A guest post from the Mintcake Maker
Okay, just a bit of a thought exercise on my part after reading lots of the post on the NG firebird thread and I was just wondering if you guys would agree with my figures. Let’s say for the sake of argument that we want a new CAS/ carrier capable AD, and training aircraft. Let’s say 3 squadrons for the RAF to provide CAS, 3 squadrons for the FAA to provide Fleet AD but can swing role if needed, a large OCU and some spares. I’m guessing we need around 110 aircraft for that. If say building 110 of them takes 7/8 years and we started 2016, the production run would probably finish by 2024, by which point our hawk will be getting long in the tooth. So let’s and another 30 a/c to the buy. We now have a purchase of 140 aircraft (potentially), we now go and ask the Brazilians if they want in because this aircraft could replace there Skyhawks in the navy and eventually the AMX in the air force. So we do a deal whereby the first 10 are made here in the UK, they buy the building, so they can make the rest at home and we agree to support them, rights and pay a small amount into the R&D fund. We could even include maybe a few Brazilian suppliers to sweeten the deal. This means the total order is about 150 a/c to be made in the UK.
Design
Let’s use one we already own to save costs and if need be modify. I’m gonna pick the jaguar purely because it was a good all-rounder, fairly rugged and most importantly it did undergo some carrier trials however problems with engine performance and weight were the main problems (to be fair it was a Jaguar A that they navalised).
Based on the info from wiki, with afterburners the Jaguar managed Mach 1.6/1056mph, by my rough calculations, using the non-afterburning Adour 951 engines a Jaguar 2 could reach just under Mach 1.25/939mph which given its role is probably fat enough. Likewise the cost in 1978 to build was $8m dollars if we say because of inflation it has gone up roughly 30 to 4 fold in price it brings the price in at somewhere around $48m, which if you consider how much a BAE Hawk costs and then how much it costs to turn it into a combat Hawk is probably about right.
If we assume the $48m also include profit and R&D costs and they contribute to 30% of the final aircraft cost, then that would make the cost to produce each a/c $34m or £22m (at £1 = $1.55).
But we are not building brand new Jaguars to the old design. So some new R&D cost will come into play, I come up with a few rough figures below:
-Fitting new avionics (lets use the KISS principle and just fit what the combat Hawk uses) – £100m
-Designing a slightly larger wing with bigger control surfaces and wingtip rails – £250m
- Strengthening the undercarriage/tail hook, replacing some areas with composite to save weigh and also making sure that all parts are coated/built with anti-corrosion materials – £300m
- Making minor external changes to reduce RDC maybe change the tail layout to twin-tail – £150m
- 6 pre-production models to evaluate, test and certify – £600m
- Cost to re-tool a factory – £1bn
This means the total R&D cost come in at £2.4bn, however if we ask brazil to stomp up 10% of the R&D cost and sell them a local production licence we may be able to claw back £400m (especially if we place an order or 2 with Brazilian companies for parts). This means that R&D would cost £2bn.
Cost
If we take the R&D costs and divide that by 150 planes it works out at £13.5m per a/c. Therefore this gets added to our production figure of £22m. This means to build the aircraft including R&D costs would be £35.5m per aircraft. If BAE then add roughly 15% to the price for profit, each aircraft costs £40m and BAE would make £0.75bn profit on the project.
This would mean that if HMG decided to purchase the full 140 it would cost £5.6bn, which if the production line is open for 10 years is only £540m or 14 aircraft. That’s a nice regular outflow for the MOD budget and surely won’t break the bank, its only like 3.5% of the yearly procurement budget? I don’t think that’s bad value for money. Once more it also goes hand in hand with the government wanting to build not bank our way out of debt. Think about it maybe 5,000 workers and suppliers or so kept in employment for 10 years, and think of all the money HMT would be able to claim in taxes etc, its win win.
Even better if we could find another 80 orders and I think there’s a good chance of that purely because by 2020/25 both Canada and Australia will possibly want to start looking for a Hawk replacement, we would already have this in production and it uses many of the Hawks parts. So we could probably sell 30 to each country, that’s enough for 2 squadrons and spares and the US Goshawks are supposed to start going out of service at 2030, we could sell the 20 and a then a licence to build the rest over in the states. If we did get an extra 80 orders, it would reduce the overall cost per a/c to £35m, which would mean the cost of buying 140 of them would drop to £4.9bn.
