Print 23 comment(s) - last by ScottWilliam.. on Jun 1 at 12:52 AM

Conversion costs to modify carrier for the F-35C soared

The British government has changed its mind again on some of the F-35 Lightning II fighter jets that it intends to purchase. Unlike Canada, the British aren't considering delaying orders or reducing the number of jets they ordered this time around. Rather, the British government is now announcing that it will switch back to the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing version of the fighter rather than the F-35C carrier-based version.
The F-35B STOVL fighter was originally the version that the British intended to purchase, but delays and fears of the program being canceled after the U.S. put the B variant on probation led to the British deciding to use the F-35C instead. Recent improvements to the program have led to the fighter being removed from probation, and its future is looking better.
According to British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond, the plan to purchase the carrier-based F-35 versions was killed due to what he calls an unacceptable cost. Delays in the plan to convert the carrier to handle the F-35C had also mounted. According to Hammond, an estimate to convert one British carrier had doubled from the original $1.6 billion to an amount roughly twice that. One British defense official blames the U.S. for that cost increase.
According to the unnamed official, the United States had insisted that the UK purchase the required Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System or EMALS directly through a government-to-government foreign military sales (FMS) deal rather than allowing the British to purchase directly from the manufacturer. That requirement allegedly added about 150M pounds or about 7% to the cost of obtaining the EMALS system.

The British government expects flight testing for the F-35B to begin in 2018 while initial operational capability will commence in 2020. 

Source: DefenseNews

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: navalised typhoon
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2012 12:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
im really really getting pissed off with the pork barrelled monstrosity that the f35 has become. the uk has pitched for 5% of f35 development costs.

You're pissed? How do you think WE feel? Your investment so far has been peanuts by comparison.

the money we save on f35's will pay for catapaults on the carriers and more typhoons.

Now this is irony. The Eurofighter consortium and the Typhoon, as I understand it, was once the target of extremely hostile coverage in the Europe and Australian press. From what I can gather, it was at least as controversial as the F-35 is today because it was certainly not a cheap fighter to bring to the market in it's own right.

"We here on the Reg defence desk have always had a low opinion of the cripplingly expensive, marginally useful fighter: but even we were amazed by the new facts and figures. The Eurofighter, almost unbelievably, is turning out to be even worse value for money than we had thought."

The Typhoon is capable, although the wisdom of continued use of high performance conventional fighters in a period where stealth has hit mass production could be seriously questioned.

RE: navalised typhoon
By Amiga500 on 5/14/2012 1:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
The Typhoon is capable

Nah, not for the money its not.

The Dassault Rafale can do everything the Typhoon can do just as well (within a very small degree of performance differentiation) and it can do a whole lot more besides.

A cost:benefit analysis will show the Saab Gripen and Dassault Rafale are streets ahead of Eurofighter.

RE: navalised typhoon
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2012 1:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well I used "capable" as in not to be too insulting, but not overly-glowing in the same sense. Sort of average/mediocre. I guess I could of used "okay" instead, though not as eloquent.

My only problem, well not problem but input, on going with the Rafale is that it's RCS is much higher than the Typhoon while also having much less maneuverability. It's power to weight ration also seems a bit on the low side for a Gen 4.5 fighter.

That and I'm hugely biased toward American fighter aircraft. Those French and British birds...bah! BAH I say. :)

RE: navalised typhoon
By Amiga500 on 5/14/2012 2:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
My only problem, well not problem but input, on going with the Rafale is that it's RCS is much higher than the Typhoon while also having much less maneuverability. It's power to weight ration also seems a bit on the low side for a Gen 4.5 fighter.

You've been horribly misled.

The Rafale has easily the lowest RCS of any in-service fighter bar the F-22.

P:W isn't great, but I believe there is an M88 upgrade on the way to help with that (unless they traded it off for overhaul cycle times). Besides, (from non published accounts) Rafale has beaten Typhoon in a number of fly-offs in the A2A categories.

RE: navalised typhoon
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2012 3:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, did I miss a Rafale update where they added some RAM composites? I admit I don't sit and research exotic fighters like the Rafale much. But the most recent data I could find suggests:

Typhoon RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2
Rafale RCS = 0.1~0.3 m2

That was back in 2005. If they've improved the Rafale with more ARM composites and coatings since then, I wasn't aware of it. Certainly didn't mean to post FUD on the Rafale.

The Rafale has easily the lowest RCS of any in-service fighter bar the F-22.

lol that's exactly what Eurofighter says about the Typhoon! Damnit I'm gonna have to dig into this now and satisfy my own curiosity.

But again, since both fighters have no internal stores the RCS of either in actual combat trim would be 10 or 20 times those numbers. Which goes back to my point about pushing 4'th gen fighter designs in the age of stealth might be unwise.

RE: navalised typhoon
By Amiga500 on 5/15/2012 2:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
In the original Rafale design phase, Dassault developed a semi-stealthy variant of the Rafale, the Rafale D (Discret/discrete). This D model became the baseline for the B, C and M.

If you take a close look at some features, such as the serpentine engine ducts which mostly hide the engine face, or the serrated edges on the wing sub-structure under the skin at the wing trailing edge (you can actually see it in the skin) - it becomes apparent Dassault have paid more than mere lip service to throwing on RAM.

There has been much talk of the Rafale's SPECTRA system, including abilities to damp out hostile radar waves. Supposedly somewhat analogous to active cancellation.

RE: navalised typhoon
By Iaiken on 5/14/2012 2:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
Basically, look at it this way...

The CF-18 is an old plane with modern load-out, avionics and targeting equipment. In Libya, just 6 CF-18's carried out 946 ground sorties and 120 defensive counter-air escorts for 1066 total. The 10 Typhoons and 16 Tornados of the RAF flew only 2,007 sorties between them with the Tornadoes racking up 1523 of those leaving a paltry 484 for the Typhoons. The CF-18's dropped a total of 696 JDAMs with ~89% success and the RAF dropped a total 884 Paveway II's with ~74% success.

Either the RCAF was punching WAY above it's weight, or the RAF was punching way below it's...

RE: navalised typhoon
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2012 3:37:35 PM , Rating: 2

But are you trying to sell me that the F-18C is superior to the Typhoon? You're preaching to the choir friend :)

Too bad the F-18 just doesn't have the Typhoon's looks! hehe. That's the only area where it loses to it imo lol

RE: navalised typhoon
By Iaiken on 5/14/2012 5:17:39 PM , Rating: 2

This should make you laugh...

All of our official documentation for the fighters still read CF-188A or CF-188B because it was going to cost $477,000 to re-print it all with CF-188C or CF-188D. Instead they printed documentation for just the new/changed systems as errata for a cool $61,000. Every time I see documentation costs from the military, my mind is blown.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki