Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[walker 0]

Wasn't it reported a few months ago that insurgents in Pakistan or Afghanistan were hacking into UAVs and watching their video feed?

Hi echo1

You mean this report.

DECEMBER 17, 2009

Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones

$26 Software Is Used to Breach Key Weapons in Iraq; Iranian Backing Suspected

By SIOBHAN GORMAN, YOCHI J. DREAZEN and AUGUST COLE

WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter...

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB126102247889095011.html

As always follow the link for the original full text

They were transmitting data over an unencrypted channel.

Kind Regards walker

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

To be fair, they probably torrented the software :)

[fighterman 10]

they was on about getting a navy version of the eurofighter which can take of from carriers

[Daniel 0]

That's been discussed and pretty much discounted, check back a couple of pages.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Actualy the argument for the Typhoon is increasing as the Candians and Indians are interested in buying it and paying the cost for the Navalised version.

Kind Regards walker

[Daniel 0]

Source? That sounds unlikely to me since Canada doesn't have any carriers and India is still getting by with the age old HMS Hermes.

EDIT: Just spotted the Indigenous Aircraft Carriers article on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aircraft_Carrier#Aircraft

The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System sounds interesting. Apparently it could still be installed on the CVF Carriers if we do drop the VTOL F-35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System

Edited August 13, 2010 by Daniel

[walker 0]

Hi Daniel

There are multiple sources including some recent military magazine and other media articles, there was a meeting recently in India where it was discussed and further talk a few weeks ago at Farnborough.

Canada:

Boeing, Eurofighter bid to usurp F-35 for Canadian fighter deal

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing and Eurofighter have launched a public challenge to Lockheed Martin's widely presumed control of a next-generation fighter contract in Canada.

Both challengers unveiled the outlines of a new push to respectively market the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Typhoon to Ottawa as replacements for the Canadian air force's Boeing CF-18 (F/A-18A/B) Hornets by the end of the next decade.

As a member of the nine-nation Joint Strike Fighter programme since 2002, Lockheed executives have described Canada as a likely buyer for up to 80 F-35s, although the Department of National Defence has released a revised requirement for 65 jets.

Canada has invested $150 million to participate in the F-35's system development and demonstration phase, and has signed for a follow-on production and sustainment phase...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/28/327053/boeing-eurofighter-bid-to-usurp-f-35-for-canadian-fighter.html

As always follow the link for the original full text

F-35 purchase comes under fire

Published On Thu Jul 22 2010

Re: $16 billion for the wrong planes, Opinion July 18

Members of a political and corporate elite who define “leadership†as strict adherence to an ideology based on the permanent, unbroken attachment of government and business are currently leading many of the democracies in the Western world — and leading them away from their citizen’s hard-won democratic freedoms. Our dysfunctional democracies are in dire need of leadership and restructuring that is based on empathy for the majority of our citizens who have been marginalized, made poor, divided and conquered by an increasingly cynical, unaccountable, arrogant business and multi-national corporate establishment...

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/839161--f-35-purchase-comes-under-fire

As always follow the link for the original full text

The Typhoon has been in the running for Indian contract from the start. More so since their decision to make their own carriers and the choice of a STOBAR design.

Indian Navy keen to buy newer generation aircraft

22 November 2009 12:13:24 by IANS

By Gulshan R. Luthra

...Eurofighter Vice President and Head of India Campaign Directorate Dr Matthias Schmidlin told India Strategic that while he could not confirm receipt of the RFI for the naval variant of Eurofighter, his company would bid for the Indian Navy’s requirement if invited.

In fact, he pointed out, Eurofighter is the only aircraft among the six contenders for the IAF order which would have thrust vectoring capability in the coming years. Thrust vectoring capability allows an aircraft to stand still in the air, and takeoff and land even in vertical mode like a helicopter.

Some 200 Eurofighters have been produced so far, predominantly to meet the requirements of participating nations which include Germany, Britain, Spain and Italy.

