Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Seems they've decided that Super Hornet is a better idea than Lightning II.

"THE Royal Navy is set to save £10bn from the defence budget by dropping plans to buy the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built to fly off its new aircraft carriers.

It is set to swap the £13.8bn Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project for an improved stealthier version of the Boeing F/A18 Super Hornet which currently flies off US Navy carriers.

The potential move was discussed at a meeting between Liam Fox and defence chiefs last weekend to discuss cuts to be made in the ongoing Strategic Defence and Security Review.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,†a senior defence source said. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate and even if we continued with it, we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.â€

The Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Boeing’s main US rival Lockheed Martin, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget with costs already put at £13.8bn and rising.

The 138 aircraft Britain planned to buy to replace the Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Royal Navy were originally supposed to cost a total of £7bn.

But they are currently expected to cost £100m each, making them effectively unaffordable given the dire state of both the defence budget and the nation’s finances.

The JSF programme was originally designed to be enough for both new aircraft carriers and four RAF squadrons.

Buying the more stealthy Super Hornet – known as the Silent Hornet - and cutting numbers to no more than 50 so there are only enough aircraft to fly off the carriers, will cut costs to less than £4bn.

That would save £2bn in development costs over the next parliament and a total of around £10bn over the next ten years.

The £10bn saving would be enough on its own to remove a substantial portion of the long-term cash shortages in the defence budget.

The MoD has already received confirmation from Boeing that it could make the improvements to the Super Hornet that the navy needs to produce the Silent Hornet.

The Silent Hornet will have a new internal weapons bay to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft and improved fuel tanks that would give it a longer range than JSF.

The aircraft is already able to carry more bombs and missiles than JSF and could be produced in time for the first of the two new aircraft carriers which is due to come into service in 2015.

The JSF programme has been beset by difficulties, with Lockheed announcing further delays last week and the British aircraft not expected to be delivered in time for the first carrier in 2015.

Switching to the Silent Hornet would reverse 30 years of flying short take-off and vertical landing aircraft from the Royal Navy’s carriers.

The version of JSF Britain planned to buy is a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft like the Harrier it was to replace. But the Silent Hornet is a conventional take-off and landing aircraft.

The new aircraft carriers are being built to take either type of aircraft, so while it will require the fitting of catapults and arrester hooks, it is not a major problem or cost to switch from one to the other.

A number of Royal Navy pilots are already trained to fly the Super Hornet off carriers having spent time on exchange with the US Navy.

The move will be bad news for the RAF, which offered to axe its entire fleet of Tornado aircraft in the hope that this would mean it would continue to get the JSF.

Now it is set to lose both its Tornados and its Harriers and not get the JSF, leaving it with a single attack aircraft, the Eurofighter, now known as the Typhoon.

This would in itself provide significant cost savings in that a single attack aircraft fleet is much cheaper to maintain and run than a number of different aircraft.

The JSF programme has been beset with difficulties. Britain initially joined it as a development partner and has already put £2bn into the programme.

This was originally expected to cost £7bn with a further £7bn for maintenance and upgrading during the life of the aircraft.

But Congress has reneged on repeated promises by US President George W Bush that Britain would receive full details of the technology on the aircraft.

This will mean that some elements of the aircraft can only be maintained by US technicians increasing costs still further.

The MoD refused to comment on any changes planned as part of the defence review but reiterated that Fox “has made clear that tough decisions will need to be madeâ€.

"

[Inkompetent 0]

Sounds reasonable. The F-22 and F-35 are fantasy-projects anyway. More a proof of concept, and technology research. A lot has come out of the programs, and I bet a lot of it will be used to modernize current production-line aircraft and aid in the development of newer ones, but in the end a plane can't really be sold if no one can afford it.

The F/A-18 is one of the absolutely best aircraft in the world as it is, and for a much, much more affordable prize. Good move.

The obvious downside would be that the Hornet is no STOL-aircraft for a country with no fleet of full-size aircraft carriers (?).

Edited August 5, 2010 by Inkompetent

[max power 21]

Now if only someone could convince the Government of Canada that the JSF is not worth it as well. Typhoons, or even something like the Silent Hornet (which all of our fighter pilots are already trained to fly, and all of our fighter aircraft programmes are currently designed around) seem like they would be a better fit.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Sounds reasonable. The F-22 and F-35 are fantasy-projects anyway.

