UK considers Rafale and F-18 as 'interim aircraft'

HAVE YOUR SAY

26 January 2012

Very sensible, the French are desperate to sell Rafales, perhaps they can give us a knock down price?
Ian Skinner - Enfield

26 January 2012

For crying out loud!

Naval Typhoon - ditch the F35.

The idiocy of not backing our own product in economic times like these! Stop wasting time and dithering and start a Naval Typhoon program now - and leave BAE to manage the program with the MOD at arms length (the MOD wrecked the MR4 program - not BAE).

Buying the F18 & Rafale at the same time as trying to sell the Typhoon to India, Oman, Saudi etc. Please!

It beggers belief.

PS: And even if the F35 is ever sorted skip it and operate UCAVs and Typhoons from the carriers. As I have said before, it makes no sense the RAF even having short range strike aircraft (like the Tornado or its replacement) if we have carrier strike - unless you have a super power budget - which we do not!
anon

26 January 2012

Well, well, well.......Rafale's first? export order..Good old UK!

Ditch the F35 and look elsewhere.
JC - UK

26 January 2012

'According to the Times',well that's it then.

The Times/Sunday Times,along with the Telegraph,Guardian etc have never been known for reliability when it comes to reporting defence matters.

I cannot see CinC Fleet addressing a commercial defence seminar,and disclosing major government strategy to them.

If he did then no doubt he will be required to give answers to his lords and masters in No 10.

He probably gave an off the cuff remark about the delays and problems with F35,which a more than well documented and the Times has run with it.

Lets see what follows on, either denial or 'His remarks were taken out of context' seem the most probable.
michael - notts

26 January 2012

"F-35 jets until a decade after the delivery of the carrier, currently set for 2019."

I thought the plan was to have 6 operational F-35's on the PoW by 2020 so since when did that change to 2029!
If that is the case then yes leasing some super hornets as an interim would make sense as the carrier will still be cat and trap.

I wonder does that mean the RAF will be the sole operator of the F-35 before then as planned from the original date or are they expected to wait as well.

Personally I think this is just a scare story and the plan will remain as we thought. The reason I say this is that the F-35 has too much support in the US to be scaled back. The F-35B has just been taken off probation one year early this week and if the US is going to operate less aircraft than it currently does then it will need them to be more advanced rather than less and the F-35 is the only advanced design they can turn to. With Russian and Chinese fifth generation aircraft in that time scale the US will have to get F-35 in service.

So I see this story as nothing more than a prod to LM so they don't get complacent about a British order. In other words a bit of brinkmanship.

Graham - High Wycombe

26 January 2012

At last, the navy seems to be waking up to the fact that the F-35 will not be ready on time and/or may cost to much. Since unfortunately they still don't seem to be interested in the Naval Typhoon then this should be be the way to go, along with purchasing some General Atomics Avengers and leasing Rafales from Dassault. Far more cost effective!

Mike - Wales - Saundersfoot, Pembrokeshire

26 January 2012

That would make extremely good sense...
Laskovar - UK

26 January 2012

With the News that the US have scaled back purchase of "Development airframes" and ongoing insecurity in the build schedule, this does make sense.
But I do not see this as a major issue at the moment.
QE will be built and will require massive trials schedule and understanding of how to Berth/Handle and just perform Helo and Sea duties. Then POW will come on line.
I see her performing a shorted trials period, but this will invariably invlolve participation with USN and cross decking of F18. At the same time, I would suspect the first landing will be performed by FAA F18 Hornet pilots.
USN will be very keen to work with a rejuvenated UK Carrier force.
Degradable - UK

26 January 2012

We know about the F35 and its problems. What is depressing is that the Admiral has not even mentioned the Typhoon as an option for the carriers.

Yes the Rafale & F18 are off the shelf - but the Typhoon is feasible and could be developed in the time scale available for the navy and be a massive boost for UK plc.

Right at the time when the world economy is as it is it seems like lunacy not to buy a superb home grown alternative. We should not wait until 2015 to give the naval Typhoon the green light. Now would be a good time instead of paying the redundancy and benefits to the thousands of BAE staff loosing their jobs.

As for what the Typhoons potential export customers much think if we are not prepared to back our own product and buy it for the navy.