Thrust vectoring is being developed and would be operational on Eurofighters within the first half of the next decade, Dr Schmidlin said...

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/indian-navy-keen-to-buy-newer-generation-aircraft_100278386.html#ixzz0XclBi4EO

The competition is now between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the French Rafale

MiG-35 stalls in Indian fighter tender contract

10:42 10/08/2010© RIA Novosti. Ilya Pitalev

Russia's MiG-35 multirole fighter aircraft has failed to make the short-list in a $10 billion international tender for 126 combat aircraft for the Indian air force, according to Indian media reports quoted by Kommersant daily.

The favorites to win the tender are the French Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, Indian media say.

Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), the holding company for most of the Russian aircraft industry, and its fighter subsidiary MiG, have not officially confirmed the reports.

"The official results of the tender have not yet been announced," said UAC's Press Secretary Konstantin Lantratov...

http://en.rian.ru/business/20100810/160139524.html

As always follow the link for the original full text

The key factor is the technological improvements in thrust vectoring tested in the Typhoon like X31, and now being introduced into the Typhoon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVUN8amHnEc

Here are some additional technical details on the thrust vectoring due to be installed on Typhoons.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/18/333501/eurojet-pushes-thrust-vectoring-technology-for-typhoon.html

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html

Since all the technology allready exists and is due to be added long before the F35's can be delivered and several other countries will be sharing costs and the Aircraft are already being built and used in the UK, it makes for a far better solution.

This along with some bad tests in simulated exersizes last year is why the F35 is being increasingly seen as not up to the job even in the US.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 14, 2010 by walker

[rksl-rock 1300]

Hi Daniel

There are multiple sources including some recent military magazine and other media articles, there was a meeting recently in India where it was discussed and further talk a few weeks ago at Farnborough.

Canada:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/28/327053/boeing-eurofighter-bid-to-usurp-f-35-for-canadian-fighter.html

As always follow the link for the original full text

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/839161--f-35-purchase-comes-under-fire

As always follow the link for the original full text

The Typhoon has been in the running for Indian contract from the start. More so since their decision to make their own carriers and the choice of a STOBAR design.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/indian-navy-keen-to-buy-newer-generation-aircraft_100278386.html#ixzz0XclBi4EO

The competition is now between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the French Rafale

http://en.rian.ru/business/20100810/160139524.html

As always follow the link for the original full text

The key factor is the technological improvements in thrust vectoring tested in the Typhoon like X31, and now being introduced into the Typhoon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVUN8amHnEc

Here are some additional technical details on the thrust vectoring due to be installed on Typhoons.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/18/333501/eurojet-pushes-thrust-vectoring-technology-for-typhoon.html

This along with some bad tests in simulated exersizes last year is why the F35 is being increasingly seen as not up to the job even in the US.

Kind Regards walker

Boeing/BAE for EuroFighters in Canada... old news . DATE:28/05/09 It was denied/rejected by the Canadian parliament about a week later if memory serves. The full reasons were never revealed but industry rumours suggest political pressure from the US. As well as some grumblings between EADS and BAE.

Incidentally at no time was a Navalised Typhoon mentioned/offered or requested.

"F-35 Purchase comes under fire" - Again not really much new since every time the project comes up for funding review (at least once every 12 months) the price spirals and has been doing so for the last 10 years. And its set to keep climbing at this rate.

By the way the latest rumour is that the USN may halve their order for the F-35C. (they also threatened this 2 years ago.)

Indian Navy keen to buy newer generation aircraft - 22 November 2009 - There are also articles from 2006 you could reference that say the exact same thing.

But you should also realise that the Indian Navy has also been through this particular loop at least 3 times now and each time comes back to the Mig-29K. They concluded in 2003 (the last big naval spending review) that they could only afford to operate one type of fixed wing aircraft. After various attempts to get more funding they re-committed to buying a Russian made aircraft carrier and 45 aircraft with a large commercial offset covering about 30% of the cost.

