Royal Navy News - 02 July 2002
Eddie
news:afshpk$fkp$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> FUTURE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS' HOME PORT NAMED
>
> The Royal Navy has chosen Portsmouth as the base for two new large
aircraft carriers that will replace the existing
> Invincible class ships, Defence Minster Adam Ingram announced today.
>
> Portsmouth was selected because it has good access for the ships, is near
the major naval training and personnel
> facilities, and is best able to accommodate them within the existing
infrastructure.
>
Ermmmmmm! I served on the Ark Royal 59-60 and again during 76. It was a
largish carrier then, somewhat similar of size to that of the future
carriers I believe. The Ark Royal that I served on could only get into
Pompey on Spring tides IIRC. Our homebase was Guzz (Devonport to the
uninitiated). Has anything changed???????????
Ed
Crossposted for an informed opinion! :-))))))))))
Eugene Griessel
>Ermmmmmm! I served on the Ark Royal 59-60 and again during 76. It was a
>largish carrier then, somewhat similar of size to that of the future
>carriers I believe. The Ark Royal that I served on could only get into
>Pompey on Spring tides IIRC. Our homebase was Guzz (Devonport to the
>uninitiated). Has anything changed???????????
Dredging, perhaps? Or is this just a polite ministerial way of saying
"you will never see those carriers - the cash is going into beer
subsidies".
Eugene L Griessel www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat History www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/guybook.html
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because
they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous
sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
Peter Skelton
Griessel) wrote:
>"Eddie" <edwardsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ermmmmmm! I served on the Ark Royal 59-60 and again during 76. It was a
>>largish carrier then, somewhat similar of size to that of the future
>>carriers I believe. The Ark Royal that I served on could only get into
>>Pompey on Spring tides IIRC. Our homebase was Guzz (Devonport to the
>>uninitiated). Has anything changed???????????
>
>Dredging, perhaps? Or is this just a polite ministerial way of saying
>"you will never see those carriers - the cash is going into beer
>subsidies".
The charts are metric, depth in metric. The data on depth needed,
due to budget cutbacks, was cribbed from the old Ark and is in
fathoms. Now that the politicians have gone public and dare not
admit the bungle, the funds appropraited for the ship will be
used for cover-up and dredging (as much of the former and as
little of the latter as possible).
____
Peter Skelton
Tom Joyce
The punchline on last week's Focus cartoon:
"£50 million and no one thought we'd need a new *@#$£? gangplank."
--
yours aye,
Tom
non cogito ergo nescio utrum sim necne
Iain Rae
What's the old saying about many a true word spoken in jest. They'll
probably use old ones, Ark IV had WWI vintage hydraulic pumps onboard (I
think from one of the R's).
John Halliwell
@hotmail.com> writes
>Ermmmmmm! I served on the Ark Royal 59-60 and again during 76. It was a
>largish carrier then, somewhat similar of size to that of the future
>carriers I believe. The Ark Royal that I served on could only get into
>Pompey on Spring tides IIRC. Our homebase was Guzz (Devonport to the
>uninitiated). Has anything changed???????????
I heard on Radio 5 this morning that 'if' the new carriers exceed 45,000
tons, Portsmouth wouldn't be big enough and a berth would be prepared at
Southampton for 'immediate readiness'.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Brian Sharrock
"John Halliwell" <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mYnZ+WA$P5I9...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
IIRC, Portsmouth's main channel is dredged 12m.
Not that I've ever traversed it you understand,
(other than in a sim) keeping very firmly to the
'small boat channel' just as HM's Harbourmaster
insists.
AFAIK, it's the only UK port were, for small craft,
the IALA B 'red, right, returning' doesn't
head you into danger.
I may be a cynic but so far we've got;-
you only need two rather then three carriers,
Joint Force Harrier doesn't need Yeovilton
Joint Force Harrier doesn't need FA2
New Carrier won't have anything to fly off
New Carrier might have navalised JSF
New Carrier won't be able to operate until JSF arrives
New Carrier will be home ported at Portsmouth
New Carrier might not fit into Portsmouth
All this from the same set of ***** that brought you
the Dome, Wembley Stadium, and scrapped HMY Britannia!
--
Brian
Peter D Rieden
news:3d2404c0$0$24428$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
> I may be a cynic but so far we've got;-
>
> you only need two rather then three carriers,
Reality: We can only AFFORD two new carriers.
> Joint Force Harrier doesn't need Yeovilton
True. Continuing to operate Harrier varients from Yeovilton only complicates the
logistic support chain, duplicates facilities and gives no operational benefit.
> Joint Force Harrier doesn't need FA2
Reality: UK cannot afford to retain the Sea Harrier AND undertake the required
Harrier GR9 upgrade programme. The GR9 programme gives the greater operational
benefit therefore the SHAR has to go. A tough decision, but in the real world
none op the important decisions are easy ones. Note that the more powerful GR9a
aircraft will almost certainly be formed into two Fleet Air Arm squadrons, not
RAF ones.
> New Carrier won't have anything to fly off
Of course it will. In the short term it will have two squadrons of Harrier GR9a
if CVF gets into service before JSF, and in the long term it will have JSF.
> New Carrier might have navalised JSF
CVF *will* have JSF - this is already contracted work.
> New Carrier won't be able to operate until JSF arrives
Rubbish. CVF will be able to operate GR9/9a if the JSFs aren't yet in service.