I suspect the RN would like to be interoperable with the US Navy, but the QE carriers are big enough to be fitted with both CATs and a ski jump (it will need the CATs for AEW and UCAV operations, and visiting USN F18s).

And I suggest skipping the F35 all together and going direct to UCAVs for stealthy strike and that we operate the Naval Typhoon and naval UCAVs from the same carrier.

The Taranis and any spin off should be developed as carrier capable from the world go. We don't want to have to expensively convert them at a later date. In this day and age autonomous UCAV landings on carriers should not be a big deal. Same goes for manned naval aircraft as well.

And if we are going to have credible naval carrier strike it seems to me that the RAF does not need their short range (Tornado and its replacement) strike aircraft – the navy can do that at much less cost and give the short range strike aircraft a global reach.

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

26 January 2012

michael - notts

Alternatively it's deliberately put out to increase pressure on LM while letting them know we could go with an alternative which helps in our dealings with them.

P.S surely that's Martin posting as 'anon' !
Graham - High Wycombe

26 January 2012

Well it looks like someone has been reading the comments pages of this site!! About time someone considered an interim stop-gap proposal, just in case. Surprised they omitted to mention the potential Saab 'Sea Gripen'
Hereman - Wirral, England

26 January 2012

As much as I would love to say "brilliant strategy, marvelous news for FAA", it will never happen unless there are further serious design issues with F-35. Also, it would be most unlikely to EVER see Rafale in FAA colours given we are contracted to US for F-35 for 3 reasons:
1. Lease F/A-18 gives us leverage on price and a way to dispose of them once F-35 in-service.
2. Commonality with US equipment to support both aircraft.
3. FAA pilots already training on F/A-18 in US.

Agreed, they are also flying Rafales, but only to allow joint operations from CdG once it comes out of refit. I think the French would have to offer us free airframes & engines for UK to take it seriously, as it has absolutely no commonality with anything we currently operate and does not meet RAF requirement for interdiction/strike ops.
AW Employee - Yeovil

26 January 2012

Graham-High Wycombe.
You could be right,lets wait and see if any official statement is made in regards to this.

Regarding Martin,no it's just that he was a bit slow off the mark today.
It's sad really that his obsession with Sea Typhoon has been dashed once again. Not even a mention. Hope he's got a good bottle of whiskey in so that he can drown his sorrows.
michael - notts

26 January 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil, said:
"As much as I would love to say "brilliant strategy, marvelous news for FAA", it will never happen unless there are further serious design issues with F-35. Also, it would be most unlikely to EVER see Rafale in FAA colours given we are contracted to US for F-35 for 3 reasons:
1. Lease F/A-18 gives us leverage on price and a way to dispose of them once F-35 in-service.
2. Commonality with US equipment to support both aircraft.
3. FAA pilots already training on F/A-18 in US.

Agreed, they are also flying Rafales, but only to allow joint operations from CdG once it comes out of refit. I think the French would have to offer us free airframes & engines for UK to take it seriously, as it has absolutely no commonality with anything we currently operate and does not meet RAF requirement for interdiction/strike ops."

My thoughts exactly.
The RN/FAA have just got to convince the politicians. This piece of news has made me happy, there's hope yet!

Armchair Admiral - Manchester

26 January 2012

michael - notts

Back to the Lockheed Martin marketing suit at RAF Air Command, High Wycombe, with you.

If we could fit people like you in the front of a Storm Shadow and fire you (from a Navalised Typhoon obviously) at our enemies administrative centers we could 'incompetent them' to death.

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

26 January 2012

God help us if they go for Rafaele.

I'd rather have a second hand F18 Super Hornet than a brand new Rafaele any day...


Jeremy - UK

26 January 2012

michael - notts

Well there's a good article on the MoD website regarding preparations for F-35C landings on QE carriers at BAE.

They mention F-18 pilots simulating landings in preparation for F-35 which will have a very advanced landing systems.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/LeaveTheLandingLightOn.htm
Graham - High Wycombe

26 January 2012

RN always wanted France to pay for outfitting the 2nd CVF as a shared carrier. Buying Rafale would be their offset.
Armand - Provence

26 January 2012

The F-35 programme is hitting far too many delays. As the Naval Typhoon seems unlikely, I would go for the F-18E option to keep our people up to date on handling and operation on board a real carrier.

