- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
2022, in a good year? For a very few.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
How many F-35Bs will the UK buy? A lot less than their original 138. From Sir Humphrey at Thin Pinstriped Line:
"...The sheer cost of acquiring and running a conventional carrier and airwing is now simply too great for all but the largest spending nations – even the RN has probably sacrificed its pre-eminence to afford the Queen Elizabeth class and JSF. It is perhaps telling that reading the SDSR and other documents one finds plenty of discussion about the use of CVF in roles other than fixed wing carrier, and it seems unlikely that it will be many years, if not decades before CVF sees more than 12 JSF operating from its decks...
It is perhaps less surprising that the RN will only routinely operate 12 F35 from a CVF, and we should be more impressed that fund will be found to get 12 onto a carrier in the first place. The sheer cost of carrier capable aircraft means that for most nations, even 12 airframes is going to be unaffordable. While it is easy to mock the RN for having large platforms and small airwings, this is perhaps little different from the 1960s, when despite our fond memories, the reality was that the average RN airwing was barely 20 aircraft including helos. Even then, the CVF airwing will be able to put more airpower to sea than almost any other country – its easy to be despondent that the UK will deploy small numbers of aircraft, but perhaps we should be more positive about the fact that we remain one of the very few nations able to afford to invest in such a capability in the first place..."
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2013/03/is-end-of-aircraft-carrer-nigh-rapid.html
Mark
Ottawa
"...The sheer cost of acquiring and running a conventional carrier and airwing is now simply too great for all but the largest spending nations – even the RN has probably sacrificed its pre-eminence to afford the Queen Elizabeth class and JSF. It is perhaps telling that reading the SDSR and other documents one finds plenty of discussion about the use of CVF in roles other than fixed wing carrier, and it seems unlikely that it will be many years, if not decades before CVF sees more than 12 JSF operating from its decks...
It is perhaps less surprising that the RN will only routinely operate 12 F35 from a CVF, and we should be more impressed that fund will be found to get 12 onto a carrier in the first place. The sheer cost of carrier capable aircraft means that for most nations, even 12 airframes is going to be unaffordable. While it is easy to mock the RN for having large platforms and small airwings, this is perhaps little different from the 1960s, when despite our fond memories, the reality was that the average RN airwing was barely 20 aircraft including helos. Even then, the CVF airwing will be able to put more airpower to sea than almost any other country – its easy to be despondent that the UK will deploy small numbers of aircraft, but perhaps we should be more positive about the fact that we remain one of the very few nations able to afford to invest in such a capability in the first place..."
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2013/03/is-end-of-aircraft-carrer-nigh-rapid.html
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
MarkOttawa said:
So they may fly fewer numbers...but those fewer numbers come as a result of having the capability to have them in the first place....not because the price of the F-35 is high, but because the cost of a carrier is.
- Reaction score
- 4,716
- Points
- 1,160
Kirkhill said:
Not including salaries, maintenance, spare parts, depreciation, etc etc etc that the opposition to the F-35 likes to add in. Although I doubt we'll see a cost estimate for a F-35 competitor given under the same ridiculous criteria that the F35s had to have included.
ObedientiaZelum said:
2020 approximately, based on the estimated buy profile.. Canada's first 13 or so aircraft which are purchased and delivered in the 2017~2019 remain at Luke or Eglin AFB and serve as the RCAF's training squadron, much like 410 does now (it may become 410). As Canada;s major deliveries start occurring in 2020 (approximately 13 aircraft a year for 4 years), Canadian pilots will be trained and ready to operate them in Canada as they come off the Fort Worth plant line. Otherwise they would just be sitting there being unused.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Interesting article in this morning's Globe-
Particularly revealing paragraph (IMO):
My interpretation:
None of the vendors is willing to put their reputations on the line based on 42 years of hypotheticals. Which brings us back to: How much does the Aircraft cost?
Boeing Super Hornets fully equipped with launcher rails and manuals: 154 MUSD ea
KPMG Unit Recurrent Flyaway Cost for F35s fully equipped with launcher rails and manuals: 87.4 MUSD ea.
It is not immediately clear how much training and support the Boeing price includes over and above the scope of supply defined by KPMG for the F35.
Particularly revealing paragraph (IMO):
My interpretation:
None of the vendors is willing to put their reputations on the line based on 42 years of hypotheticals. Which brings us back to: How much does the Aircraft cost?
Boeing Super Hornets fully equipped with launcher rails and manuals: 154 MUSD ea
KPMG Unit Recurrent Flyaway Cost for F35s fully equipped with launcher rails and manuals: 87.4 MUSD ea.
It is not immediately clear how much training and support the Boeing price includes over and above the scope of supply defined by KPMG for the F35.
Its possible. More likely is that the vendors cannot actually provide a consistent comparison of the full lifecycle costs (in addition to not wanting to). DND would need to provide detailed ground rules for usage, fuel cost, personnel costs ect. Even then it would be difficult to get a consistent number.
The CF-18 extension really only benefits the F-35. No other aircraft provides superior capability overall, so that you would want to operate the cheaper CF-18 along side a more expensive airframe (except the F-35). Allowing an extension basically might help canada push back its buy profile a year or two if there is any issue.