I’m also sure we could probably sell some to places like Oman, heck given our new deal with the French let’s get them onboard (they can also stump up some of the R&D costs that way) and they could replace there Alfa-jet trainers. We might even be able to get the cost down to £30m per a/c or maybe even less.
And for those of you who think that stealth is the answer to everything and we need lots of F-35’s, place wake up and smell the coffee. We don’t have the money and secondly it’s not necessary for the UK. In the next 20 years or so, we are not going to be going up against super high-tech nation. I’m not saying we should have some “stealth” aircraft, I’m just saying that we’ve got to the stage now where quality does not overcome quantity because our armed forces have been cut back so much.
I think the F-35c will cost roughly £70m to £80m, when we finally get it (any more than £80m and it’s not worth it in my opinion). If we eventually buy 70 aircraft we could have 3x 12 plane squadrons for the RAF, 1x 12 plane squadron for the FAA meaning they can have 4 planes onboard the carrier continuously and surge up to 12 for when the sh*t really does hit the fan, an OCU and spares. I’d rather spend the money from not buying another 30 to 40 planes to purchasing a British designed and built aircraft, the Jaguar 2. For the same cost as say 35 f-35’s at £80m we could buy 70 Jaguar 2’s , even more with we get export orders.
So come on Britain, we’ve done this before and WE can do it again. I suppose it’s just a question of will.
Sorry for the long ramble, hope you guys enjoy.
Below are some pics of the original Jags and a very nice schematic.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/sepecat-jaguar-act-demonstrator.cfm
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/sepecat_jaguar_images.htm
And a couple of images of the Jaguars at Cranwell painted in black (They look great!)
http://www.fast-air.co.uk/dcae-cranwells-jaguars/
If you click on the link at the bottom of the page for DCAE Cosford there are some more interesting pics
Thanks for the links TD, brings back some memories doing engine changes on the Jags. Not sure they will ever come back.
At first sight this seems like a good idea..
However I cannot but think it ignores reality.
As with some of the things I and others have proposed. It won’t be first class kit it won’t be the best, it wont be state of the art, therefor the British millitary establishment will simply not have it.
The Chris Bs of this world will explode.
RAF will go to war agaisnt it because they will say they can have 1 propper f35 for 3 of these and 1 propper f35 will be fexible, and will be able to do things 3 of these won’t.
Not sharpe pointy sexy enough etc.
From a link on Prune.
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/historichighways/MAM55_files/image009.jpg
BTW
Another squadron or two of TD’ rebuilt buccaneers would go wel with it.
RAF will go to war agaisnt it because they will say they can have 1 propper f35 for 3 of these and 1 propper f35 will be fexible, and will be able to do things 3 of these won’t.
What happens if it could do the job of 3 re-engineered jags?
@ IXION
I won’t explode. Just sigh. And say that the stated figures are highly optimistic.
New build F-16′s, which aren’t even on the same spec level as things like Typhoon, E/F-18 etc, cost around $70 million a piece. And that’s with the production line up and running etc.
Without AESA radar you could probably control the costs, but it’s still going to be expensive.
Nice to see though Ix that you’re not listening to a word I’ve been saying. The airframes probably wouldn’t cost that much, but the kit to make them of any use would.
It’s just maths and reality, both of which are inescapable.
Another idea. Perhaps HMG should go to the French not BAE for the IP and build it themselves?
Or the Indians?
http://www.hal-india.com/AircraftBangalore/products.asp
Look at the bottom of the page……
Interesting take and much fodder for the comments on value of paying for CAS/light-strike vs premium interdiction, levels of performance.
Of course if you want to implement the bulk of the concept all bar having a majority UK industrial content, then the aircraft occupying the role of an updated Jag (with: up to date avionics, weapons integration, rough strip capability and carrier integration study, already paid for) is the JAS39 Gripen.
You do realise that even suggesting something like this will make the eurocrats choke on their croissants.
I adore the Gripen. But it obvious that using accepted criteria for aircraft procurement isn’t working. My idea is we should only buy aircraft from states with decent food. And all Sweden can offer is meatballs. Therefore I suggest we go for a good Indian,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas
We can already buy it carrier ready. Similar performance to Gripen. And when we are fighting the Chinese in the Indian Ocean we will be close to a good source of spares.