What does this mean? Well like most nations with large militaries the budget is split for each service. And the Indian navy has spent its budget on the Mig-29K. They couldn't afford to buy EuroFighters. Navalised or land based. The Air Force well that's a different story.

The MRCA contract is to fulfil a purely Air Force Requirement. Naval capability isn't even in the requirements! And never was. So no matter what the result of the competition is they wont be buying a "Navalised" Typhoon.

I dont know why you are so obsessed with a Navalised Typhoon, but none of these articles support your theory that they are actually going to make one.

I'll even go so far as to say I know they wont make one... I know how these aircraft are made. I can walk you through every stage of the fuselage assembly if you really want me to. And i swear to you that without a massive redesign of not only the aircraft, but the assembly, maching and transfer jigs it wont happen. The investment and the time scales required would be huge.

And having actually asked several friends at the UK MoD and EuroFighter about this "F-18 story" they also concluded that it was "a load of old bollocks from some idiot politicians aide."

And finally, from the horses mouth. An old friend who still works in the EuroFighter design team at BAE Sys Salmesbury confirms the possibility of a Navalised Typhoon as:

"about as probable as Tony Blair having a sex change, marrying George Bush Jr and setting up house on the moon.

...Oh and me buying the house next door with me winnings from the Martian lottery."

(I think its my favourite quote of the year)

Kind regards

Rock

Edited August 14, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[Big Mac 19]

The F-35 is shit anyways, they're better off with the F/A-18..

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

The F-35 is shit anyways, they're better off with the F/A-18..

That is of course unless you want a stealth fighter that's capable of vertical takeoff and landing?

In any case, Rock just won the thread.

The end.

[Barely-injured 0]

Yup its pretty much settled.

I dont understand the logic of how either Canada or the UK can hope to opt out of the F-35 program at this point in time. Both countries are heavily invested in the F-35 program, and they probably want a return on their investment.

Regardless of whether or not there are better options out there !!

[rksl-rock 1300]

Well the truth is out... No more F-35B... Hello F-35C

I'm not usually one to say "I told you so" but hey, just this once:

More surprising was a scathing attack on Labour's previous selection of the STOVL F-35B to meet the UK's projected 138-aircraft Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. The government will switch its commitment to the F-35C carrier variant (below), which Cameron says is "more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons". Buying the future US Navy type will reduce life-cycle costs by around 25%, the Ministry of Defence says.

The UK must now find a way of reaching an agreement with Washington over scrapping orders for three F-35Bs to have been used during initial operational test and evaluation. Rolls-Royce will also suffer directly from the decision, with the US Marine Corps and potentially Italy now the only remaining buyers for the STOVL version, which features its lift fan technology. And it makes a continuation of its alternate F136 engine programme for the Joint Strike Fighter with General Electric ever more important.

In addition to a reduced number of F-35Cs, the SDSR says the RAF's future combat aircraft fleet will also consist of "a modernised Typhoon fleet fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions". It is unclear, however, whether this pledge could lead to the UK reviewing its previous decision to walk away from the Eurofighter programme's planned Tranche 3B production phase.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/22/348801/analysis-winners-and-losers-of-the-uk-defence-review.html

[TomatoArden 0]

Mmmm nice, but 25% less cost reduction? is that based on the lack of the lift fan isnt needed?

[vektorboson 8]

Just a stupid question: Does the development of the F-35B make any sense at all?

You may save money by having smaller aircraft carriers, but doesn't the probably increased complexity of the F-35B eat a lot of those savings? Beside reduced mission capabilities?

What is the tactical use of the F-35B?

[TomatoArden 0]

Just a stupid question: Does the development of the F-35B make any sense at all?

You may save money by having smaller aircraft carriers, but doesn't the probably increased complexity of the F-35B eat a lot of those savings? Beside reduced mission capabilities?

What is the tactical use of the F-35B?

well, the USMC are all for it. They'll be operating it off of their amphibious assault ships, including the future America class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_class_amphibious_assault_ship.

