Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Ron5]

Wasn't the whole idea of "Workshare" that nations could become partners and gain work by being responsible for certain systems on the platform by investing a set amount in the F-35 programme. Which partner is responsible for the platforms software? However if individual nations want bespoke kit included on the platform they should obviously bear the cost burden.

In a word: no.

[Timmymagic]

The marquee set up on the flight deck seems to be a regular occurrence. I hope the RN has bought some rather than hiring them given how often they've been up....

Is this related to the coating of the deck?

What else would need protection from the elements in that position on such a regular basis? It would make sense to store contractor eqpt on deck to a degree, but there's a pretty empty hangar below...any ideas?

[serge750]

if Japan and Australia were to buy some F-35bs

Isn't the order from Japan in, already?

Do you mean the order for selling the POW to japan ?

I wouldn't mind a carrier squadron made up of various NATO partners if it helps keep both up & running, the Albion/Bulwark rotation hasn't worked out as a cheap alternative from what i gather...

Would actually be good to see so many nations co-operating on a single deck, even 4 or 5 from each nation

[Lord Jim]

Wasn't the whole idea of "Workshare" that nations could become partners and gain work by being responsible for certain systems on the platform by investing a set amount in the F-35 programme. Which partner is responsible for the platforms software? However if individual nations want bespoke kit included on the platform they should obviously bear the cost burden.

In a word: no.

So how does it work? I see no problem in paying for an update to be installed but surely the US is responsible for developing the update as they are responsible for the software. There are times I feel the F-35 is a bottomless pit financially, with the participants locked in because they have already invested so much and have little alternative but to continue to cough up large sums. I assume there is no possibility of the US passing more of the programme costs onto its partners than it should or has been agreed in the respective partnership agreements.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I assume there is no possibility of the US passing more of the programme costs onto its partners

Wrong assumption; see upthread, where Ron called the police on me

expected to pay into Block4 "surcharge"

which for Britain is a mere third of a $bn. - Well short of the 'bits' that our Joint Command has estimated will need to be added (as they were not ordered upfront... as they could not be ordered... as the overcooked spaghetti took a good while to unentangle on the software side) to make the JSFs fully effective in their 'joint' role
And: when you sell customers something that they have already bought once, you need to give it a new name, so those who want Block4 (and they do, because you can't operate something that is not supported, at least not for very long... may be Israel can, quite a cunning move to insist on the programme interfaces being opened; but just for them )

so, Block4 is now known as Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2)
- and the prgrm mgt for the software side of things were separated from LM (the JPO never tried to micromanage that side - a good move, as the key individuals name and reputation is still intact)

[Timmymagic]

I think you are incorrect. If Italy wants meteor on its F-35B's, all it has to do is buy the missiles & missile support. I do not think there is an additional fee for the aircraft.

I think this is the case as well. There's a hell of a lot of incentive for nations to pay for their weapons integration, as given the comparatively few weapons integrated to date, successful integration practically guarantees adoption by other F-35 users. The US, obviously, has a massive advantage in this in that AIM-9X, AIM-120, Paveway, JDAM and SDB are integrated (and to be fair, a lot of F-35 buyers already use). The Norwegians make a big deal about JSM integration and the Turks were certainly going that way with their SOM cruise missile (I think we can put that on hold now, unlikely any other F-35 users would buy a Turkish missile even if they ever integrate it). The failure to do so can be seen in the Norwegians having to buy AIM-9X rather than continuing to use their superior IRIS-T. It will be interesting to see what the Australians do with their Asraam. Reportedly they are very happy with it and the F/EA-18's aren't going to have it. They have ordered 9X but I can't work out if that is to equip the Super Hornets or to also equip F-35.