There are some F22s in service though aren't there?

The F/A-18 is one of the absolutely best aircraft in the world as it is, and for a much, much more affordable prize. Good move.

The obvious downside would be that the Hornet is no STOL-aircraft for a country with no fleet of full-size aircraft carriers (?).

UK is busy building two "proper" aircraft carriers (Queen Elizabeth class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier ) that will be ready about the same time as the Hornets.

[Inkompetent 0]

There are some F22s in service though aren't there?

There are. But how much money did USA have to borrow from China to afford them? They are purchased with money that will never ever be possible to pay back. And even USA had to cancel its orders and not buy any more of them because they are too expensive.

But then again *someone* needs to fly them at a decent scale for it to have been worth the development money. After all billions of dollars poured into the project they HAD to buy some for themselves to get some value for the money.

UK is busy building two "proper" aircraft carriers (Queen Elizabeth class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_E...rcraft_carrier ) that will be ready about the same time as the Hornets.

Ohh, right. I thought I had read something about that, but was currently too lazy to look it up. Thanks :)

[Prydain 1]

We will see, a Sunday Times article isn't going to be solid proof. It may be a fake leak to the press in order to get purchasing/overall costs down.

There was a hypothesised 'navalised' Typhoon that was basically a threat, of sorts, in case the American's didn't share the all important software information in order to maintain soverignty over the aircraft.

That idea sounds better to my civ mind, the MoD could take RAF Typhoons and refit them for the new carriers, thus cutting RAF numbers and cut out the JSF all together (not just for the RN). Double savings and I doubt the refitting would cost as much as a few Hornets. But heck, that is theory, not reality.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

We will see, a Sunday Times article isn't going to be solid proof. It may be a fake leak to the press in order to get purchasing/overall costs down.

Either that or it's a fake leak to show the British public that our shiny new government is at least considering cheaper options. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a few months they released another story saying that we have to buy the f-35 because of reason X.

There was a hypothesised 'navalised' Typhoon that was basically a threat, of sorts, in case the American's didn't share the all important software information in order to maintain soverignty over the aircraft.

Didn't the UK have a similar problem with the Phantom? I was very young then so I probably wasn't paying attention. The F-35 operating system was written in C++ if I remember correctly so that future modifications would be easier to undertake. I'm sure by now you can get the source code on bittorrent :)

As for a navalised Typhoon, I hope it will be safer for test pilots than Hawker's efforts in 1943!!

[b0b 10]

Could be wrong but i think the UK MoD are concentrating on their own project

Project Taranis.. the first ( ? ) unmanned fighter.

http://defense-update.com/products/t/taranis-ucav.htm

[Daniel 0]

Taranis is only a technology demonstrator for aircraft quite far down the line. We need to replace the Harrier's capability in the near future.

I'm guessing Hornets would only be able to use the Queen Elizabeth carriers?

[TomatoArden 0]

I was hopping they would buy instead the F35C instead as this would too have saved money on the purchase (wikipedia states $25Mon each aircraft) and resulted in a much increased range and pay load as well.

If they change to a CATOBAR system on the aircraft caries I think this would be much better than the ski jump. Will they change to having an angled flight deck then as well?

Thanks for the quote, since the pay wall we cant do direct links to the Times.

[b0b 10]

Taranis is only a technology demonstrator for aircraft quite far down the line. We need to replace the Harrier's capability in the near future.

I'm guessing Hornets would only be able to use the Queen Elizabeth carriers?

You could be right about the demonstrator.. however with the MoD having a HUGE percentage of their budget cut (having to pay for Trident included in budget rather than separate ) and £124million been sunk into the project so far, im not too sure its "just" a demonstrator.

[TomatoArden 0]

Taranis is only a technology demonstrator for aircraft quite far down the line. We need to replace the Harrier's capability in the near future.

I'm guessing Hornets would only be able to use the Queen Elizabeth carriers?

I think that's the point, since the new airacraft will be coming in at about the same time, then you might as well switch to CATOBAR aircraft since they have a greater raneg and payload than their STOVL counterparts.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100726_1_n.shtml - seems the mod are having a catapult developed as well.

[walker 0]

Hi all

We are probably in to the last of the piloted fighter/fighter bomber aircraft era anyway. So this move is very sensible as it ensures we do not waste money on the last of pilot in the combat aircraft concept.