Other possible users in the future will be Italy and Spain (who operate Harriers atm) and maybe even Australia who could buy a small number for it Amphibious assault ships.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Mmmm nice, but 25% less cost reduction? is that based on the lack of the lift fan isnt needed?

Well its based partly on the difference in complexity, but also the fact that the USN are buying more F-35C than all the other F-35B nations put together had ordered. This is because the setup and tooling costs for that variant can be shared out amongst a greater number of airframes.

eg: (Figures are just an example)

Non Recurring Tooling Costs for F-35A = US$200,000,000

Non Recurring Tooling Costs for F-35B = US$200,000,000

Non Recurring Tooling Costs for F-35C = US$200,000,000

Total orders for F-35A = 1100

Total orders for F-35B = 360

Total orders for F-35C = 510 (inc. UK requirement)

So the cost of tooling per aircraft would be:

Non Recurring Tooling Cost / Number of airframes ordered = ?

F-35A tooling per aircraft = US$181,818.18

F-35B tooling per aircraft = US$555,555.56

F-35C tooling per aircraft = US$392,156.86

Add that figure to the cost of components and assembly per aircraft. Factor in the saving in production costs due to larger batch sizes. Then the difference in the complexity of each variant and you start to see where the where the difference in price between the variants comes in.

Just a stupid question: Does the development of the F-35B make any sense at all?

You may save money by having smaller aircraft carriers, but doesn't the probably increased complexity of the F-35B eat a lot of those savings?

It depends on how much replacing the carrier and LPDs for new larger ships costs. If the cost of them massively outweigh the cost of the F-35B variant then it does.

What is the tactical use of the F-35B?

That's what a lot of people have been asking for some time.

The trade off of VTOL vs. reduced capability makes sense for the USMC's amphibious role where the decks have to be smaller since they are expected to operate very close to the coast. And the transit time to targets (to support the amphibious landing) is far shorter than equivalent USAF role.

But in a land locked nation with friendly airbases with long runways and decent support infrastructure VTOL/STOVL looks a like a huge extravagance.

Edited October 23, 2010 by RKSL-Rock
Extra reply

[TomatoArden 0]

Well, that was a great answer Rock..you truly know your stuff

[rksl-rock 1300]

Well, that was a great answer Rock..you truly know your stuff

Thank you. But it was once my job to plan/develop/cost aircraft production systems. I could go a lot further if you like but i think i'd start to bore the crap out of you after 5 minutes or so :p

I've always thought that the F-35B was a real lemon anyway. The Harrier made sense in the large scale Cold war/WWIII scenario with CAS Harriers operating from West German roads ,and not vulnerable air bases. But since the F-35B didn't quite have the same versatility in a hover as the Harrier (i.e. its pretty much automated and the pilot only has limited options vs full control in the Harrier) it wasn't quite as useful on land because its just not capable of landing in unprepared areas. And when you realise that the UK was going to retire all its small deck carriers and replace them with a full size aircraft carrier, the added complications of STOVL/VTOL just don't make economic or practical sense.

While I would have liked a Navalised Typhoon as per Walker's day dreaming; I'd suggest the F-35C is probably the best compromise at this time. F-18's were never going to happen for a 101 reasons, nor were Rafales which really only left the C. While I think most of the SDSR results are stupid I do at least think they've done the sensible thing here.

Edited October 23, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[Tankbuster 1733]

Walker's wrong, as usual. The SDSR was, like many MoD projects was doomed from the start, firstly because the previous government (and the MoD, of course) botched the contracts for the CVFs so badly that we now have to have them when ideally, we'd have just one. With any luck, the carriers will be so late that the JSF will actually be more or less ready by the time the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales go down the launchway.

As for the original premise that we were going to get F-18s. I'd facepalm and LOL at the same time, but I don't want to punch my own teeth.

[Baff1 0]

One is no good matey. We need two. So we can rotate them.

That way we can keep one deployed indefinitely.