Not sure if this will mean anything for the UK though. Asraam is unlikely to get more users from F-35, even in its CSP form, Meteor sales seems to be a little more hopeful but F-35 users seem to be wedded to Amraam (that may change once Meteor is integrated), Paveway IV similarly is up against Paveway and SDB existing users. Spear may be the best bet, but even then a lot will depend on how much earlier SDBII arrives. The only other weapons I can see the UK ever integrating would be the MBDA Smartglider series (SDB and JSOW competitors, therefore not likely to sell to F-35 users) and a possible CAMM/Brimstone hybrid if only for ease of integration on the outer wing station. Apart from that the only smart move for the UK would be to integrate the MBDA hexabomb launcher on the inner wing pylon for non-stealthy launch of Spear and Brimstone.

[SW1]

The aircraft cost each nation needs to pay is of course that it must actually upgrade the aircraft it owns to latest block standard both hardware and software wise. Mustnt fall behind and miss a few upgrades due to raiding support budgets to buy new things can we think of any other in that situation........

The Aussies are keen on meteor so we could see a deal developing.

The American have the 1st and last call on what’s integrated in each block upgrade, it will suit American military and armaments company’s first and sell whatever time is left in the development of any block upgrade to those that are willing to pay the highest price to integrate there weapon of choice. The alternative of course is you just have to buy American.

[ArmChairCivvy]

unlikely any other F-35 users would buy a Turkish missile even if they ever integrate it). The failure to do so can be seen in the Norwegians having to buy AIM-9X rather than continuing to use their superior IRIS-T.

Agree about Turkey ( a national prestige project), but having said that they mated Korean control systems into their tank... to make it a very good one
- may be similar 'marriages' can be made to happen in other categories?

Norway being practical - as ever - used their IRIS-Ts to get a mobile GBAD system for "half price"
- of course they could only do it as they had already integrated all the bits required for AMRAAM in a similar use (but not mobile; any further than 'droppable' off the back of a low-loader)

The Aussies are keen on meteor so we could see a deal developing.

- they have factor in the Chinese air-breathing 'Meteor' with its range; even the latest AMRAAM might "fall short" in that respect

suit American military and armaments company’s first and sell whatever time is left in the development of any block upgrade to those that are willing to pay the highest price to integrate there weapon of choice. The alternative of course is you just have to buy American.

- call Elliot Ness; the racket needs to be broken down

[Lord Jim]

If we ever do a joint project with the US again we will need to endure that the kit we want integrated down the line is already agreed up front when any partnership deal is signed, along with a firm timetable.

Whilst the F-35 will evolve into a first rate platform, the US must be laughing at all the partners who paid cash up front for workshare but are now locked into a programme and are purchasing a platform that is financially open ended to be polite. It does make it seem that our decision to purchase the platform slowly could actually pay off as the bulk of ours should be at a near fully operational standard.

[SW1]

If we ever do a joint project with the US again we will need to endure that the kit we want integrated down the line is already agreed up front when any partnership deal is signed, along with a firm timetable.

Whilst the F-35 will evolve into a first rate platform, the US must be laughing at all the partners who paid cash up front for workshare but are now locked into a programme and are purchasing a platform that is financially open ended to be polite. It does make it seem that our decision to purchase the platform slowly could actually pay off as the bulk of ours should be at a near fully operational standard.

Almost impossible to achieve because you may not have developed the weapon you want integrated when the contract is initially signed. You also run into another issue like we have with meteor we will have 2 versions an ITAR free one for typhoon and very not ITAR free one for f35.

In the end he who puts the most money in calls the shots and the Americans do. Of course like with all US a/c they tend to offer initial the a/c at a really good price sometimes even at a loss to what they make it for but they recoupe the difference and then some by charging quite a lot for support when your already to far in.

[ArmChairCivvy]

like with all US a/c they tend to offer initial the a/c at a really good price

Haven't kept up with all the detail, but is the engine swap wrapped into one of the Bloc4 four steps? Or still pending decision? Undoubtedly a big step forward, but how many JSF will we have taken delivery of by then, needing the swap, and where will it put the unit price of those planes on the continuum from £100 mln to 200?
- 12 x 200 mln = what each carrier was going to cost, in the first place
- so who wants 2 sqdrns at sea, and who 4 (simultaneously)? Or would it be good enough to have the two ships rotating thru readiness (and roles?) to have one at any point in time?