> New Carrier will be home ported at Portsmouth
> New Carrier might not fit into Portsmouth
Well this depends on which flavour of CVF is finally selected. The MoD (not the
government) have been a bit tardy on this matter, but my company's view on this
is a matter of record.
> All this from the same set of ***** that brought you
> the Dome, Wembley Stadium, and scrapped HMY Britannia!
Hmmm....the Dome was dreamed up by the Major government who were also
responsible for scrapping Britannia IIRC, but how is scrapping Britannia a
Naval/Military issue?
PDR
Tom Schoene
"Peter D Rieden" <peter....@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:3d24307c$1...@pull.gecm.com...
>
> Reality: UK cannot afford to retain the Sea Harrier AND undertake the
required
> Harrier GR9 upgrade programme.
Apparently you can't really afford either, if the word about the decision
not to re-engine the GR.9s is true.
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
"It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but
the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment."
Karl Friedrich Gauss
Peter D Rieden
"Tom Schoene" <tasc...@starpower.invalid> wrote in message
news:ag1f52$pat$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Apparently you can't really afford either, if the word about the decision
> not to re-engine the GR.9s is true.
It isn't, or at least not in the way you mean. The RAF have already purchased a
quantity of Mk107 (or -408 in US parlance) engines and the programme to modify
aircraft to take them is already under contract and underway. These engines are
being fitted to an interim standard of Harrier which will be called the GRmk7a,
which will enter service in the middle of next year. The upgrade will be a
partial fleet fitment because there is only an operational requirement for the
upgraded engines in those aircraft which will be operated from carriers - the
two FAA squadrons which will replace the Sea Harrier fleet.
As for the GR9 (aka "digital jet") upgrade programme, that is currently in the
late stages of final definition with a view to full contract award by the end of
the year. Many aspects of this programme including the replacement Nav and
weapons systems have been under contract for a number of years and are nearing
completion. The GR9 will come in two flavours - the RAF's Mk106-engined GR7s
will be upgraded to GR9s for land-based use and the FAA's Mk-107 engined GR7as
will be upgraded to GR9as for maritime use. The GR9s will be fully carrier
capable, but will have a more restricted operational envelope in high ambient
temperatures. There is also a programme to upgrade the Tmk10 two-seaters to
Tmk12 standard, but let's not get complicated...
My team are currently working flat out on both the GR7a and GR9/9a/T12
programmes which have some very challenging timescales to meet the required in
service dates.
PDR
Vince Brannigan
Peter D Rieden wrote:
> "> All this from the same set of ***** that brought you
> > the Dome, Wembley Stadium, and scrapped HMY Britannia!
>
> Hmmm....the Dome was dreamed up by the Major government who were also
> responsible for scrapping Britannia IIRC, but how is scrapping Britannia a
> Naval/Military issue?
When was Britannia Scrapped?
I seem to recall seeing her in Edinburgh this spring.
FWIW compared to some of the comments on SMN anything about BRITANNIA is mainstream
Vince
Peter McLelland
"Vince Brannigan" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D244E5A...@verizon.net...
>
>
> Peter D Rieden wrote:
>
> > "> All this from the same set of ***** that brought you
> > > the Dome, Wembley Stadium, and scrapped HMY Britannia!
> >
> > Hmmm....the Dome was dreamed up by the Major government who were also
> > responsible for scrapping Britannia IIRC, but how is scrapping Britannia
a
> > Naval/Military issue?
>
> When was Britannia Scrapped?
> I seem to recall seeing her in Edinburgh this spring.
>
still here, open to visitors every day if you can survive the weather.
Peter
Keith Willshaw
>
> > "> All this from the same set of ***** that brought you
> > > the Dome, Wembley Stadium, and scrapped HMY Britannia!
> >
> > Hmmm....the Dome was dreamed up by the Major government who were also
> > responsible for scrapping Britannia IIRC, but how is scrapping Britannia
a
> > Naval/Military issue?
>
> When was Britannia Scrapped?
She wasnt
> I seem to recall seeing her in Edinburgh this spring.
>
Thats because she's now a museum ship and by
all accounts a very succesful one.
Keith
Peter D Rieden
news:3D244E5A...@verizon.net...
> When was Britannia Scrapped?
> I seem to recall seeing her in Edinburgh this spring.
Sorry - sloppy use of the language on my part. Please replace the word
"scrapping" with "withdrawal from service" on your copy.
> FWIW compared to some of the comments on SMN anything about BRITANNIA is
mainstream
True. Depressing, but true...
PDR
Brian Sharrock
> news:3d2404c0$0$24428$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
>
put in the water at Peter's work place?
>
> > All this from the same set of ***** that brought you
> > the Dome, Wembley Stadium, and scrapped HMY Britannia!
>
> Hmmm....the Dome was dreamed up by the Major government
The decision to have an event at Greenwich was a Millenioum
Commission affair. It selected Greenwich rather than other
competing venues (Birmingham, Manchester?).
The MC _was_ established by legislation enacted during John
Major's tenure and was funded by a prescribed portion of the
National Lottery income . However the event was somewhat
stymied by Blur's campaigning that all would be cancelled if
Labour was elected. There _was_ a 'truce' declared which enabled
ground preparation to continue.