The CF-18 extension really only benefits the F-35. No other aircraft provides superior capability overall, so that you would want to operate the cheaper CF-18 along side a more expensive airframe (except the F-35). Allowing an extension basically might help canada push back its buy profile a year or two if there is any issue.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
IMHO articles such as this provided by Mike "http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2013/03/is-end-of-aircraft-carrer-nigh-rapid.html" are trending to led to a pro Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet perception. The "Harper government " calls for governmental deficit fighting budgets and general public post Afghanistan disinterest in matters military makes it increasingly politically attractive to chose the "good enough" cheaper option.
- Reaction score
- 9,959
- Points
- 1,360
Baden Guy said:
I don't necessarily agree with this article. Carrier's may be going by the wayside for certain nations but other nations are going to emerge and take their place. Country's like Brazil and India are now in the Carrier game remember?
Baden Guy said:
The problem with that article is that its a very eurocentric view; in the asia pacific there is a major naval arms race going on. The International Institute of Strategic Studies has just released a new adelphi paper entitled "Asia's naval expansion: an arms race in the making?" where carriers are a key part of the growth.
Put it this way; the Japanese alone is building a fleet of "helicopter destroyers" (AKA Carriers) that will launch more ships (and with larger displacement) than the Italian, Spanish and Brazilian fleets combined; two Hyuga class and two 22DDHs. South Korea will build four Dokdo class amphibs (Which are designed to carry F-35 type aircraft), in addition to the Indian and Chinese developments. So while there may be 4 or 5 carriers in Europe and South America, the Asia Pacific alone will see at least eight new carriers among close US allies and three or more new ones elsewhere.
And in the final discussion of fiscal environment, The F-35 should be cheaper to purchase, and in the long term operate than its competitors (Boeing-CBC jointly produced advernewsment not withstanding). Since 2010 the unit costs have stabilized, and been going down as expected (with some variances, but that is declining as well). Operational costs may be high initially, but Canada's implementation may be cheaper to operate than the scenarios the United States estimates are based on.
By comparison, purchasing an aircraft like the Super Hornet that is at the end of its production life to operate as a full lifecycle has never worked out for Canada. The Best example was the Banshees we bought in the late 1950s that were quickly obsolete and discarded. Same could be said for the Victoria Class. Canada will pay dearly for the obsolescence of these aircraft in the long term. There are no "free lunches" in defence... and in this case there isn't a cheaper option... which is what DND found in 2010.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
I think another issue pertaining to Mark's pinstripedline article is that, to my knowledge, have not said that they will NOT buy 138 F35s. They have only said that at this time they will only commit to 48 F35Bs so that they can operate their carriers. I don't believe that precludes them from buying additional F35s, either Bs, As or even Cs, as the situation evolves.
The commonalities of the three models work to the RAF's and MOD's advantage just as much as they work to the US's advantage. If the price of the F35C came in range then perhaps they might opt for that model. The RAF has flown "Naval" aircraft from shore bases before. The Buccaneer and the Phantom immediately come to mind.
The commonalities of the three models work to the RAF's and MOD's advantage just as much as they work to the US's advantage. If the price of the F35C came in range then perhaps they might opt for that model. The RAF has flown "Naval" aircraft from shore bases before. The Buccaneer and the Phantom immediately come to mind.
Kirkhill said:
Well just this week the RAF has suggested the 617 squadron Dambusters will be equipped with F-35s, and not be axed. I don't think they would equip a land based strike squadron with a STOVL aircraft, so its likely that it will be the A model. Its fairly evident that the RAF is not generally happy with the Typhoon because of a host of issues and would like to convert as many squadrons over to the JSF. They are stuck in their collaborative arrangement so they must buy a fixed number of the Tranche III aircraft, but intend to get rid of them as early as possible going forward.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
The full Pentagon February 2013 Operational Test and Evaluation Report on the F-35A is here:
http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf
Mark
Ottawa
http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 4,269
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 4,269
- Points
- 1,260
.... on the latest: "Current Outlook Is Improved, but Long-Term Affordability Is a Major Concern" - the summary:
Full report (44 page PDF) here
MarkOttawa said:
Seems at least one of the four pilots (these are regular, line pilots, not test pilots) in this survey had strong comments about aft visibility in the F-35 due to the size of the ejection seat.
Since the same seat is used in a number of other aircraft, especially other aircraft that could be considered for CF-18 replacement, wouldn't the issue be common across aircraft types?
http://www.martin-baker.com/products/ejection-seats/mk16
How does the mk16 compare to other ejection seats such as the NACES used on Super Hornets?
F-35 cockpit pictures appear to have good visibility to a layman
https://www.google.ca/search?q=f-35+cockpit+pictures&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#biv=i%7C24%3Bd%7C-P3zNV4R9qaifM%3A
Just curious . . . Looking for some expert commentary from folks who know . . .
Short answer is that the versions they were flying, LRIP lot 1/2 Aircraft with Block 1B software wasn't mature and (apparently) did not have the full Digital aperture system technology installed. That will give the pilot the ability to see in a near 360 degree panorama through the floor and behind the aircraft. Without it then the F-35 has pretty poor cockpit visibility; its probably worse than any aircraft since the 104, with a high back and high fuselage coaming. Since the OUE report's leaking the GAO and the Gen Bogdan have both suggested both helmet systems under development are maturing and should be fully installed by late 2014 for full operations by 2015.
Similar threads