All we really know is that £9+ bn should be enough to take delivery of 48 and operate them for the first ten years, counting from when? Each a/c on average (distribution of deliveries?) for abt 5 yrs?
- now the bravest of the brave will come up with the whole-of-life cost for a fleet of 138

[SW1]

like with all US a/c they tend to offer initial the a/c at a really good price

Haven't kept up with all the detail, but is the engine swap wrapped into one of the Bloc4 four steps? Or still pending decision? Undoubtedly a big step forward, but how many JSF will we have taken delivery of by then, needing the swap, and where will it put the unit price of those planes on the continuum from £150 mln to 200?
- 12 x 200 mln = what each carrier was going to cost, in the first place
- so who wants 2 sqdrns at sea, and who 4 (simultaneously)? Or would it be good enough to have the two ships rotating thru readiness (and roles?) to have one at any point in time?

All we really know is that £9+ bn should be enough to take delivery of 48 and operate them for the first ten years, counting from when? Each a/c on average (distribution of deliveries?) for abt 5 yrs?
- now the braves of the brave will come up with the whole-of-life cost for a fleet of 138

Not sure when the engine upgrade is due but it and structural mods I would think is likely to be a separate bill, because who pays what for that maybe more harder to fully decide between customer and vendor.

Given the delivery timings it may well be we receive all our 48a/c without the block 4 upgrade not sure when it’s due tobe standard fit at factory delivery. I believe the 9b+ figure is for us acquiring the 48 a/c and support thru to FOC only. Upgrades and future support costs TBD.

[ArmChairCivvy]

acquiring the 48 a/c and support thru to FOC only

Interesting. Now that the NAO report appendix on major projects does not come with the spreadsheet appendix anymore, it becomes blurred which steps are covered by the sums quoted: initial gate, Main Gate, IOC. FOC. Completion (the time of) of contracted deliveries... they all used to be there
- of course, this 'mushing up' of the information has been done by design
- how they got the NAO to go along with it is anybody's guess (more timely release to Defence Committee members when the extra round of agreeing all facts if not findings/ remedies - that now can be "done at leisure"?)

[seaspear]

What is known of the actual costs by the U.K in the design and development program of the F35

[SW1]

acquiring the 48 a/c and support thru to FOC only

Interesting. Now that the NAO report appendix on major projects does not come with the spreadsheet appendix anymore, it becomes blurred which steps are covered by the sums quoted: initial gate, Main Gate, IOC. FOC. Completion (the time of) of contracted deliveries... they all used to be there
- of course, this 'mushing up' of the information has been done by design
- how they got the NAO to go along with it is anybody's guess (more timely release to Defence Committee members when the extra round of agreeing all facts if not findings/ remedies - that now can be "done at leisure"?)

Yes it become almost a pointless exercise trying to,work out what’s what for anyone interested, much like it is with f35 the general/public debate is so polarised it’s generally best to ignore it as best you can.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Luckily in the US they still are under the obligation to account for cost of acquisition (only) every year, and to help the reader it is done in constant dollars (for F-35 in 2012 dollars)
- so with the next nose dive of our £ these figures will not need a currency conversion, as
$100 in 2012 → $109.63 in 2019

Now, I would have hated to become an accountant, but I can (only just) use a calculator. Taking the SAR report numbers and the confirmed quantities (the fact that we only have B's... someone else can do that one ):
planes $ 138m (please note, prgrm costs, not unit costs or for the marginal - ie. cheapest - unit off the production line
engines $26 m (no one knows how much the newer & better will cost, but it will physically slot into the same dimensions)
the Block4 estimate ($ 16 bn) that has not been allocated into the prgrm total yet
=$ 6.5 mln per a/c (only!) and software is delivered "free" with the plane, so this will merge into the top-most number