I don’t see the $31million as cheap. Just good value.
The tejas does seem to be a similar concept. Lets not re invent the wheel..
wouldn’t it be more cost effective to just modernize/modify the Hawks?
this seems a step back in time with little actual utility. the Hawks are flying now, can be properly upgraded etc…
There are many comparable jets under development or in production. The South Korean T-50 Golden Eagle is such an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
The litmus test for this idea is this:
How could this project make a difference for the national security of the United Kingdom.
I’m not exactly known for a lack of ideas, but I fail to see how such an aircraft program could make a difference.
If you remember, I covered the department of cheaper pointy things here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/12/the-future-of-the-raf-05-%E2%80%93-a-bargain-basement/
Might get around to publishing my musings on a Buccaneer II or a modern day medium bomber for persistent manned CAS and interdiction
Dear Mintcake Maker – spell check ?
Seriously, the Jaguar was an excellent airframe and it was indeed ‘trialled’ from a carrier. However as Chris B. noted, I think you have massively underestimated the production costs. As for India, I don’t know if they kept the tooling, but it’s no longer under production there either.
For a cheap carrier aircraft I previously suggested India’s Tejas. I don’t think we could sell your souped up Jag as an advanced / Lead-in-Fighter trainer because there are so many other more modern aircraft on the market such as the Golden Eagle mentioned above.
I also agree that while the F35 family may eventually be cracking aircraft, we cannot afford them as they just don’t tip the cost benefit analysis the right way for me.
I would suggest we forget the ‘cheap as chips’ carrier based CAS aircraft approach, because I don’t think we can do it that cheaply in the end.
However what I do think we should do with cat and trap carriers is focus on the niche capabilities that we can bring to NATO and ad hoc coalitions, and therefore I suggest we should go with the F18E/F/G family.
They might not be massively cheaper than the F35, but they are much more flexible, and will be cheaper to procure, and according to some stats that have been seen, might even have a cheaper through life support cost. We could piggy back on USN training and logistics etc However back to that ‘niche’ capability – electronic jamming and attack via the F18G Growler.
All Aussie F18 Super Bugs are wired to be converted to Growlers, so if the Aussies can get that level of commitment from the US, surely the “special relationship” is still special enough to get the ALQ99 and its eventual replacement. With the “Future Hornet Roadmap” kit such as conformal tanks etc, and the flexibility of having the only current carrier borne aircraft that can carry 4 underwing tanks and a buddy refueling pod, perhaps we would just have dish out the dosh for Storm Shadow, Meteor and Dual Mode Brimstone integration.
Personally I think this would be a better solution than an aircraft compromised by its “first day of the war” stealth strike capability; or trying to invent / re-invent a “cheap and cheerful” capability that won’t end up being that cheap.
As for TD’s last comment on “persistent”, well just equip the airgroup with General Atomics Sea Avenger and the production X-47 UCAV when its ready.
CAS and training were touched on already, re: fleet defence “MBDA together with its partners ELBIT (Targo Dash V HMS) and Cobham (JOWL — Jaguar Overwing Missile Launcher) provide a world beating capability for the IAF Jaguar fleet with proven reliable subsystems. With ASRAAM, MBDA will be able to provide the Indian Air Force with a missile that has the unique ability to cover close combat while offering near BVR performance as well as an integration solution featuring the lowest of potential risks.”
- source: http://geneva-globaldefence.blogspot.com/2011/01/capability-enhancement-for-indian-air.html
- straight-forward integration into a standard Goshawk, with the only purpose of relieving all the f-35s from fleet AD to do other things (plus to be able to practice carrier landings more cheaply than with the f-35, and not continue only on the “rent-a-slot” with USN, once we actually have something to land onto)
Why would you want asraam for fleet defence? You want the biggest reach possible.
I wouldn’t really want a Jaguar being used for fleet defence because if we ever have the need for fleet defence then it will not be the place I would want a ‘just good enough’ aircraft.
As I said before, fair fights are for amateurs
The thing about fleet air defence though is that CVF/JCA was never actually intended to do it, it was conceived as a strike carrier with AD being provided by coalition partners and the T45, yes it was a secondary role but it was secondary.
What’s wrong with having two types onboard?