The best bet would have been a joint Sea Typhoon with Britain and India developing the aircraft. Using UAVs would round off this package. As a long time supporter of UK manufacturing, I would have liked this latter option. Could it be done in time though, or would it be just another delay in us getting our carrier group ?

BTW : The soft shoe shuffles have left me confused. Which configuration are we currently looking at for the carriers ?
Ian R - Durham

26 January 2012

Graham,
Yes,been looking at it very impressive. Have also just been watching the defence debate in Parliament,some very strongly put views and the vast majority coming out very much in favour of both carriers. Admittedly some of the MP's had a vested interest as they were representing a constituency which relied heavily on the military for jobs etc. Even Arbuthnot,head of the defence select commitee was adamant we need two carriers to operate efficiently.

I see we seem to have really spoilt Martins evening,and he has retaliated with his usual (blunted) rapier like wit.
michael - notts

26 January 2012

michael - notts

I have just been on the ADS website and they are totally denying this story. Your assumptions were completely correct, apparently they were written after being given second hand information by somebody who was there and either misheard or misunderstood what was said. The Times journalist was not even present at the speech and even if he had been everything said under the Chatham House rules would have to have been kept completely confidential. They refute that Admiral Soar said that he was interested acquiring the Rafale or anything else mentioned in the article. In other words, total hearsay and not very clever for a once much heralded newspaper. ADS have now formally complained to The Times.

The information can be found on www.adsgroup.org.uk/articles/28064 if anybody is interested.

I am surprised that Defence Management didn't check this out themselves before publishing this "news."
Mike - Wales - Saundersfoot, Pembrokeshire

26 January 2012

Good news! F-18 please.
Tom - London, UK

26 January 2012

By 2015 the niggles with the F-35 will have been sorted. This is a non story.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

26 January 2012

Hooray. Only two options then!!

1. Navalised Typhoon ... probably India would want this too. (Politicians take note!!!)

2. F18E/F/G

And then: UCAS ... agree Taranis must be navalised from go as X47 .... I be NeuroN will be!!
Norman - UK

26 January 2012

Martin Bayliss doesnt listen to anything. Naval Typhoon will never happen.
Hamish - GB

26 January 2012

Naval Typhoon, pigs might fly! How much per copy to get that to sea, more per copy than the F-35? F-18F combined with Hawkeye will give lots of "bang" for reasonable bucks. Anything else will be money wasted.
Bob M - Surrey UK

26 January 2012

There are people "in the know" around the UK defence industry who insist there is a grand plan :

- The second carrier is sold to France
- France sells Rafales to the RN in return
- Charles de Gaulle (maintenance hog) is retired
- UK and France now each have carrier of identical design flying the same aircraft resulting in maintenance and training synergies.
SD - UK

26 January 2012

Well glad to see some sense in the MoD finally.

It has been reported the UK is close to entering an order for 50 F-35C's for £7.6b. I have said many times the UK should buy (or lease) the FA-18F-G aircraft. Leasing would allow the RN FAA to field a strike carrier option for UK Defence requirements from as early as 2016-17. Once the F-35C's are ready for delivery, the Hornets 'could' be returned to the USN to offset their fighter gap – aka the RAAF with their 24 FA-18F-G aircraft they have now…

I say 'could' return, since we all know more than likely the UK will not buy any where near 150+ F-35C aircraft for both the RN FAA and RAF strike squadrons. The obvious solution here keep the Hornets as a gap fill option for at least one reinforced squadron for each carrier with the rest for training and to reinforce the defence of the UK (the Hornet is an excellent maritime strike platform something the UK has missed since the Buccaneer retired in the 90's). The F-35C's purchased would then be able to be shared with the light blue with less strain between the two services; with perhaps 12-15 F-35C's required for any one deployed carrier; while a similar number each of Hornets and Hawk (based on the T-45 Goshawk) would provide a balanced fast jet air group. All the later aircraft would be owned and operated solely by the RN FAA to maximise utility of these aircraft; (they go when and where the RN deploys every time) since we all know sharing toys with ones sibling never works. Period.