Upon election the Labour Government determined that a showcase
'Cool Brittania' event would take place at the Greenwich site
and established a company "The Millenium Experience Company"
to organise the event. Only one share was issued by the MEC
which was held by a named person who happened to be the Minister
without Portfolio, Mr Peter Mandehlson. {I've nothing against
this practise as a mechanism, just mentioning it for accuracy]
The entire contents of the Dome, its themes and artistic direction
was all to the credit of the Labour Government, the Minister
without Portfolio #1 (Dome Secretary) - "a special thanks to 'Bobby' "
- the Minister without Portfolio #2, and a especially recruited
and/or enobled set of Tony's cronies.
The rest, as they say, is history ... and is still costing
UK taxpayers a largeish fortune every day. You may care to
peruse the Audit Commission's reports if you wish to know the
full story (or at least what's been publically admitted).
> who were also
> responsible for scrapping Britannia IIRC,
You recall _entirely_ incorrectly! Can you cite the date at
which the announcement was made?
The 'museum' FMY (formerly? Majesty's Yatch) Britannia's own
web site quotes "Since her decommissioning in December 1997".
Can you remeber the name of the Prime Minister in December 1997?
Do you recall the 'spin' from Peter/Bobby in the Solent area during
Cowes Week 1996, when even HRH The Duke of Edinburgh was asked to
comment on the leak that Labour intended not to scrap HMY Britannia?
'Bobby' had focus-grouped that folks were unhappy ... particularly
in HMY Brittania's home port.
> but how is scrapping Britannia a
> Naval/Military issue?
>
What sort of a comment are you trying to foist onto this ng?
Words fail me! HMY Britannia flew a white ensign, was commanded
by a RN Captain (downgraded from Commodore), staffed by RN crew,
had a Marine Band, had a design secondary role as a hospital ship,
was on _somebody's_ naval slop chit ... and was heavily utilised
by DMA.
Ding-dong, I can even remember an American weapon-fettler saying
to me, - Pusan; 'Global Outlook 86'? -'this is worth her weight in
gold for you Limey competitors!' ( I'm fairly sure he included
'goddam' in the sentence, but I can't recollect where, nor how many,
precisely). He wasn't standing too far from a Dunsfold/Kingston
based rep, either.
If Britannia isn't/wasn't a Naval/Military issue, then almost
nothing that's posted here in this ng is.
--
Brian
Brad Meyer
<peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
>> New Carrier might have navalised JSF
>
>CVF *will* have JSF - this is already contracted work.
I am old enough to remember when the USN said exactly the same thing
about the F-111. I am always impressed by the blind faith of someone
who is convinced that something that not only is not yet built, but is
not even yet fully designed, _will_ in fact exist and be suitable and
be affordable.
Kind of reminds me of the 3 or 4 motorists I see each week who,
although total strangers, are willing to bet their lives that I
maintain my breaks in good working order and that I am paying
attention.
Brad Meyer
"It is history that teaches us to hope"
-- R E Lee
Julian Barker
Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@no-spam.compuserve.com> wrote
>
>Thats because she's now a museum ship and by
>all accounts a very succesful one.
>
When was she anything else?
--
Julian Barker
"Many battles have been fought and won by
soldiers nourished on beer,and the King does not
believe that coffee-drinking soldiers can be
relied upon to endure hardships in case of
another war."
Frederick the Great, 1777
Julian Barker
Brian Sharrock <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote
>
>All this from the same set of ***** that brought you
>the Dome, Wembley Stadium, and scrapped HMY Britannia!
>
The Dome was a Conservative project, Wembley Stadium has never been a
Government project, and Britannia hasn't been scrapped! So why over egg
the pudding?
Vince Brannigan
Vince Brannigan
Julian Barker wrote:
> Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@no-spam.compuserve.com> wrote
>
> >
> >Thats because she's now a museum ship and by
> >all accounts a very succesful one.
> >
>
> When was she anything else?
I thougght he was talking about HM Elizabeth II
Vince
Julian Barker
Brian Sharrock <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote
>
>The rest, as they say, is history ... and is still costing
>UK taxpayers a largeish fortune every day. You may care to
>peruse the Audit Commission's reports if you wish to know the
>full story (or at least what's been publically admitted).
>
But the Major fiasco of committing any Government to huge expenditure
was one Labour were lumbered with. Labour may not have done the best
thing (I would have scrapped the lot on coming to power) but it was
never their idea in the first place!
>
>What sort of a comment are you trying to foist onto this ng?
>
>Words fail me! HMY Britannia flew a white ensign, was commanded
>by a RN Captain (downgraded from Commodore), staffed by RN crew,
>had a Marine Band, had a design secondary role as a hospital ship,
>was on _somebody's_ naval slop chit ... and was heavily utilised
>by DMA.
>
So if it was a navel ship, a hospital ship that was there to serve the
armed forces, where was it during the Falklands when it could actually
prove useful for a change? The Woolwich ferry could satisfy all your
criteria and still be a ferry. In the same way, Britannia was always a
floating hotel.
Paul J. Adam
<brad...@attbi.com> writes
>On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:25:04 +0100, "Peter D Rieden"
><peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
>>CVF *will* have JSF - this is already contracted work.
>
>I am old enough to remember when the USN said exactly the same thing
>about the F-111. I am always impressed by the blind faith of someone
>who is convinced that something that not only is not yet built, but is
>not even yet fully designed, _will_ in fact exist and be suitable and
>be affordable.
No, he's just someone who knows that if the US screws the pooch or pulls
the plug, there are penalty clauses and contingencies in place.
(See, we can learn from experience too...)