So average $ 170 mln, and should the £ not nose dive too much the FX will be better than the £ fetching 1.09 $ and the difference will pay for our de luxe "B" version "premium"
- worth remembering that at the time these decision were taken a £ fetched 1.5 greenbacks, but we are not going to be paying out of dollar loans raised in 2012 but out of taxes collected from here onwards

Sustainment? Whole-of-life costs... errr, I am afraid the calculator does not have that function programmed

[Timmymagic]

You also run into another issue like we have with meteor we will have 2 versions an ITAR free one for typhoon and very not ITAR free one for f35.

Not sure I understand this. There is only 1 version of Meteor. All are ITAR free. The only difference between Meteor on Typhoon and F-35 is a different set of fins. Nothing else. MBDA have already confirmed this. And those fins are not made in the US. ITAR only applies if there is US content, nothing in any Meteor version includes US parts.

[SW1]

You also run into another issue like we have with meteor we will have 2 versions an ITAR free one for typhoon and very not ITAR free one for f35.

Not sure I understand this. There is only 1 version of Meteor. All are ITAR free. The only difference between Meteor on Typhoon and F-35 is a different set of fins. Nothing else. MBDA have already confirmed this. And those fins are not made in the US. ITAR only applies if there is US content, nothing in any Meteor version includes US parts.

The can place ITAR restrictions on form factor as well as content. And anything that talks to f35 will be subject to restrictions of some kind.

[Lord Jim]

But that is a thin line. To block an export deal because something is used on the F-35 even if it has no US content would be a recipe for a serious bust up between supposed allies. Then again I cannot think of many possible countries that the US would object to, to such an extent unless a equivalent version of the AMRAAM with similar capabilities to Meteor is developed and is in direct competition.

[SW1]

But that is a thin line. To block an export deal because something is used on the F-35 even if it has no US content would be a recipe for a serious bust up between supposed allies. Then again I cannot think of many possible countries that the US would object to, to such an extent unless a equivalent version of the AMRAAM with similar capabilities to Meteor is developed and is in direct competition.

Much like blocking the sale of paveway IV to Saudi.....

[Timmymagic]

The can place ITAR restrictions on form factor as well as content.

That won't work with Meteor. The clipped fins are only required for F-35, and are a field modification, all other aircraft will use the standard fins. Hence no US restrictions.

[Lord Jim]

Much like blocking the sale of paveway IV to Saudi.....

But that is a UK specific development of a US weapon systems and involves US sourced components.

[ArmChairCivvy]

But that is a thin line. To block an export deal because something is used on the F-35 even if it has no US content

Israel retired 40 of its older F-16s and a dozen were bound for Croatia, but all kinds of things can happen:
"The United States is blocking Israel’s sale of aging F-16 fighter jets to Croatia, a member of the American-led NATO security alliance, Channel 10 news reported Thursday.

The deal, which was announced earlier this year, would see Israel sell a dozen US-manufactured F-16s from its fleet to Croatia for $500 million.

Greece, South Korea, Sweden, and the US also submitted bids for the Croatian tender to supply military jets to replace its outdated Russian-made MiG-21s.

Quoting unnamed Israeli officials, Channel 10 news [in Israel] reported the Trump administration was angry Israel added advanced Israeli-made electronic systems to the F-16s as part of efforts to convince Croatia to buy the planes."

[SW1]

The can place ITAR restrictions on form factor as well as content.

That won't work with Meteor. The clipped fins are only required for F-35, and are a field modification, all other aircraft will use the standard fins. Hence no US restrictions.

That’s my point there a missile for typhoon and there a missile that requires a “role change kit” for use on f35.

[SW1]

Much like blocking the sale of paveway IV to Saudi.....

But that is a UK specific development of a US weapon systems and involves US sourced components.

Ino slightly different but given what they sell to Saudi it make you wonder.