Otherwise the length of time you can fight a war which depends on one is limited to one troop rotation.

Also, once you've made the first one, the second one is gravey.

The Jump jet F35 made sense if it was going to be delivered before the new carriers were. So that they could be operated off our pocket carriers and then transition.

The Sea Harrier has been up for replacement far longer than out carriers have. They are only withdrawing those ships now because they are out of money.

As I understand it, under our original procurement plan we would have already taken delivery of the very first JSF's by now had it not gone tits up, while the future carriers were initally planned for 2012. (before that all went tits up! lol.)

Edited October 24, 2010 by Baff1

[Tankbuster 1733]

One is no good matey. We need two. So we can rotate them.

That way we can keep one deployed indefinitely.

Otherwise the length of time you can fight a war which depends on one is limited to one troop rotation.

Also, once you've made the first one, the second one is gravey.

I know that, YOU know that, but the Whitehall mandarins don't. They probably do, but they are first and foremost, bean counters, not defence specialists.

As Rock will attest, I'm forever banging on about my thoughts that the CVF should have been nuclear powered so they don't need a fueller in the fleet too.

[rksl-rock 1300]

....

The Jump jet F35 made sense if it was going to be delivered before the new carriers were. So that they could be operated off our pocket carriers and then transition...

The F-35 could never have flown off the Invincible class carriers. They are too heavy. They would have had to use the entire length of the deck and only have 30% fuel (Bingo fuel state even before it took off) while carrying 2x asraam and 2x 500lb lgb. Anything more than that and it would have stalled at the end of the ramp.

The X-35B could have probably done it since its nearly 40% lighter than the production spec F-35B but it couldn't carry weapons.

The weight increase was due to the bickering of the USN/USMC and USAF about requirements. The original contract stated that the F-35 types must have about 70% commonality between variants to reduce production and lifecycle costs. This is now about 40-50% depending on which source you choose.

The Sea Harrier has been up for replacement far longer than out carriers have. They are only withdrawing those ships now because they are out of money.

The Sea Harrier has been out of service for years. It was finally removed from service in March 2006. They are have been operating the RAF's GR7/7A and GR9/9A ever since. And with the need to withdraw one fast jet type, and with no other jet to operate from the existing carriers it pointless having them. It makes perfect sense to ditch them now.

Personally i think they should have halved the harrier fleet and kept them running until the CVF and F-35C come on line.

As I understand it, under our original procurement plan we would have already taken delivery of the very first JSF's by now had it not gone tits up, while the future carriers were initally planned for 2012. (before that all went tits up! lol.)

Initial deliveries were planned for 2012-14 with in service date of 2015-17.

So far the only the delivery dates have slipped. In theory we may even get the F-35C sooner since the USN were getting priority, we may be able to draw from the first batches since the USN want to slow the initial rate of delivery.

Edited October 24, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Minute that the vertical take off F-35 option with its "Possibility" of additional UK business, jobs and technology transfer came off the table the Lockheed option made no economic sense for the UK.

The possibility of business and jobs at Rolls Royce was the only thing that made the Lockheed an option for the UK. With no technology transfer and only windscreen wiper fitting jobs coming to the UK the Lockheed is a dead duck, they just have not fed it to the dogs yet.

As to the argument about the Lockheeds for testing well since they will never be built the US cannot charge us for them. :)

The Marine Eurofighter Typhoon is now the most economically sensible and only independent defense solution for the UK and the Vectored thrust engine variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon is now ready for the two engine Typhoon meaning a navalised version would be ready easily in time.

Along with the new E Scan Radar and focussed infra red tracking and supercruise the Vectored thrust Typhoon is the far more capable aircraft.

On the matter of nuclear power Tankbuster I agree with you.

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 24, 2010 by walker

[rksl-rock 1300]

Hi all

The Minute that the vertical take off F-35 option with its "Possibility" of additional UK business, jobs and technology transfer came off the table the Lockheed option made no economic sense for the UK.