…I await the efficient back-door RAF men nipping this option in the bud; heaven forbid the sailors operating their own (more efficient) deployable aircraft…

The Rafale is not in the running, since it is an inferior aircraft when compared to the Super Hornet aircraft. It would not be cheaper in comparison either; one just needs to look at the Indian deal to see the supporting costs and upgrade potential of the Rafale is limited. The Hornet can easily take the ASRAAM (like the RAAF) and AMRAAM (already) while it could integrate the range of air-to-ground munitions the RN would choose to operate (indeed this could act as a lea-n to the F-35C trials). Again commonality with the USN big sticks would be most beneficial as both the RN and USN share many operational areas of responsibility.

The Naval Typhoon is a pipe dream, just like Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny!
- 20 yrs ago good idea; fast-track to today… bad idea! The Typhoon programme is the most expensive defence programme ever; and now some plonkers want to spend more money on it?! Talk about gluttons for punishment; and if I hear it will be better for the UK defence industry over the Lightening II I'll….
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

27 January 2012

At last. The French need a new/additional carrier, the English have one mothballed. The French have a great operational plane, the English need one.

When will someone at last put two and two together!!!
Christian Benesch - London

27 January 2012

I sometimes wonder whether all this investment is really worth it. Given how we use our naval aircraft I wonder whether it would be better for BAE to make some new harriers and some new buccaneers and put those on the ships. OK, only joking but this whole things is now going beyond a joke - and is the price we pay for nonsensical "strategic" reviews which slash everything and then hope for the best. However, the moment we started to hear the word "interoperability" (the first time it was used was during the SDR), I began to wonder why this was being touted. Well, here's the answer. This is what happens of course when you place your manufacturing and your strategy in the hands of international projects...
Michael - Hertfordshire

27 January 2012

MOD response "Joint Strike Fighter
The Times reports today that the MOD is questioning whether it should go ahead with plans to procure a fleet of new Joint Strike Fighter jets due to speculated delays in the programme. The paper also wrongly claims that the MOD declined to comment, when, in fact, the reporter was sent a statement on the issue and verbally briefed on inaccuracies in the story.

The MOD is taking delivery of our first Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets for test and evaluation purposes this year and is committed to purchasing the Carrier Variant of the JSF. Our plans remain on track to have a new Carrier Strike capability from around 2020.

The Defence Secretary recently met his US counterpart to discuss a number of issues including the Joint Strike Fighter and following the meeting we are confident that the US Defence Review will not impact upon our plans for regenerating Carrier Strike. An agreement was signed that will see the US and UK work closely on joint training and the integration of our carrier programmes.

Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Peter Luff said: "We continue to plan on delivery of JCA [Joint Combat Aircraft] capability coherently with the Carrier from 2020 as noted in the SDSR [Strategic Defence and Security Review]. However, we will not set a firm In Service Date until after our next Main Gate decision in 2013."
H Nelson - Portsmouth

27 January 2012

http://www.avionics-intelligence.com/articles/2012/01/FA-18EF-contract-DOD-aircraft.html

...Roughly US$45M each...food for thought.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

27 January 2012

Oh for the good old days of goofing Phantoms and Buccaneers .... before the Crabs convinced some prat politician that RAF TASMO would do the job (which, in my experience, patently failed despite being gifted the Phantoms and Buccaneers!).
One thing you cannot fault the crabs on is playing politics! Unfortunately their single service self interest actually goes against what is in the national interest.
Norman - UK

27 January 2012

michael - notts

I missed the parliamentary debate but I'm glad the need for both carriers to be fully capable is being taken seriously. Here's hoping!

Shaun Ex-RNZN,

"It has been reported the UK is close to entering an order for 50 F-35C's for £7.6b."

I have heard the same about the 50 a/c order however the figure I have read is around £5bn which as £1=US$1.6 is about the same as $7.6bn hence are you sure that you have the correct currency when you say £7.6bn ?
Particularly as £5bn for 50 a/c is around £100mn each which for a CV is closer the amount being quoted in the media. Unless the figure you quote goes further than just the a/c.
Graham - High Wycombe

27 January 2012

Graham.

it was a US site where the £7.6bn was quoted, perhaps it was a journalistic error on their part.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

27 January 2012

Any doubts about the the US commitment to the F-35 should read yesterdays statement:

Panetta: Full Commitment to U.S. F-35 Program

"In addition, we appreciate Secretary Panetta's continued support of the critical need for 5th generation technology and his commitment to the F-35 program of record — including all three variants and a total procurement of 2,443 domestic aircraft,"

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120126/DEFREG02/301260015/Panetta-Full-Commitment-U-S-F-35-Program
Graham - High Wycombe

27 January 2012

Damn, pressed enter to quickly.