Normally I would stick a knife in to anyone who suggested such a thing but if by going for the high end, one type does all concept, we can only afford half a dozen which will have been specced for the high end but used 99% of the time for lower spectrum missions.
My recipe, F35 as a ‘golden fleet’ for first day strike and AD when you realy need it but something cheap and plentiful for the 90% of times you just need a bomb truck
Jaguar or Buccaneer stylee, although I would ‘go large’ and bring back the medium bomber a la Buccaneer
At what cost, you’d be starting from scratch with the Buccaneer. Not sure who would take it on I don’t think bae would really be interested.
Sorry for the above, cost I meant things like political cost if you started reducing orders, no doubt there would be lots of deals made on the back of f35 orders. Starting to unravel it, even partially, would open a can of worms.
I was just responding to the angle, fleet AD, in the leading-in article that had not been commented on at all.
There is a problem though, assuming the 12 (only) on-board
- any AD would take two, up in the air
- if a threat is perceived as high, another two being turned around
- say one getting routine or acute maintenance
- leaves 7 to do the strike of a strike carrier
- assume further that the two carriers are being rotated; makes it 6bn+ for the carriers and more for the planes (to create the capability at all, takes more than what is carried onboard)
- so the available assets cost almost 2 bn apiece?
Any thoughts? (If anyone thinks of calling me part of the anti-carrier crowd, perhaps worthwhile to see what I’ve said on the topic before)
The Jaguar was a fine aircraft (and the Jaguar M would have made a fine naval aircraft had Dassault not stabbed it in the back.)
Plans to bring back classic aircraft from beyond the grave always make enthusiasts get a bit misty-eyed, but ultimately it’s a non-flyer. The RAF and FAA would raise hell about being offered an Obsolete and 40-year-old design, the Opposition and Media would make sure that that’s how the program would be painted, the export chances would be zero (if the Brazilians didn’t want Jaguars 30 years ago, why now?).
So, yeah. while there is merit in the idea, I don’t think it stands up to scrutiny, as in the end you’re risking paying almost as much money as for a Rafale M or a Super Bug for something
that’s never going to perform as well.
The Core idea, that the FAA should have something cheap enough to be deployed onto CVF in enough numbers to actually make having such large boats worthwhile is something I agree with (and to allow the precious F-35s to be used in a way that best utlises their unique features), but personally I don’t think resurrecting Jaguar is the way to go. As I mentioned in the other thread, modernised A-4s would be ideal, but the air force with the most modern Skyhawks in the world is one that there’s a more than negligible of getting into a shooting war with…
So, Just how much does a Hawk cost? and how much more for a shooty one?
Not sure what some people have been drinking/inhaling over the weekend but the title picture says it all about the current prospects of Jaguar (where are the remains of Buster Gonad now, anyone?)
I know that everyone repeats themselves on here ad nauseam but, as I posted months ago, the F-35 is a silver bullet, we should have got Gripen as a Jag replacement years ago but Super Hornet is the best available carrier-based plane now.
Nice to see TD asking why we can’t have 2 types when he shot me down last time!
PS Hawk lovers. It doesn’t have the range or the payload. We can now revisit the argument about resurrecting the A-4 if you fancy it?
Re. A-4. Blimey! It’s already started.
I disagree with the cheapo avionics. Surely the point should be to save on the airframe and at least have the option of integrating the latest electronics (and of course, the latest *software*), as that’s probably what makes the difference these days and also it’s something our industries do well? It’s not the radar that’s been the problem in any of our recent procurement horrors.
As a private venture, I think there could be potential in Super Jag (Panther? Daimler?) as a tough, lightweight, relatively STOL airframe with more puff than the original (again, improving the engines is something we should always think about as Rolls-Royce can always do it), modern flight control (surely the Typhoon and VAAC projects should have left quite a lot of reuseable content), and a modular fit of sensors as desired by the customer.
So, Just how much does a Hawk cost? and how much more for a shooty one?
Why would you want one, as a AD it’s got short legs, as a CAS it’s not really got the bombload. I agree with chris, for the price people are talking about bringing back 60′s era stuff from the scrap yard or redesigning/rebuilding from that era, you may as well buy f18.