There are alternatives to hand, and FJCA isn't cast in iron yet. If CVF
goes CTOL then I _might_ be nervous about JSF - but a CTOL CVF can
handle F/A-18s or Rafales easily, plus the field for MASC is wider
(probably a MOTS buy of the E-2C successor, even if it's an E-2D)
Apart from anything else, the F-35 is in the right weight class for the
role...
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Brad Meyer
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3d24af5d....@netnews.attbi.com>, Brad Meyer
><brad...@attbi.com> writes
>>On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:25:04 +0100, "Peter D Rieden"
>><peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
>>>CVF *will* have JSF - this is already contracted work.
>>
>>I am old enough to remember when the USN said exactly the same thing
>>about the F-111. I am always impressed by the blind faith of someone
>>who is convinced that something that not only is not yet built, but is
>>not even yet fully designed, _will_ in fact exist and be suitable and
>>be affordable.
>
>No, he's just someone who knows that if the US screws the pooch or pulls
>the plug, there are penalty clauses and contingencies in place.
>
>(See, we can learn from experience too...)
True. How many weapons hardpoints does a penalty clause have?
>
>There are alternatives to hand, and FJCA isn't cast in iron yet.
No doubt, but the poster Iwas responding to was extremely emphatic
that the navalized JSF will fly from the Brit carriers.
Fred J. McCall
:No doubt, but the poster Iwas responding to was extremely emphatic
:that the navalized JSF will fly from the Brit carriers.
Well, I think it's a pretty safe bet that SOMETHING is going to get
built. The US Navy needs a new fighter. If JSF doesn't make in the
Naval version, there's a lot of Navy money that is going to go
somewhere else.
The Marines are also banking on a Harrier replacement.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Peter D Rieden
>
> >
> snip of ping-pong discussion, but whatever do they
> put in the water at Peter's work place?
Oxidised hydrgen mostly - in your place I presume it's 90% dehydrated daily
mail, 5% Patent Reality Warper and 5% finest auto-blinkering compound.
As many here can confirm, on the subject of the UK's maritime aviation
programmes I happen to be in a position to know what I'm talking about. You are
free to accept or reject my statements because we live in a free democracy and
that's what it says in the handbook, but remember that a majority vote will not
turn water into wine or black into white, although the supreme court is probably
due to hold reality in contempt for its refusal to acknowledge the
constitutional rights of the populace in this regard...
PDR
Peter D Rieden
news:3d24af5d....@netnews.attbi.com...
>
> I am old enough to remember when the USN said exactly the same thing
> about the F-111. I am always impressed by the blind faith of someone
> who is convinced that something that not only is not yet built, but is
> not even yet fully designed, _will_ in fact exist and be suitable and
> be affordable.
Things have come a long way since the TFX programme. TFX "failed" because the
aircraft didn't achieve the objectives. JSF is in the late stages of a lengthy
technology-demonstration and risk-reduction programme. The risk of technical
shortfall at this stage is low. The risk of coist over-run is low and will
remain so for as long as the requirement remains constant. If you look back into
history the primary drivers behind cost over-runs were technical risk (because
we didn't understand how to manage risk) and changing requirements. For some
reason the Senators who play to the gallery about the defence industry's cost
excesses fail to mention the detail that the customer moved the goalpoist 9
times in the preceding 6 months and so the product had in fact been 80%
redesigned 9 times...
These days we have a very good handle on what it costs to do the detail design,
integration, testing and manufacturing phases - we have to because our customers
now insist on fixed-price contracts.
PDR
Peter D Rieden
Peter D Rieden
> that the navalized JSF will fly from the Brit carriers.
At this point in time it is by far the most probable eventuality. There is a
small probability that we will bail out of the JSF programme and design
somethjing better for ourselves (<BG>) and and even smaller probability that we
will try some navalised Typhoon varient (don't even ask). Right at the bottom of
the probabilities scale is the prospect of UK getting out of the maritime
aviation business for good. If you look at the current and conceivable political
context you will see that this isn't a very likely scenario.
PDR
Peter D Rieden
news:bI8N3NIP...@meriones.gerbils.co.uk...
> The Dome was a Conservative project, Wembley Stadium has never been a
> Government project, and Britannia hasn't been scrapped! So why over egg
> the pudding?
Now you've gone and done it! Why did you have to introduce him to reality? He'll
never be able to handle the shock and his value system will never recover!
PDR
Brian Sharrock
>
>
> Brian Sharrock <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote
>
> >
> >The rest, as they say, is history ... and is still costing
> >UK taxpayers a largeish fortune every day. You may care to
> >peruse the Audit Commission's reports if you wish to know the
> >full story (or at least what's been publically admitted).
> >
>
> But the Major fiasco of committing any Government to huge expenditure
> was one Labour were lumbered with. Labour may not have done the best
> thing (I would have scrapped the lot on coming to power) but it was
> never their idea in the first place!
>
> >
> >What sort of a comment are you trying to foist onto this ng?
> >
> >Words fail me! HMY Britannia flew a white ensign, was commanded
> >by a RN Captain (downgraded from Commodore), staffed by RN crew,
> >had a Marine Band, had a design secondary role as a hospital ship,
> >was on _somebody's_ naval slop chit ... and was heavily utilised
> >by DMA.
> >
>
> So if it was a navel ship, a hospital ship that was there to serve the
> armed forces, where was it during the Falklands when it could actually
> prove useful for a change? The Woolwich ferry could satisfy all your
> criteria and still be a ferry. In the same way, Britannia was always a
> floating hotel.