Personally I think they would do better and save far more money if the Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) Aircraft Carrier version of the Eurofighter was chosen. Also it creates far more jobs in the UK and be cheaper than the hornet as it would not require the Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) technology which also requires the catapult to working at all times, that is another link in the failure chain.

Even if we go for CATOBAR the Eurofighter is the better aircraft. If we are at war we can still build them in the UK. It also reduces the training budget as we are only training one aircraft and don't have to duplicate on simulators, classes manuals and the rest or on the maintenance budget. Those back end costs are the real costs of any program.

Over all if we go down this route then a STOBAR or CATOBAR version of the Eurofighter makes far more sense.

We could of course Skip the last of the piloted planes era. The next stage is Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV)s. They are cheaper, faster, more stealthy, and able to maneuver much better and at higher G than a platform with a human in it. And of course far less risky in terms of dead pilots.

The UK already has the Taranis project under development:

http://patdollard.com/2008/02/taranis-stealth-uav-production-starts/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Taranis

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 6, 2010 by walker

[echo1 0]

Perhaps the carrier Typhoon didn't work out? Were any working prototypes built?

[walker 0]

Hi ch_123

A Naval variant Typhoon was part of the original requirements. All current versions of the Typhoon have an arrestor hook already built in as part of the Airframe Systems / Landing Assemblies.

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=Eurofighter_Typhoon

So conversion to full Naval capability would not be too complex. The airframe was already designed and built for the naval role, so all that is needed is beefing up the landing gear; which the original design already incorporated the physical capability for, and adding in some avionics.

A relativley simple enhancement program.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 6, 2010 by walker

[rksl-rock 1301]

Hi ch_123

A Naval variant Typhoon was part of the original requirements. The current version of the Typhoon has an arrestor hook already built in. So conversion to full Naval capability would not be too complex.

Kind Regards walker

Actually it wasn't. It was added as an unsolicited research programme (primarily by BAE Systems) as an alternative to the F-35 in the hope they could eek out the aircraft numbers and get the MoD to commit to funding a larger programme. Ultimately it was killed off by the Germans who, having no need for a carrier variant refused to share in the development funding.

I sat through more than a few quarterly progress briefings given by Ross Bradley the then head of EuroFighter (UK). The carrier variant was a popular topic in '98 to 2001. The current design is completely incapable of carrier ops even though it does have a hook.

To get it ready it needs:

• new landing gear

• re-designed wing to fuselage connection brackets

• Heavier rear sub frame for hook mounts

• redesigned centre frames

• and major structural strengthening throughout.

No airframes were ever converted, but the design was "approved" but after the JSF decision was made and the German government delayed the programme for 2+ years there was no budget left to develop variants.

And regards to the F-18 rumours. I think its utter bollocks.

Maybe a switch to the F-35C but no way can the UK business afford to lose the airframe or avionics contracts for the entire F-35 range. For those that don't know all the rear fuselages of every F-35 that rolls off the production line is made in 2 shed at BAE Systems Salmesbury near Preston in the UK. And rather a lot of the software is developed by BAE subsidiaries in the UK.

Its just political posturing prior to the SDR results later this year. The Tories have been slaggin off the program for years and now there is no viable alternative they have got to get the boot in somewhere.

Edited August 6, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[Inkompetent 0]

Was as I supposed with the Typhoon then. One can't just slap on a hook to make it able to not crumble into scrap metal when hitting a carrier.

And if UK produces a decent part of the actual airplanes it does too sound like a fully good reason not to abandon it. The industry need to be kept running.

[Simon C 0]

Plus, with the amount of money we've poured into the JSF project, it would be financially unwise to just pull out now and buy something else.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to RKSL-Rock; you talk of your experiences in '98 to 2001 of the Eurofighter discussions. And I agree that was the view back then. However things seem to have moved on since then: The latest study using actual aircraft in service as the basis seem to contradict the stated requirements for Eurofighter to be navalised as does the 2005 study.

...The possibility of a navalised Typhoon re-emerged in late 2005, as "Plan B" when the UK hit severe problems in relation to technology transfer for the F-35 JSF. Published leaks indicated that BAE engineers had concluded (presumably in the earlier studies) that navalising Typhoon appeared to be "practical and relatively inexpensive", and that navalising later RAF tranches "might be of interest". STOBAR was considered preferable to CTOL, flight control system changes would be necessary to guarantee "precision landings" but there would be little change to structural layout, and there would certainly be no need for a major rework for the aircraft to survive arrested landings. The view over the nose was not necessarily inadequate. There were a number of options for reducing sink rate, only the increased angle of attack option would would require the addition of a pilot periscope or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline. The studies indicated a 340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the CTOL catapult launched variant....