..With the difference from £5.0 and £7.6bn; I had heard of the earlier figure also, so when I saw £7.6bn and considering it would be the first large batch, I thought there must be added components to the order other than the basic aircraft. Engines, helmets, training, avionics, and even the 'special' paint come to mind on top of the normal warranty period costs.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

27 January 2012

Mike-Wales-Saundersfoot,
Thanks for that link Mike,extremely interesting and certainly confirms what I have thought all along about defence reporting in the media.

I can understand a bit of media licence,but to fabricate such a story is beyond the pale.

If this is what the 'Times' gets up to,heaven knows what to make of the 'red tops'
michael - notts

27 January 2012

Pentagon are buying 69 F18/e and 21 F18/f super hornets this year for $688,000,000 dollars , cant we have some of this . I know this doesnt include spare parts or engines , but come on were already training FAA pilots on type , sell RAF Northolt for this please
Dutchy - heathrow , england

27 January 2012

Graham,

Although the F-35 will probably develop to be a very capable aircraft there is no denying that the US will be ordering less than initially planned. Nor that it has run into serious problems and delays. It is for this reason that jumping on the extra orders for the F/A-18 F/G would make sense. Afterall the US, Australlia and several other countries are doing it.

At the ability to get those planes for less than $60 million each we would very easily be able to flesh out our true multi-role strike fighter numbers until the F-35C arrives. If we don't want the F/A-18 beyond 2025 then we could always arrange for a lend/lease type agreement in return for us making our decision about the number of F-35 earlier and perhaps in greater numbers than initially planned.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

27 January 2012

Why get the typhoon it is suitable for conversion.it would save money as the spares and training would fit in with the RAF all equipment compatable
Billy - N.Ireland

27 January 2012

Graham-High Wycombe,
There was one item during the defence debate that will not please you,knowing your stance on the matter.

During a speech by one member on the need for successor SSBN's,the Minister for Defence (not the defence sec) interjected to say that the government was fully committed to this programme and also to CASD,and yes he actually used the acronym.

Please don't shoot the messenger !!
michael - notts

27 January 2012

Graham-High Wycombe,
Don't know if your interested Graham but following link is a full transcript of the defence debate:-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120126/debtext/120126-0003.htm

It is rather long,but very interesting,the relevant speech on future SSBN and the answer is contained in 'Column 505'
michael - notts

27 January 2012

michael - notts

No, I've learned not to shoot the messenger.

I'll get round to the link over the weekend.
Graham - High Wycombe

27 January 2012

A modest number of 'Super Hornet' aircraft would seem a very sensible proposal, allowing the transition to conventional carrier operations ahead of delivery of the F35C in quantity. This would provide valuable operating experience with the new carrier(s)while at the same time providing some degree of carrier strike capability in advance of the JCA coming into full operational readiness. Retaining the F18 alongside the F35 would provide additional capability, particularly when the 'stealth' characteristics of the latter were less important. The Super Hornet has one added advantage in that it has been designed from the outset to provide 'Buddy-Buddy' IFR if required, a useful asset not present in the FAA since the demise of the Buccaneer.

The Super Hornet, unlike the previous Hornet, is designed so it can be equipped with an aerial refueling system (ARS) or "buddy store" for the refueling of other aircraft,filling the tactical airborne tanker role the US Navy had lost with the retirement of the KA-6D and Lockheed S-3B Viking tankers. The ARS includes an external 330 US gallons (1,200 L) tank with hose reel on the centerline along with four external 480 US gallons (1,800 L) tanks and internal tanks for a total of 29,000 pounds (13,000 kg) of fuel on the aircraft.
Hereman - Wirral, England

27 January 2012

At today's prices that's roughly £29m each per F/A18F. Typhoons are £150m each and rising and the 35c if and when it arrives will be at least £100m each. 18F is clearly the one to buy whilst waiting for a reduced number of 35c's. With the change the RN could get both carriers fully operational and put E-2d's on them too. Maybe the penny is dropping after all? Though in a typically drawn out way.
Alistair - London

27 January 2012

U.K. Still Planning for Carrier Strike Planes by 2020, MoD Says:

"The U.K. is continuing to plan for the delivery of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in 2020, defense procurement minister Peter Luff said.