>
>
Julian, while you're contemplating the thought of a navel(sic) ship
you might like to consider the old maxim 'amateurs study tactics,
professionals study logistics' then google fuel requirements for
the fleet committed to Operation Corporate ... at least that's
the official story :).
BTW, I surmise that you've never been employed in
demonstrating/selling/presenting/negotiating/contracting
with non-UK naval customers for naval equipment.
Would my presumption be true?
--
Brian
Brad Meyer
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>brad...@attbi.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
>
>:No doubt, but the poster Iwas responding to was extremely emphatic
>:that the navalized JSF will fly from the Brit carriers.
>
>Well, I think it's a pretty safe bet that SOMETHING is going to get
>built.
Certainly something will be built. The F-111 was built. They even
tested it off carriers. None, however, operated from carriers as they
were found to be unsuitable and it was easier to design a new air
frame (F-14) then to try to modify the F-111 to make it carrier
suitable. I have seen several carrier a/c adopted to other uses (most
recently the F-4), but I have yet to see the process work well in the
other direction
>The US Navy needs a new fighter.
That can be argued. There are no new advanced threats. No (potential)
enemy is deploying any new a/c types. We might well be able to get
another half century out of the types we are flying now. We may need a
new one because "war is good for the economy and other growing
things", but there is little military justification.
>If JSF doesn't make in the
>Naval version, there's a lot of Navy money that is going to go
>somewhere else.
Indeed. Some might even argue that the money is more important then
whatever can be bought with it.
>The Marines are also banking on a Harrier replacement.
There are already existing candidates for this, both fixed wing and
helo. I have even read a proposal to retool and build F7F's again, as
they have virtually all the attributes the USMC is looking for in its
ground support a/c.
The fact they are banking on one is in no way indicative of the _need_
for one.
Brad Meyer
<peter....@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Meyer" <brad...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3d25319e....@netnews.attbi.com...
>>
>> No doubt, but the poster Iwas responding to was extremely emphatic
>> that the navalized JSF will fly from the Brit carriers.
>
>At this point in time it is by far the most probable eventuality.
I agree, but "most probable" is, IMO, a long chalk from "JSF _will_
fly . . .".
Brad Meyer
With the exception of replacing "TFX" with "Phantom II" this could be
almost word for word from the F-111 propaganda.
I hope its all true, and suspect that it probably is, but I wouldn't
make book on it.
Fred J. McCall
:On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 06:06:51 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>brad...@attbi.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
:>
:>:No doubt, but the poster Iwas responding to was extremely emphatic
:>:that the navalized JSF will fly from the Brit carriers.
:>
:>Well, I think it's a pretty safe bet that SOMETHING is going to get
:>built.
:
:Certainly something will be built. The F-111 was built. They even
:tested it off carriers. None, however, operated from carriers as they
:were found to be unsuitable and it was easier to design a new air
:frame (F-14) then to try to modify the F-111 to make it carrier
:suitable. I have seen several carrier a/c adopted to other uses (most
:recently the F-4), but I have yet to see the process work well in the
:other direction-18
Yeah, this is my usual argument, too. Instead of starting with the
basic plane with the Air Force in control, I think they'd have a
higher percentage chance of success if they'd started with the Navy
plane in the first place.
Of course, doing it that way would mean that it would be the F/AE/F
that was in budgetary danger rather than the F-22. :-)
:>The US Navy needs a new fighter.
:
:That can be argued.
Well, anything can be argued.
:There are no new advanced threats. No (potential)
:enemy is deploying any new a/c types. We might well be able to get
:another half century out of the types we are flying now. We may need a
:new one because "war is good for the economy and other growing
:things", but there is little military justification.
Well, this is both true and false. The F-14 airframes are too old to
maintain in service much longer. Ditto the EA-6. Despite the Navy's
current plan, I've thought it was a little nuts to hang every mission
in the fleet on the F/A-18 ever since they started trying to do it
when the A-6 bombers retired. The F/A-18 isn't an adequate
replacement for those and it's not an adequate replacement for the
F-14s.
Something needs to be done there. Building EF-18s to replace the
EA-6Bs is perhaps reasonable, but the F/A-18C/Ds are getting a bit
long in the tooth themselves.
:>If JSF doesn't make in the
:>Naval version, there's a lot of Navy money that is going to go
:>somewhere else.
:
:Indeed. Some might even argue that the money is more important then
:whatever can be bought with it.
Well, some will argue all sorts of fool propositions. I'm not one of
them.
:>The Marines are also banking on a Harrier replacement.
:
:There are already existing candidates for this, both fixed wing and
:helo.
So far as I've seen, none meet the full mission.
:I have even read a proposal to retool and build F7F's again, as
:they have virtually all the attributes the USMC is looking for in its
:ground support a/c.
Well, one finds all sorts of silly things proposed. That doesn't make
them good ideas. Dropping Marine Air back 60 years strikes me as a
fairly bad idea, particularly when you're talking about reducing the
bomb load by almost an order of magnitude from what a Harrier can
carry.
:The fact they are banking on one is in no way indicative of the _need_
:for one.
Once again, we're talking airframes being used up. You can either
replace them with more of the same or with something more capable.
The problem with waiting until you NEED something better is that you
don't get it until 15 years after you need it that way. By the time
the STOVL version of JSF is available, AV-8B's are going to be at the
end of their operational life, simply due to time on the airframe if
nothing else.
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
Brad Meyer
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:There are no new advanced threats. No (potential)
>:enemy is deploying any new a/c types. We might well be able to get
>:another half century out of the types we are flying now. We may need a
>:new one because "war is good for the economy and other growing
>:things", but there is little military justification.