Hi Alex,
RE “It’s not the radar that’s been the problem in any of our recent procurement horrors”
- you are right, Nimrod AWACS, for which the current value of write off was not too far off the latest Nimrod debacle, failed on the processing (for a rather good radar)
RE “improving the engines is something we should always think about as Rolls-Royce can always do it”
- India is to re-engine its Jaguars, but according to DefenceNews.com:
-”Quoting industry sources at the Aero India show, the publication said the British engine maker had decided not to respond after seeing the terms of a recently released request for proposals from the IAF.
… DefenseNews also noted that Honeywell’s stand was dominated by the F-125 engine and a model of the Indian Jaguar”
Jaguar 2 doesnt sound workable to me (shame as they made a beautiful sight flying through the weeds on the valley floors).
As we are now going cats/traps what are we going to do the training on? Just piggyback on USN Goshawk training? Do they still need all their Goshawks?
As the RAF is starting to replace the Hawk T1s maybe we should be buying Goshawks instead (ruthless commonality…). If we combined the Goshawk and Hawk 200 could we have an already developed weapons trainer which could also be surge backup for RAF CAS and the carriers?
If we need a land Jaguar 2 I would just buy Gripens (though I am biased as I think they look great and put on superb air displays). Havent the Swedes ordered way more than they really want/need – wouldnt they bite our hand off if we offered to take three squadrons worth?
In response to suggestions that Hawk’s dont have the payload for CAS…..CAS payloads seem to be pretty small – how much does the two LGBs and three Brimstones that is the Tornado’s standard fit out weigh?
From an industrial point of view, you might even say that the real purpose of this type is to provide the cheapest possible platform to go between the attachment points for RR engines, Selex radar, MBDA rockets etc.
RE ” Havent the Swedes ordered way more than they really want/need”
- they are cutting down to a number around a hundred (they cut the SAM fit from Visby-class, because they had such good fighter cover; new planning assumptions for that, too)
- if anyone has a reference book handy for the starting level?
- always good to remember Gripen/ SeaGripen/Gripen NG
@ACC Gripen numbers:
1982 planning assumptions – 400
eventual total Flygvanet procurement – 204
Thanks, makes 100 available.
All new purchaces would be NGs. Sweden has no budget,Norway has decided to stick with F-35 (good co-production deals, creating a global market for some of the weaponry), Denmark still (for what I’ve read)unsure between the two, Finland was in a hurry to jump on the F-35 bandwagon, but with all the uncertainty about price/availability, suddenly the evaluation that HAD to be started in 2015 can wait until 2020
…so, all eyes on Brazil for the next decision
With in service date disappearing off to the right, and the price soaring, surely the Norwegians must be wavering? Gripen NG for Norway, Denmark,Finland and us ( SeaGripens for flexibility?) then Sweden taking them after that as replacements – that would be a fair few units, before any exports. Could even be more than one production line.
@TD
“My recipe, F35 as a ‘golden fleet’ for first day strike and AD when you realy need it but something cheap and plentiful for the 90% of times you just need a bomb truck”
An outdated aircraft being forced to evade groundfire has no advantages over UCAVs in situational awareness, so it’s only possible advantage is gone.
My idea is to develop a tilt-rotor aircraft with roughly the size of an AW149 by 2020, to take our hi-capabilities well into the 2030s. This aircraft should provide fleet- as well as landbased AEW, ASW and ISTAR, with many other applications springing to mind. The ISTAR-version would be the successor to Sentinel, becoming the core of the UCAV-CAS-battle network, consisting of Mantis- or Taranis-derivates.
@Mintcake
“In the next 20 years or so, we are not going to be going up against super high-tech nation.”
The enemy only needs EQUIPMENT being roughly on par. China will pour out quite sophisticated equipment to many countries within the next ten years, so I highly disagree on this point.
For them, it is the easiest way to break western superiority with the effect of making their military investments pay for themselves.
To be honest the Sea Gripen makes the most sense from point of view of what role we wanted the JCA to fill, that is cheapish, rugged striker jointly operated from land and sea and able to operate in the initial stages from a carrier and move to austere (in sense of minimal support infrastructure rather than unpaved) runway to support our expeditionary forces. The F-35C is the solution to a different problem (replacement for Tornado), and I suspect that we would struggle to operate it from hastily repaired captured airfield with minimal ground crew support and with little or no protection from the elements, and given the restriction of the F-35C to 6g I fear that in WVR combat the F-35C is going to perform rather poorly against modern versions of the Mig-29 and Su-27 even with its superior sensor fusion.
