Royal Navy Carriers, JSF Slashed

Due to budget constraints, the Royal Navy 'Queen Elizabeth' class future carriers have been reduced from two full carriers to one carrier and one commando carrier with helicopters only, and the JSF buy has been reduced from 138 to 60 or less.

More to follow (including a link when made publicly available).

Bad news
see Weaponry thread

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Popeye]

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Popeye]

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Popeye]

So our government are happy to bail out the banks with our tax money,but yet again piss on the honour of our service men and women by refusing to get them the best most up to date equipment.

Send the cabinet to Helmand in open top landrovers with inadequte body armour I say.

Maybe the reason for this is connected to the fact the Government know they have given away our soverignty to the EU,and soon there will not be a "British" army,just a Euro army...

www.timesonline.co.uk...


linky for ya

since the steel has been cut they cannot cancel them - and converting 1 to an amphib ship is the option (HMS ocean was the same thing)



BUT the reason is the massive rises in costs for the JSF - and the UK cutting the order from 138 to 50 - at todays price the UK is quoted as saying the JSF will cost at least $150 million each , and will rise to over $165 million each by the time they order them.


how much does the F22 cost again?

and thats the bulk of the cost of the new carriers - the aircraft to fly off them

Time to convert to CATOBAR and buy the Rafale.

ha ha...

I'm sure none of us could see that coming...



They should have ditched the JSF ages ago and went Rafale (which incidentally proves the French were right to insist on carrier capabilities when involved in the pre-Eurofighter program - ECA was it?)


Anyway. In truth they'd be better off getting rid of the carrier air wing completely - it will stop the politicans getting involved in stupid military adventures which are usually unwinnable.

Time to cancel the F136.

It's not nice when your partner backs out, is it? (If it was even in the MoU, last time someone said to "read between the lines").

I guess I was wrong.

[edit on 27/10/2009 by C0bzz]

The F136 was dead anyway, and this is probably a result of that.

Though the F-35 is distinctly starting to smell of the F-111 RAF purchase in the 1970s/1980s...

take the F35 and kill the Sea Typhoon.

can you say ` white elephant`

Huh? The 'Sea Typhoon' was a paper project, and not even a serious one at that.

reply to post by RichardPrice

---

i really should be more awake when i type

kill the F35 order for the UK - its a white elephant , Rafale is a good option , but Sea Typhoon could be considered IF BAe systems can keep the costs down - they showed when push comes to shove they are willing to move like that (presidential helo)

reply to post by Harlequin

---

Ok. I know that this has been debated here before but my understanding is that there are fundamental structural reasons why the 'Sea Typhoon' is a non starter. Am I wrong?

Might not be dead yet:

GE engine may survive in budget talks
www.courier-journal.com...

Fundamental, not half! You are correct. The most obvious reasons being; a re-stressed airframe to take the added impact loads, including wings, pylons etc. This doesn't just involve adding more bits on to existing airframes. Its a re-design. Re-qual the airframe, and re-testing.

A re-design to take hook loads, and move position for acceptable post-engagement characteristics (you don't want the aircraft bouncing all over the shop when you trap). New systems to deploy/retract the hook.

Much strengthened main/nose gear (probably twice as heavy as current). Nose gear re-design for cat launch. Re-design wheel wells to accomodate all this. Probably re-locate gear in general for deck handling.

Corrosion resistance. Replace materials that don't like salt water!

New cockpit location and windscreen design to give the required view for higher alpha approaches onto a boat.

New systems to integrate flight controls with Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. You'd also need new toys to allow the jet to co-operate with carrier ops.

Modifying the flight controls (and probably control surfaces, actuators, wings, canards, and engine controls) to give level 1 handling and response down to 135 knots on the glideslope, as well as at the end of cat launch, and on the bolter. Deltas are pretty horrible to the deck.

Most of this would then have to be tested in the US as we....well, can't. So there you have a decades work. BAE will say "yes Mr Brown, no problem Mr Brown." But they just tell the government what they want to hear.

S

reply to post by Major Lee Gassole

---

Really stupid question here but does the EF have flaps? Ive looked at several rightups and no mention of them.

A naval Eurofighter would probably take off in the same manner as the Su-27K - STOBAR operations not CATOBAR.

Of course, a navalized version of the F-16 was proposed as a (losing) competitor to the Hornet in the 1970s. The Boeing X-32 also had an intake mounted nose gear. I suspect that an intake mounted nose gear can withstand the forces of catapult operations. Perhaps the cost in terms of structural weight is prohibitive, though.

