UK Carriers posted Sat Feb 22 2003 20:45:05 by Soren-a
JSF's Role With The AF, Navy, Marines And UK posted Fri Apr 12 2002 00:18:32 by STT757
Falklands War And Argentina Airforce posted Thu Oct 15 2009 10:46:52 by Ba97
The PW F135, The Only Engine On The JSF? posted Wed Sep 30 2009 00:04:38 by 747classic
Propellers C-46 And C-47 posted Tue Sep 22 2009 06:34:54 by Raysaron
Article On Eads And Germany - Is It Accurate? posted Thu Aug 6 2009 13:08:44 by Tugger

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format