However, IMO the problem with the Sea Gripen is very similar to those levelled at the Jaguar 2, that the cost assumptions are very optimistic. I think that the Sea Gripen would cost too much to develop to be worthwhile, however what other choices are there?: – The LCA N is a STOBAR design which is meant to replace Sea Harrier and HAL are banking on the new engines giving it enough thrust to get of the deck with a meaningful payload, the future of F/A-18 E/F is looking difficult and would cost the UK around 80-90% of the purchase cost of a F-35C, and this problem is also levelled at the Rafale, and while Boeing would likely be happy to allow BAE a work-share on future F/A-18 E/F’s I cannot see Dassault being as accommodating! That just leaves us kissing and making up with Russia and buying Mig-29K’s which again are STOBAR aircraft, or the equally unlikely scenario of buying Sea Typhoon’s off an India Typhoon assembly line, which is also STOBAR.
Still the idea of Jaguar 2 is nice, especially if it used all of the combat related avionics from the Hawk (including the AN/APG-66H radar to avoid unnecessary costs), and incorporated the Honeywell engines. The main issues would be the airframe strengthening and work on the new wing, on one-hand you want to move the over-wing ASRAAM pylons to the end of the wing, then you want to incorporate the wing changes that improved Jaguar’s agility when we developed a FBW demonstrator, and finally you have to incorporate the changes to improve low speed handling need to allow the Jaguar 2 to land on a carrier. Plus I have doubts over how portable the FBW software is from the demonstrator to a production aircraft, and as F-35 is demonstrating its software development that is the major cost.
Of course I could go misty eyed over other classic carrier aircraft that have retired, like the F-4 (excellent payload and good climb rate with the right engine) or as TD says the Buccaneer or the A-6, in many respects I any of the last three listed might make better bomb trucks than Jaguar M and we know exactly how they worked on a carrier, with the A-6 being the easiest to bring back as we could buy old ones and pull them apart as the basis of our development programme.
“(where are the remains of Buster Gonad now, anyone?)”
That’s the airframe that was stripped back to shiny metal and displayed in an art gallery…
Hi ChrisM,
I am side tracking a bit, but relevant as to Gripen being an available alternative in the future (or not!).
RE “With in service date disappearing off to the right, and the price soaring, surely the Norwegians must be wavering?”
The Wikileaks about the honesty of some statements made in support of JSF to Norway, in that contest, did not help either.
However, Norway is the only airforce to use the Penguin ASM on its F-16s (carrying two Penguin anti-ship missiles and four AIM-9 Sidewinders). For JSF that will be the new generation Penguin (NSM) and two AMRAAMs internally.
Covering the Norway-Svalbard gap (range!), maintaining anti-ship strike AND gaining a world-wide market (in addition to 100% industrial off-set’s)for the new missile are decision parameters unique to Norway.
How about front end of a beefed-up Hawk 128/200 airframe mated to a Boeing Skyfox type back end with two engines for carrier/CAS safety and Hawk 128/200 avionics or radar? Oh and an arrester hook, of course. A modern 25-30 mm cannon could be fitted in place of one of the now redundant side intakes, giving five weapons points.
Wow thanks for the responses and info guys. I had a feeling the cost estimates were a bit on the low side. But like I said this was a thought exercise more than anything else.
@ Jed
Yes you got the name right or you can just put TMM it makes no difference. Just a small homage to my hometown. Have they dropped mintcake from ration packs now? Anyway that’s a question for another time.
@ Tubby
I think you and I are probably thinking along the same lines when it comes to these matters. Have to agree that new Bucc’s would be great, however I think A-6’s, like you said would be cheaper plus we can always turn some into our own version of a prowler.
@All
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f35/F-35FastFacts.pdf
Interesting link I found courtesy of another forum. I always thought that the F-35c always had a combat radius of around 650nmi, apparently according to the project update its now only down to 10nmi over the F-35c. If this is true and has gone down, I’m a bit disappointed, then again it does say that we are still on for 138 of them (HA!). However could this be a cost saving area? The C variant is supposed about 20% more expensive than the A. Let’s be honest how may first day of war strikes will we have todo (at least by ourselves) with a/c and of them how many would the only option be sea based? Could we not buy the A version for the RAF (it even has a gun in it) and use the savings either to purchase something cheaper for the carriers or fund TD’s new Bucc idea?