The U.K. is among the partner nations in the jet and still intends to use it on two new aircraft carriers it is building, Luff said.

The Times newspaper reported today that the Royal Navy is considering buying Dassault Aviation SA's (AM) Rafale M instead because of delays and increased costs, citing a note of a speech by Admiral Trevor Soar, the fleet commander."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/u-k-still-planning-for-carrier-strike-planes-by-2020-mod-says.html
Graham - High Wycombe

27 January 2012

Alistair - London

1. Please we are not going to get Super Hornets for that kind of money, even the USN which gets them at knock down prices wouldn't get them for that amount.
2. Also the cost of operating an aircraft type is more than purchase price.
3. Without the a/c meeting the RAF requirement for a Tornado replacement it is not going to happen as the same aircraft will be operated by the RAF and FAA.

The Typhoon is about £70mn each not £150mn. Even if you consider development costs the total program cost to the UK including 160 aircraft is £20bn which is equivalent to £125mn each however.

You are correct though that we will be paying in region of £100mn per F-35C.

Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

The US has taken the STOVL variant off probation a year early and in a statement yesterday said it still planned to purchase the original number AFTER the proposed defence cuts including all three variants. As the number of aircraft it will operate in the future will be 10% less they have made the point they need to be more effective which increases the need for JSF not lessens it.
Graham - High Wycombe

27 January 2012

Seems that this story was made up. Still I wonder if any good might come from it. Although i know the super hornet has resistance against its purchase it is a versatile aircraft at very reasonable cost. With buddy-buddy tanking, EW capability and good ground pounding payloads coupled with its decent sensor and AAW abilities I can't help thinking that a purchase of 24 of these for 2018 would really enable the FAA to push forwards with carrier strike and also ensure the carriers have a credible air group of 12 F-35 and 12 F-18 plus whatever other assets it requires.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

27 January 2012

Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

We are facing another £2bn shortfall in PR12 so we are just not going to go with Super Hornet in FAA service. These problems are going to continue for some time.

However we have got FAA pilots flying Super Hornets though and along with the USN helping other ways that will be how we regenerate carrier capability ready for F-35 by 2020.

[Royal Navy chief looks to the future with carrier, F-35 programmes]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-royal-navy-chief-looks-to-the-future-with-carrier-f-35-programmes-367441/
Graham - High Wycombe

27 January 2012

Graham-High Wycombe
USN just bought 15 for $687m. That at today's exchange rate equates to some $45.8m each or roughly £29m per airframe. That's a fixed price contract for delivery. Not like the Typhoon..., it doesn't need the media to be manipulated or anything! It actually is a multirole aircraft. The Typhoon was recently quoted in Parliament by some RAF chap as about £150m per airframe. I think he tried some elaborate BS but the committee MP did his own sums and there you have it. I don't think Super Hornet costs £90,000 an hour to keep it in the air either. Plus it must be dirt cheap for parts not to mention full interoperation on USN carriers and Ozzie AF. Typhoons don't have the legs, cost a fortune and still can't do the same job.
Alistair - London

27 January 2012

What a bad timing, the Marine is actualy upgrading some old Rafale F1 M to F3 standard; They're cheap and operationals with CATOBAR carriers.
Without joking, it smell commercial operation to get a discount for the delays; I hope you'll get it.
LeHoink - French Riviera

29 January 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

6 F-35C is not carrier strike capability. The latest reports expect only 12 F-35C to be available by 2023. That is perhaps something you can call "light" carrier capability.

Of course it doesn't mention if those are F-35C that the FAA will have to use or if those will also be RAF F-35C, 6 F-35C between the 2 services with RAF in control of JFL will mean that those assets will in all likely hood see nowhere NEAR the required time.

The more you look at the delays and problems with F-35, the plans for a Joint force structure, the advance purchase plans the more it looks like 2025 until we can really start learning how to use these aircraft in meaningful numbers off our carriers.