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm

As always follow the link to the full original text

I really do suggest people read the whole of the above article as it deals with many of the aspects of all of the different options we are talking about here.

The major cost implications are still the back end costs. Which increase according to the numbers of aircraft types you support.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 6, 2010 by walker

[rksl-rock 1301]

Hi all

In reply to RKSL-Rock; you talk of your experiences in '98 to 2001 of the Eurofighter discussions. And I agree that was the view back then. However things seem to have moved on since then: The latest study using actual aircraft in service as the basis seem to contradict the stated requirements for Eurofighter to be navalised as does the 2005 study.

...

Actually what i posted is the current requirement to navalise the aircraft. If you want the 2001 requirments to can add:

• the removal/reduction of the foward fuel tanks.
  
• enlarged Fin root
  
• Wing slats/spoilers
  
• Enlarged flaps and elevon area
  
• relocation of the towed radar decoys to fin tip
  
• design change to intake
  
• half height centre line pylon.
  

And the major costs might be what you call backend costs. But in reality the non recuring costs would be rather significant. Even higher if we are talking about re engineering existing airframes no matter what the Navy Matters site says.

The centre frame replacment alone requires the removal of the entire rear half of the airframe and wings. And the replacments of the rear two composite 'half panels'. Something that cannot be done in the UK alone since the only tooling to do that is in Italy. And to replicate it would be a huge expense.

Edited August 6, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[Blackhawk 0]

Is this an official announcement? Nothing on the BBC and I have not heard anything about any press statement. Could just be a rumour.

If it is true however, I'm still happy, the Hornet is a superb aircraft and proven in combat, I think the F-35 is too expensive, and just unnecessary really. The MoD has been given a very tight budget, and Trident takes up half of it, so they sort of have to make this decision.

Although I would have preferred a Naval Typhoon, that would be even cheaper and better than the Hornet.

[Prydain 1]

Is this an official announcement? Nothing on the BBC and I have not heard anything about any press statement. Could just be a rumour.

It began in a Michael Smith article in the Sunday Times. Considering this type of procurement would not be his speciality (he writes more about spooks than anything else) I would have thought that the SDR, being the massive review that it is, has brought up loads of situations, including this one that he feels needs to be written about.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Prydain

[walker 0]

Hi Blackhawk

The Article that TechnoTerrorist303 is quoting as the OP of this thread is one that was in the Sunday Times. Which no longer makes its articles available on the web as it is part of the Murdoch empire and it needs the cash.

The story is alluded to in various other media:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/f35_canada_wikipedia/

The story could be a negotiating stance by a part of the UK MOD to get the right to build all the F35s in the UK. At the moment only part of the aircraft would be made in the UK. The government wants it all to be built here if it is to be used here, we did after all allow full technology transfer on the Harrier. The concept of what happens when the UK is at war with some one and the US decides not to support us has been there since Suez.

It may also be to land a larger proportion of Eurofighter to be built in the UK for the same reason.

It may be that the back end costs for the JSF have only just been analysed and they are way bigger than was originally thought.

And it could just be that any aircraft now is seen as a stopgap on the way to UCAVs so why pay for an aircraft like the JSF which is still in testing and which did not do so well in the simulated combat tests over the last few years. Why pay for what is about to be an obsolete concept? Better to just tide our selves over with a proven fighter like Eurofighter until Taranis is available

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 6, 2010 by walker

[Prydain 1]

I doubt that even a larger portion could be built in the UK. I don't even think we have any spare milling machines left, let alone hosting area for an economically viable temporary increase in production from any outlet.

[walker 0]

...I don't even think we have any spare milling machines left, let alone hosting area for an economically viable temporary increase in production from any outlet.

Hi Prydain

Use horizontal borers instead much more flexable than a milling machine. :D

You can buy them for about 1/2 a million each.

Not to mention it would all be inward investment and that is far better for an enconomy than importing. In all honnesty getting equipment to build them is not IMHO an issue it is just business cost.

Kind Regards walker