For those of you that have suggested the F/A-18 E/F/G family, I fully agree with you and think it would have been a great solution for us. However there is the cost issue (then again, a saving is a saving) and the fact that either Boeing/USN would have to slow down the final production run, somebody else would have to buy some or we would have to stump up cash early to start buying them before the production line closed.
The French offering, well we do have a new shiny bit of paper signed with them, although the Rafale M is a bit on the expensive side and the French are unlikely to lower the price for us. Also it doesn’t have any industrial benefit for the UK, although it is cleared for many of the weapons we already use.
This then just leaves us with 2 aircraft, like tubby said, that are cheap(ish) and could fulfil the desired roles. The Tejas N or Sea Gripen, both have merits and both have down falls. They could both be fitted with an EJ2000 engine and both carry roughly the same payload and have the same range.
Gripen
- Has 1 more hardpoint
- Has avionics and weapons we already use
- Empire test school uses them
- Same range as the tejas
- Slightly faster
- Would need undercarriage modifications to operate from carrier
HAL Tejas
- Already has a navalised frame
- Slightly cheaper than the Gripen
- Waiting on more powerful engines for naval version
- Would need avionics overhaul and British weapons integration
- Might sweeten the eurofighter deal/but at the same time upset the French
My personal favourite is the SeaGripen, apparently after the last round of tests the Brazilians said it came out on top, so maybe we could get the Brazilians onboard with SeaGripen. What do you guys think?
Have 12 permanently onboard the active carrier with an 8 plane squadron of A-6’s (A couple of them could be converted into prowlers) should give us all the strike and defensive assets needed in a punitive operation and we could easily surge to provide a critical mass.
Sorry for the long is reply
With the new mini SDR, what makes you think we’ll have any carriers to fly aircraft from?
Nice idea, though.
Cant help thinking that about 25 F18 C/D’s (c’mon, there got to be some USN reserve planes sitting in a field in Nevada) with upgraded avionics and engines plus a similar number or Hawk 200′s with Goshawk Airframes would produce a very effective budget FAA/Joint Strike fleet.
Nobody seems to have considered the minor issue of training pilots to do catshots and arrestor landings so we will need something like an Anglo T45 clone anyway.
Add in some Navalised Taranis UAVs with radars and secure datalinks and torpedoes and you have fleet Awacs/Subhunters…if you fit a Taranis with some drop-tanks and Air to Air refueling hoses and you can add some essential combat range to the Hawks.
Embark about 8-10F18′s and 5-6 Hawk 200N’s plus 5 Taranis and you’d have quite a good Airwing on the carrier.
Or just do things properly and build a Typhhoon N from the Tranche 1 fleet in about 2016 and cascade the thrust vectoring across the rest as and when they come up for refit.
TMM
That was a gd piece you clearly have a interest in engineering which is rare these days.
I know you’ve called this jaguar 2 but with changing engines new large control surfaces and some composites this is as close to old jaguar as the Nimrod mr4 was to the mr2 its in effect a new plane. As others have mentioned on your cost they are on the low side at a guess you could double your R&D to 5b.
I know you promote the national industrial workload a lot but remember the UK will build around 15-20% of a projected 3000 F35s that is a lot of money far more than 150 new a/c and the UK turned down the offer of a final production line this shows were its priorities lie IMHO. All the non recurring cost are small beer when it comes to large scale production runs.
While changing the tail to a twin tail may help RCS it was not the primary design driver in the US teen series a/c. The US got caught out on the crusader (I think) with insufficient lateral stability caused by a small vertical tail fin. This was partially corrected with installation of ventral fins but US fighter design has always gone conservative since hence the twin tails for comparison look at the size of the tornado’s vertical fin side on.
If this is to be a training a/c then the thru life costs have to be very cheap. Than means a single engine it cuts the most expensive single item in half also I wouldnt have any composites its can be expensive and troublesome to maintain.