>
>Well, this is both true and false. The F-14 airframes are too old to
>maintain in service much longer. Ditto the EA-6.
Agreed. The question is the expense of building more of something that
exists vs the expense of going through and entire design and test
process.
>The F/A-18 isn't an adequate
>replacement for those and it's not an adequate replacement for the
>F-14s.
There is a great deal of question in my mind as to whether the F-22
will be an adequate replacement as well.
>Something needs to be done there.
Agreed. I'mt questioning the nedd for that something to be something
new and untested given the current threat enviornment.
>The problem with waiting until you NEED something better . . .
I'm not talking about waitng that long. I'm talking about waiting
until there is an indication that one _might_ need something better at
some time in the future. Someone not only has to build a better
mousetrap. they have to build it in such nimbers as to represent a
threat. Threre will be ample time to adress the threat when the
musetrap appears but before it can be built in sufficient numbers to
represent a threat. No one out there is even working on a better
mousetrap in a serious manner.
John Halliwell
<brad...@attbi.com> writes
>I have seen several carrier a/c adopted to other uses (most
>recently the F-4), but I have yet to see the process work well in the
>other direction
Isn't the Goshawk (T-45?) a navalised version of the BAe Hawk?
Of course the Harrier worked out quite well too :)
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Tom Schoene
"John Halliwell" <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nkyZhTAs...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3d25ee8d....@netnews.attbi.com>, Brad Meyer
> <brad...@attbi.com> writes
> >I have seen several carrier a/c adopted to other uses (most
> >recently the F-4), but I have yet to see the process work well in the
> >other direction
>
> Isn't the Goshawk (T-45?) a navalised version of the BAe Hawk?
Yes, but it was a very troubled conversion process and the result is still
not 100% satisfactory by some accounts. It can hardly be said to have
worked well.
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
"It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but
the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment."
Karl Friedrich Gauss
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 08:01:10 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:
:>:There are no new advanced threats. No (potential)
:>:enemy is deploying any new a/c types. We might well be able to get
:>:another half century out of the types we are flying now. We may need a
:>:new one because "war is good for the economy and other growing
:>:things", but there is little military justification.
:>
:>Well, this is both true and false. The F-14 airframes are too old to
:>maintain in service much longer. Ditto the EA-6.
:
:Agreed. The question is the expense of building more of something that
:exists vs the expense of going through and entire design and test
:process.
You have to do this anyway, since the production line no longer exists
and many of the systems would have to be redesigned anyway.
:>The F/A-18 isn't an adequate
:>replacement for those and it's not an adequate replacement for the
:>F-14s.
:
:There is a great deal of question in my mind as to whether the F-22
:will be an adequate replacement as well.
If it can be kept cheap enough, it'll be a great replacement for the
F/A-18C/D aircraft. There is no real replacement for what the old A-6
used to do anywhere in sight, and hasn't been since the A-12 program
was mismanaged into the ground.
:>Something needs to be done there.
:
:Agreed. I'mt questioning the nedd for that something to be something
:new and untested given the current threat enviornment.
Whatever you do is going to be "new and untested", unless it's
building more F/A-18s. And even then you're going to get a certain
amount of "new and untested", since you pretty much have to redesign
systems as older technologies simply cease to exist.
:>The problem with waiting until you NEED something better . . .
:
:I'm not talking about waitng that long. I'm talking about waiting
:until there is an indication that one _might_ need something better at
:some time in the future.
And at the point where you see that, you need 15 years lead time to
IOC. Frankly, it's better to keep pushing the technology right along.
:Someone not only has to build a better
:mousetrap. they have to build it in such nimbers as to represent a
:threat. Threre will be ample time to adress the threat when the
:musetrap appears but before it can be built in sufficient numbers to
:represent a threat. No one out there is even working on a better
:mousetrap in a serious manner.
This has been the line taken before every major conflict. We've
gotten caught with our shorts down pretty much every time, and lead
times on systems are longer now.
Personally, I'd rather spend more money now than spend more lives
later. And that IS the trade-off.
--
"If told to fight regardless of the consequences, I shall
run wild the first six months or a year, but I have utterly
no confidence for the second or third year. Thus, I hope
you will avoid war with the United States."
-- Admiral Yamamoto
Alan Minyard
Yes, the T-45 is a "sort of" BAe Hawk. Unfortunately, it did not work
out quite well. The Hawk is indisputably a fine aircraft, but it did
not take well to a mission it was never designed for. The engine,
wings, fuselage, cockpit, avionics, all had to be changed (most
several times). I suppose that the horizontal stab may be original,
but the whole thing was a procurement/operational fiasco. With more
than enough blame to go all around :-)
Al Minyard
Andrew Chaplin
> Yes, the T-45 is a "sort of" BAe Hawk. Unfortunately, it did not work
> out quite well. The Hawk is indisputably a fine aircraft, but it did
> not take well to a mission it was never designed for. The engine,
> wings, fuselage, cockpit, avionics, all had to be changed (most
> several times). I suppose that the horizontal stab may be original,
> but the whole thing was a procurement/operational fiasco. With more
> than enough blame to go all around :-)
Flog them to the Snowbirds, they are going to be looking for a ride
shortly.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger."
out, and change "home" to "rogers".)