Shows how much you know doesn't it.

Rear Fuselage of every F-35 made in the UK at BAE Salmesbury

Empennage of every F-35 made in the UK at BAE Salmesbury

Flight control actuators of every F-35 made in the UK by BF Goodrich

Fuels systems of every F-35 made in the UK by BAE Systems

Fuels management control system and programming of every F-35 made in the UK by BAE Systems

Pilot lifesupport and prognostic health monitoring systems of every F-35 made in the UK by BAE Systems

Ejection Seat of every F-35 designed and made in the UK by Martin Baker

UK companies provide a shit load more sub systems and components for assembly in the US. Britain does and will benefit from the JSF program regardless.

This little missive was published in 2006 since then the design has firmed up and is even more dependant on UK based firms to supply high-tech specialist components.

EDIT - Oh and Walker. the UK is the ONLY nation that will have FULL technology transfer.

The possibility of business and jobs at Rolls Royce was the only thing that made the Lockheed an option for the UK. With no technology transfer and only windscreen wiper fitting jobs coming to the UK the Lockheed is a dead duck, they just have not fed it to the dogs yet.

Yes Rolls Royce is going to get hit if the F136 does get cancelled but since the USMC leadership are actually backing the development of a 2nd design VTOL engine it may just keep going.

The Marine Eurofighter Typhoon is now the most economically sensible and only independent defense solution for the UK and the Vectored thrust engine variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon is now ready for the two engine Typhoon meaning a navalised version would be ready easily in time.

Stop talking shit. You have no idea what you are saying. Nor anything to backup your claims.

I've already explained why it will never happen. The politics, the cost and the contracts make it prohibitively expensive and leave it firmly in the realm of your fantasy.

Along with the new E Scan Radar and focussed infra red tracking and supercruise the Vectored thrust Typhoon is the far more capable aircraft. engine Typhoon meaning a navalised version would be ready easily in time.

Oh dear Flying Spaghetti Monster save me from the curse of muppets quoting buzz words. He knows not what they mean! :D

E-Scan Radar is a ground surveillance system. If you mean Electronically scanned radar then yes one day Typhoon will have it. But so does the F-35... its called AESA - Active Electronically Scanned Array.

Supercruise.... well yes the Typhoon can super cruise. But only when it has no stores and all but two outmost missile pylons on it. A configuration that is so rarely used as to be pretty much pointless. But the fact it can do it is a testament to the airframe's aerodynamics.

(Incidentally the F-22 cant do it with external stores either.)

Edit - focussed infra red tracking .... nearly forgot this. Yes Typhoon has PIRATE which is a Infra Red Search and Tracking system. F-35 has EOTS - Electro Optical Tracking System which is IRST, radar and EM sensors combined. Rather more elaborate than the Typhoon's system.

Vectored Thrust... well this will be rather cool if they can ever get the aircraft to fly with it. A little birdie tells me the flight control simulations aren't exactly proceeding well but I'm sure they will crack it.

And finally back to the navalised Typhoon.... again.

I'm sorry if i cant make it clear enough for you. But IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. EADS already confirmed that. The option of a Navalised typhoon was really only a business manager's wet dream. And sure as hell it wouldn't be ready in 6-8 years time. even in 2000 they were predicting 10-12 years to finish design and testing let alone conversion and production. And that was before the £5bn cost overruns. In this economic climate and especially after this SDSR its pure fantasy.

Seriously Walker do some proper research. Don't let your day dreams take over your life.

Edited October 24, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[dm 9]

I'm forever banging on about my thoughts that the CVF should have been nuclear powered so they don't need a fueller in the fleet too.

On the matter of nuclear power Tankbuster I agree with you.

Second to Rock's educated comments (its nice to have at least one person who has any idea what they're talking about)

so the CVF is nuclear, what about all the other ships in the fleet? Herfaderf :j:

They need a refueller, so one has to be in the fleet anyway (not to mention supplies and ammo....)