The problem is we need a carrier a/c and that means it needs range it is the single biggest asset for carrier a/c. That means for the UK its F35 there is NO alternative. F18 may have been a option 10-15 years ago not now. India did not select it and no else will likely purchase it and even if brazil do it wont be in significant numbers so production will stop in 2014 boeing needs to produce about 28 per year to maintain current prices(similar to typhoon). Rafale will cost as much as an F35 (F35C will cost more than F35A but I dont think it will be as high as 20% more like 10-15%) and rafale would take years to get in sufficient numbers. UK will procure F35 between about 2016/7 and 2023.
As for UCAVs the MOD doesnt plan to field a proper UCAV untill 2030 even the US doesnt plan to field one until 2020′s at the earliest and theres still significant challenges to overcome they will not be cheap.
Why not just take the bullet and go for more typhoons or Gripens, Europe can and will do good deals, such as technology transfer, building rights etc etc. We if we are in a big war, America could use its F35 or F22 to do the stealth jobs, we could modify a frigate or destroyer to launch tons of tomahawks or similar. Then we can come along and mop up, risky losses, but we can’t afford anything else.
I really hope we ditch F35 and go for something that might be a bodge, but it will be a cheap bodge or at least cheap and we can do what the f’ we want with (Is Israel allowed to install any of its gear on F35 yet?). I’m happy to live without top top top spec aircraft. Like most things, give it time to mature and the last 10 years of it life could work wonders. *cough* tornado.
Who cares about BAE at the moment, they’ve got more employees in America than the UK. Ditching F35 might cost, but at least it smacks a few faces into line. If the RAF doesn’t want anything else than F35, tough luck or get out of the service. We’ve gone past that, we don’t want any more bigger gaps and burdens. I’m sure the pilots will be quite happy to retrain to fly another aircraft either way.
BAE built a larger, carbon fibre wing for the Jaguar in the 1980s. Enhanced agility & extra fuel without a weight penalty. Sadly, not ordered.
I look at the Hawk & think that the supersonic laminar flow wing on the Aerion supersonic business jet, would bring the Hawk up to date. Not Mach 2, but perhaps supercruise at Mach 1.1. Good enough for most CAS.
Second hand Gripens, (over 100 A models available) would be a cheap way of boosting RAF numbers.
However, yet more defence cuts announced today, means Britain no longer has working defences.
John – ref composite wing for Jag – are you sure ? Got any links ? I have just never heard that one before. There is plenty of info the BAe “big wing” design for the Harrier (metal though, not composite).
Mark – I have to heartily disagree ref F18 – actually we should start procurement now, to allow for continuity and training, so I don’t see the potential “end of production” date as an issue. Apart from that, I would not be surprised to see additional aircraft for USN stretching that date further out.
Jed
Were do we get the 2.5b dollars over the next 3 years to buy 24 a/c. Not only that also consider the implications on the air tanker contract for purchasing an aircraft with a 40% reduction in range. Boeing have stated clearly that is the end date unless an overseas customer comes in. The US carrier fleet is due to shrink in the coming years and even the US defence budget is to reduce. This road was sealed a decade ago.
Does anyone else see vague similarities between now and the interwar years where the navy bought the carriers but the aircraft were bought by the RAF. I am sure the Navy would be happy with F-18E/F or another platform cheaper to the F-35 if it got the numbers but the RAF is set squarely on the F-35.
As for the Jaguar 2, I would like the RAF to buy it let alone the RN. The engines would be the big issue as the Mk106 didn’t cut it but there are options available. The other key issue has always been the numberr of hardpoints. After you ass ECM and Counter measure pods plus 1 or 2 fuel tanks you are left with 1 or 2 hardpoints. You would be looking at 2 Paveway IV under the wings or 6 Brimstone under the fuselage and even then needing a buddy with a Laser Designator (LD). It needs a bigger wing with at least 2 more hardpoints, and an internal LD, possibly in the nose which rules out radar for the RN.
If I was going to reserect an old platform I would base it on the F-4, using modification in engines etc from what the Germans and Isrealis did. It would have to be based on the F-4S but if you want to give it a Gun POd how about one onthe centerline with a GAU-8 in it. With the confomal fuel tanks, advanced radar, AMRAAM, Meteor, ASRAAM, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Harpoon, the list goes on you have a versatile platform with a multitude of capablities. Just dreamin.
The RAF has not had a genuince CAS aircraft since 1918. That tells you all you need to know about the RAF.