Gavin Bull
> Yes, the T-45 is a "sort of" BAe Hawk. Unfortunately, it did not work
> out quite well. The Hawk is indisputably a fine aircraft, but it did
> not take well to a mission it was never designed for. The engine,
> wings, fuselage, cockpit, avionics, all had to be changed (most
> several times). <snip>
The engine wasn't changed - all Goshawks have the same RR Turbomeca Adour
engine as all the BAe Hawks (F405 version for the Goshawk).
However, there was a proposal a couple of years ago to re-engine the
Goshawk with the Honeywell/Allied signal F124 engine, but the US Navy did
not take up the option of doing this and stayed with the Adour.
Gav
Alan Minyard
Thanks. I know that the engines were upgraded, and I assumed that they
were replaced.
As Minyard
Alan Minyard
<abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote:
>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>> Yes, the T-45 is a "sort of" BAe Hawk. Unfortunately, it did not work
>> out quite well. The Hawk is indisputably a fine aircraft, but it did
>> not take well to a mission it was never designed for. The engine,
>> wings, fuselage, cockpit, avionics, all had to be changed (most
>> several times). I suppose that the horizontal stab may be original,
>> but the whole thing was a procurement/operational fiasco. With more
>> than enough blame to go all around :-)
>
>Flog them to the Snowbirds, they are going to be looking for a ride
>shortly.
Trust me, they would't take them. :-)
Al Minyard
Brad Meyer
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:There is a great deal of question in my mind as to whether the F-22
>:will be an adequate replacement as well.
>
>If it can be kept cheap enough
The difference between you and the poster I was responding to is the
insertion of the "If it can be kept cheap enough . . ." I neither
believe nor disbelieve the qualifier and would be unsurprised in
either event. I'm perfectly willing to believe it when I see the US
accept it for carrier ops. I am less willing to take it as an article
of faithe prior to then.
> . . . it'll be a great replacement for the
>F/A-18C/D aircraft. There is no real replacement for what the old A-6
>used to do anywhere in sight . . .
The same can be said of the F-14 as well. What part of the A-6's
mission is relevant in today's threat enviornment?
>Whatever you do is going to be "new and untested", unless it's
>building more F/A-18s. And even then you're going to get a certain
>amount of "new and untested", since you pretty much have to redesign
>systems as older technologies simply cease to exist.
Even then, you have to start from the position that whatever redesign
you do is going to be a smaller (and less costly) effort then a
complete new design. Sometimes the threat envelope demands a new
design. I do not see that as being the case now.
>:>The problem with waiting until you NEED something better . . .
>:
>:I'm not talking about waitng that long. I'm talking about waiting
>:until there is an indication that one _might_ need something better at
>:some time in the future.
>
>And at the point where you see that, you need 15 years lead time to
>IOC.
If its an emergency, and you need 15 years lead time, you deserve
whatever happens to you.
>Frankly, it's better to keep pushing the technology right along.
One can push the technology without a "from scratch" new design.
>This has been the line taken before every major conflict.
Nope. You're confusing it with the rolling "ten year rule" being used
as an excuse to not rearm when it was obvious that rearmerment was
needed. You show me a credible threat that can only be met by a brand
new design and I'm all for it. Show me the threat first though.
> We've
>gotten caught with our shorts down pretty much every time . . .
Indeed. The only war we were ever really prepared for was Viet Nam.
Maybe there is something to be said for getting caught.
Peter D Rieden
> Agreed. The question is the expense of building more of something that
> exists vs the expense of going through and entire design and test
> process.
There are two aspects to this:
1. It may no longer be possible to build new examples of the existing product
for obsolescence reasons - the materials, parts, equipment and processes may no
longer be available. This is a major issue with avionics, some 60% of all
current avionics upgrades being undertaken soimply because spares for the
original items can no longer be sourced, but it isn't just avionics. Simple
things like specific alloys made by particular processes that were qualified in
the original design may no longer be manufactured, and the foundry certainly
isn't interested in rebuilding requalifying an old plant to run off a couple of
hundred tons of special alloy for a re-run of old aircraft.
2. You are presuming that the existing product can't be improved upon, which is
balderdash. Even if the replacement ends up with the same payload, range, RCS,
speeds and fuel consumption it could still be a much better product in the areas
of reliability, maintainability and supportability/repairability. The F-14 and
(to a lesser extent) the F/A-18 are maintenance nightmares, requiring vast
efforts from engineers and loggies just to keep them airworthy and available for
missions. The new generation of military aircraft are between one and two orders
of magnitude more reliable and have been explicitly designed for high degrees of
maintainability. For example to complete manning level required to support a
Eurofighter Typhoon at all lines (1st to 4th) is less than a tenth of the number
required to support a Tornado F3, and the Tonka is less maintenance intensive
than the F-14.
PDR
Peter D Rieden
>
> With the exception of replacing "TFX" with "Phantom II" this could be
> almost word for word from the F-111 propaganda.
>
> I hope its all true, and suspect that it probably is, but I wouldn't
> make book on it.
Ah yes, but this time the American aircraft company has a proper British
aircraft company on board to keep an eye on it and ensure that they don't screw
up...<VBG>
PDR
Andrew McCruden
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:t58diusd6bq2qr4qq...@4ax.com...
> brad...@attbi.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
>
> :The F/A-18 isn't an adequate replacement for those and it's not an
adequate
> replacement for the F-14s.
What Missions can the F-14 peform well enough that the F/A-18 Can't?
Is this a mission worth the cost of maintianing a separate platfrom to
perform it?