So while we may have a budget shortfall of £2 bn (funny how Libya was meant to cost £1.75bn according to independent analyst but the government said it cost £212 million and suddenly another £2 bn shortfall just happens to crop up!!) the fact remains that if we want carrier strike by 2020 then it's looking more like we will need to at least lend/lease 16-20 F/A-18 F/G's.

Say what you will but I think Britain is approaching carrier regeneration in a half-assed manner that could well damage our ability to do so.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

29 January 2012

UK cant afford the carriers cant afford the typhoon and can afford the f-35 - you spent all your money on the olympics
jojo star - bangkok thailand

30 January 2012

jojo star - bangkok thailand

The UK has a defence budget in the top 10 in the world. The UK might be in debt but it also is a very rich country when all is said and done. It CAN afford these military assets, furthermore to retain the influence, independence and political weight the UK wishes to have it must accept these assets.

What it really need to do is stop political delays, constant re-spec from the forces and industry "milking". Do that and suddenly we would really start to deliver some good bang for our buck... People looking for savings from Defence need to realise that 10-15% of defence is now not even 1% of the NHS or Benefits budget. In effect it is becoming increasingly stupid and increasingly inefficient to cut defence when a much smaller percentage cut that can be distributed through all departments in the bigger organisations of benefits and NHS can provide the same saving at less lost capability overall.

We live in a world that has seen constant wars for the last decade, that has less resources, that has emerging powers with different views on how things should be done, that has existing powers shifting attention elsewhere and yet people wish to do the whole "oh but we can't afford this". You can't afford an NHS/Benefits budget without a secure UK either. Not to mention our freedom of speech, liberal rights and all other such things. I really wish people would back off about cutting defence when it is the one thing besides education that the government should really make sure they do right...

Then again our Education system is beginning to fall by the way side as well. Afterall why work to pay off university loans when you can go on the doll instead, or just keep resitting year 1 again, and again, and again.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

30 January 2012

If only for their AESA radars and consequential legitimate multi-role capabilities, F-18s inducted into the RAF and RN today would be a large improvement over Typhoons and Tornadoes- particularly for over-water/naval duties... and could justify a substantial acceleration of the UK's current 'big deck' aircraft carrier project...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/new-apg79-aesa-radars-for-super-hornets-0411/
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg79aesa/
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 February 2012

Alistair - London

We don't pay what the US pays if they got them for $46Mn we would be paying £50mn more like. Any case we have a £2bn shortfall in PR12 any talk of extra cost is futile we are going to be making more cuts not buying Super Hornets.

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Typhoon will have AESA for 2015 you couldn't get Super hornets in service befoire then and the AESA CAPTOR E is better than the APG79. Stop dreaming.

Anthony,

6 operationsl by the FAA by 2020 is a good start. OK 12 will take another couple of years but by then I would expect the RAF to have proved they can operate from their CV's from the PoW.
Graham - High Wycombe

04 February 2012

hi,

i do not think that dassault even try to sell rafale to uk . why send money for nothing? but you should think to one think , since uk is tighteen ti us, uk is weaker and weaker . remind the success story of jaguar with french . but do it as you wsqant . anyway, france will follow is oown way , with or without uk.
chris - France

06 February 2012

chris - France

Why should the UK purchase from France instead of the US? Doing so by your own argument will only make it weaker and more beholden to yourselves??? However the fact remains that the world is becoming increasingly globalised. It has become, in many ways, so globalised that it is totally dependent on each nation providing to the pot.

While nations cannot be expected to throw everything into the pan, while nations cannot be expected to give up all independnece and capability for independent action the type of thinking based on doing what is good for France is backwards. The UN, NATO, EU, UAE are all organisations which have started to show an attempt to result in a mature, sensible and moral government of the world. Comments like "France will do what it whats" are a real shame.

France has recieved a lot of help from the world over the years. France has given a lot to the world was well. Your not independent anymore, no more than China, the US, India or any country is.