Due to the advantages of the canard delta, you wouldn't need a main landing gear of F/A-18 proportions. Keep in mind that if you have a flat AoA on approach and a low approach speed, the sink rate (and the stress on the main landing gear) is also relatively low.

Navalizing the EJ200 with salt-water resistant materials shouldn't be too difficult. Keep in mind that R-R has plenty of this sort of experience from the Pegasus - not to mention the T-45 Goshawk's Adour.

Of course, there are always nasty surprises when it comes to structural corrosion. The issue with the P-3C fleet comes to mind.........

Strengtheing the rear fuselage and wings - bring back weight and hook - not as complicated as first thought , as quite frankly even the RAF are surpried just how strong the `phoon is turning out.

As a canard delta approach speed and AoA on final`s are slow enough and flat enough that a `big` tail wouldn`t really be a huge issue - something i think overlooked for the navailist X-23 , whilst it also has a big tail the approash is alot flatter than the super fries and tomcat thump downs.

avionics - whilst the job requires hard work and is quite diverse the systems on the `phoon are very adaptable.

low delta on the ramp - armourers wouldn`t have a breakdown. and why?
the trend is moving away from the large and expensive munitions; when your using 20 a week @ £1 million each the costs rapidily increase , I doubt that Britain will ever buy "large PGMs" in large enough numbers for a militarily significant role. Forget about the Storm Shadom - it's already obsolete from the standpoint of cost. The future lies with munitions in the cost and weight and performance class of the American "Small Diameter Bomb" and JDAM-ER.

A naval Eurofighter would be an expensive proposition - not to mention entirely obsolete by the time it reached service.

Of course, there is deep regret in Britain regarding the size of the Eurofighter buy. Due to force reduction, the RAF has absolutely no need for 232 Eurofighters. The last 50 or so of Britain's Eurofighters will be redundant as soon as they role off the assembly line.

The concept of "Naval" Eurofighter is a very cumbersome political solution to a politically inspired dilemma. Britain can't reduce its Eurofighter buy because of the penalties agreed to at the time Germany wanted to reduce its financial participation. It would be far easier to cancel or defer the purchase of the F-35B.

Replacing 50 land based Eurofighters with 50 navalized Eurofighters makes sense from a political viewpoint.

Reducing procurement from 232 Eurofighters and 60 to 150 F-35s to just 232 Eurofighters looks like a tremendous cost savings.

Fred:


www.aircraftresourcecenter.com...

just for you and yes it has flaps

Nah, the Navy don't want STOBAR. The deck management issues are too restrictive. It's bad enough with a handful of Harriers! Sortie gen would go way down.



But a Typhoon (more so for an 'N') has a high alpha at such an approach speed. The canards would block the pilots view of the deck. Unless your planning to bring it in at 200kts onto a three mile long deck. ;-)



Glad you think so! Re-designing the tooling is a job and a half.



Just not for naval operations. ;-)



You always build more than you operationally need. Flying is a game of attrition. :-)

S

reply to post by Major Lee Gassole

---

rafale seems to land just fine as a cnarad delta

www.airforce-technology.com...

cockpit view of the `phoon - seems fine enough for looking forward

de.academic.ru...

and rafale loaded up before capture on the wire

and thats the `model` you could choose to see how to convert a land based aircraft (rafale C) to carrier (rafale M) - weighing 500 lb more , with longer nose gear (deleted centre pyron to give room) strengthening all over for carrier ops and a hook.


and otehr than detail improvements they are 95% the same.


so a Sea Typhoon isn`t such a wild dream really - if you can land a Rafale then a `phoon can and as well.

The view is fine... sat on the ground. ;-) A normal landing is flown with 12 units of AOA giving adequate view of the runway. But approaching a carrier you'd have, what, maybe 14/15 units to get your 135kts? The only thing BAE have come up with (without structural mods to the airframe/cockpit) is the following:




I don't think any flyer would want their eyes stuck in the cockpit whilst approaching a carrier deck. :-)



I know what your saying but the Rafale was intended to be marinized from the outset and designed accordingly/simultaneously with the other varients. Typhoon wasn't. Thats why the Rafales canards are located behind the cockpit. The pilot has an unobstructed view of the deck and landing aids.

and otehr than detail improvements they are 95% the same.



Oh, of course. Any aircraft could be designed to land-on if enough money, time, and resources are thrown at it. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the F-35B. It will tie in more-so with what we're already familiar with.