Is developing a new aircraft for this niche role worth the reduction in
numbers of ships or training deployments that the money would otherwise buy?
Keith Willshaw
"Andrew McCruden" <use...@beyond-comprehension.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:102689546...@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:t58diusd6bq2qr4qq...@4ax.com...
> > brad...@attbi.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
> >
> > :The F/A-18 isn't an adequate replacement for those and it's not an
> adequate
> > replacement for the F-14s.
>
> What Missions can the F-14 peform well enough that the F/A-18 Can't?
>
Well it ties up far more maintenance resources :)
> Is this a mission worth the cost of maintianing a separate platfrom to
> perform it?
>
> Is developing a new aircraft for this niche role worth the reduction in
> numbers of ships or training deployments that the money would otherwise
buy?
>
>
Keith
Brad Meyer
<use...@beyond-comprehension.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:t58diusd6bq2qr4qq...@4ax.com...
>> brad...@attbi.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
>>
>> :The F/A-18 isn't an adequate replacement for those and it's not an
>adequate
>> replacement for the F-14s.
>
>What Missions can the F-14 peform well enough that the F/A-18 Can't?
Attacks by many waves of enemy a/c against the CVBG. To a certain
extent that mission has gone away; in part to the improvements in the
missle defese of the escourts, and in part to the fact that I can
think of very few nations that could launch a 150-200 plane attack
against a CVBG, and we are friends with most of them.
>
>Is this a mission worth the cost of maintianing a separate platfrom to
>perform it?
No, especially on a carrier. I expect much of the Hornet is the same,
whether dressed out for attack or as a fighter. The commonality almost
ensures a higher sortie rate in that more of each spare can be aboard
if the are fewer different spares required.
>Is developing a new aircraft for this niche role worth the reduction in
>numbers of ships or training deployments that the money would otherwise buy?
No, not to mention that it would also likely put fewer a/c on each
carrier and they would likely have lower sortie rates.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:t58diusd6bq2qr4qq...@4ax.com...
:> brad...@attbi.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
:>
:> :The F/A-18 isn't an adequate replacement for those and it's not an
:adequate
:> replacement for the F-14s.
:
:What Missions can the F-14 peform well enough that the F/A-18 Can't?
Dropping large quantities of ordinance at range. Long range air
defense. Little details like that.
How many 2000 pound JDAM can an F/A-18 deliver to a target?
:Is this a mission worth the cost of maintianing a separate platfrom to
:perform it?
Probably.
:Is developing a new aircraft for this niche role worth the reduction in
:numbers of ships or training deployments that the money would otherwise buy?
So you are a fan of the 'one size fits all' solution? When the only
tool you have is a hammer, everything pretty much starts looking like
a nail.
The Navy had different aircraft optimized for different missions for a
reason. I remain unconvinced that those missions have gone away, or
that the F/A-18 can cover all of them nearly as well as dedicated
platforms could.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Andrew McCruden
> "Andrew McCruden" <use...@beyond-comprehension.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> :What Missions can the F-14 peform well enough that the F/A-18 Can't?
>
> Dropping large quantities of ordinance at range. Long range air
> defense. Little details like that.
So your argument isn't that The F/A-18 can't do the missions rather that you
think you need more range.
What if, given you can operate more F/A-18's and F/A-18E's for the money,
means that you can spare a couple of Super Hornets to do buddy tanking?
For that matter how does a Tomcats Strike Radius compare to a Tomahawks
fired from a sub 100NM close to the shore?
> How many 2000 pound JDAM can an F/A-18 deliver to a target?
How many are needed to destroy any given target?
Given that not having an extra type in the inventory means more cash to buy
total numbers of A/C isn't it preferable to have more aircraft with less
bombs each(assuming, as we can safely do when comparing the F/A-18 to the
F-14, reasonably comparable suvivablity), given that that gives you less
vunerablity to single point failure.
> :Is developing a new aircraft for this niche role worth the reduction in
> :numbers of ships or training deployments that the money would otherwise
buy?
>
> So you are a fan of the 'one size fits all' solution?
Not if there was the money for the alternative, but there isn't..
> When the only
> tool you have is a hammer, everything pretty much starts looking like
> a nail.
NavAir is not the Entire USN.
> The Navy had different aircraft optimized for different missions for a
> reason. I remain unconvinced that those missions have gone away, or
> that the F/A-18 can cover all of them nearly as well as dedicated
> platforms could.
But thats not an answer to the question I asked, its an answer to the one
you knew how to answer easily.
To develop a new naval Aircraft for a longer range requirememt, that you
state niether the F/A-18 or F/A-18E can handle, _in the real world_ the USN
would have to either
1: Cut total Aircraft numbers.
2: Cut DDG/DD(X) numbers
3: Cut NSSN numbers
4: cut the number of Muntions available for use by these platforms
5: reduce the Budget for the Sailors and Pilots to actially use and
maintian these systems effectively
6: Cut the budgets for training and exersizes with all the consequences that
holds for crew quality and combat effectiveness
None of these is IMO acceptable, and certainly not just because you want to
have a longer range CAP and the abilty to strike a bit futher
for that matter given the F-35B's range requirement a lot of your argument
goes away in 2010
I'd love to see you put a convincing case forward that you could get a
separate Tomcat Replacemnt online before the JSF's ISD, but this is simply
not going to happen.
Retaining the F-14 can't happen either, its getting too old (even the F-14D
was only meant to last about this long), and was never easy to support
anyway and costs lots more to maintin vice the F/A-18