Graham,

6 F35C are not enough, if the RAF is taking 60% of them for RAF operations according to the "joint force structure" then thats maybe 2 on the carriers. Might as well be none... I'm sorry, while Jointery is good in theory the fact remains that the operation and grand strategy of Armies and Airforces are more interlinked. For joint operations to work the RAF must seek to understand the unique nation of operating AT sea or FROM sea. I see no evidence that it has seriously sought to understand the influence and strategy that can be made when operating at/from sea and what that enables you to do on the sea and how it can influence events on the land.

Also the budget may be in trouble, however that doesn't mean that money shouldn't be found for our national security... If you would rather stay quiet and let spending continue to be funelled to other areas that are in less need of the money than the military that is your business. However I find the continual "we are in debt" argument to be nauseating... We continue to find money for foreign aid afterall.

As for the sudden £2 billion defecit that has appeared in the MoD budget. Funny how we were on track, Libya was estimated to cost £1.75 billion or more, the government said no it costs £300 million and then we get an announcement that we are still £2 billion in debt due to missing equipment, overspend, low stores etc. Seems to me quite likely that the bean counters juggled everything round so that missiles "used" in Libya became missiles "lost".
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

06 February 2012

The irony in all this is that the French (reportedly) got out of the Eurofighter project, and built their own fighter the Rafale ( one of the best multi role fighters today, if not the best ), precisely because a CATOBAR version of the Eurofighter was deemed out of the question by other members of the Eurofighter project.
And now look who's looking for a CATOBAR multi role fighter... ;-)
Don't misplace your pride UK... if you need the best CATOBAR fighter available, it's the Rafale.
Here's to hoping next time we'll find a way to go through with a common project... the Concorde wasn't too shabby, don't you think ? ;-)
Justlookingaround - France

07 February 2012

funny how UK is making so much noise about India going for the rafale but the UK goes for the f-35 and if that is late is looking at the rafale or f-18. i know it is the naval version for their carriers but cant money be spent to make the naval eurofighter or is that one of the many great features of the typhoon that dont exists (yet?)
jojo star - bangkok thailand

08 February 2012

Justlookingaround

The FA-18F/G would destroy the Rafale F1, F2, or F3 any day of the week. One (!) export order does not make a great aircraft.

The Typhoon also would have a degree of superiority over the Rafale in CAM. In time, the AtG capabilities will also exceed the Rafale in all offensive missions bar nuclear strike (since the member nations do not employ such munitions).
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

08 February 2012

Interesting:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/uk-lockheed-britain-f-idUKTRE8160YZ20120207

When was the last time 138 aircraft was considered a possibility?
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

13 February 2012

The viability, or otherwise of the EMALS catapult system has to be established before any final decision can be made on the aircraft. If the EMALS proves a failure, the sensible option would be to fit the ships with ski jumps and operate Harriers (perhaps in an updated, new build version) or Eurofighters, if their flight control systems can accommodate that. The Russians have successfully operated Su33s in this way for some years.
In the future, there will probably be a requirement to operate UCAVs in the strike role. One way to do this would be to install an external, chemical steam catapult similar to that developed by Walter for the V1 "doodlebug". This could be installed to one side of the flight deck so as not to interfere with other air operations. Methods of launching aircraft that involve explosive chemicals and/or rockets are more acceptable for UCAVs than for manned aircraft. This sounds ugly, but would have the advantage that it would be possible to launch UCAVs at higher weights than would be possible using the EMALS or conventional steam catapults, because an external catapult can be any size/length within the dimensions of the ship. Useful for covert long range strike missions perhaps.
I think that if we are going to get anything resembling value for money from these ships we have to be creative in the way we use them, rather than slavishly imitating US Navy practice.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

14 February 2012

i'm sorry, but WTF!? if you only see my froggy smile reading this article...Seriously,i know that you brits dislike french but the superhornet is US made, Rafale IS 46% owned by the same companies than Typhoon...so if you had a choice to replace the F35, it'll be a very difficult choice : 1)Navalised typhoon (expensive) 2) rafale 3) superhornet (sending money to USA)...
will - FRANCe

08 January 2013

just by a hand full of f-35 cv as there farly good jets! use them for deep strikes but buy rafale as the main jet as far better at close airsupport which is what all jets should be good at as our enemy today arnt china and russia but the taliban so we need to be able to get in close and powerfull what the harrier was good at !! we need like 32 rafale and 8 f-35 per carrier for a good range in capablitly!
henry legget - high wycombe