Please decrypt this jargon

[FrankR]

Can anyone explain the following:

1. What is the distinction between 'Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA)' and the 'Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)'?

2. What does the word 'Organic' refer to in the term 'Future Organic Airborne Early Warning (FOAEW)' aircraft?

I came across these terms on the RN Fleet Air Arm web pages.

[goffer]

1. FJCA is the MOD's requirement for the new aircraft, JSF is the actual name of the aircraft project that meets this requirement.

2. As for the word "organic" I had a look on dictionary.com and found part of the description to be :

"Constituting an integral part of a whole; fundamental"

So I presume the word organic in FOAEW refers to the fact that the new aircraft is an integral part of a carriers air arm.

Just sounds like a new buzz word to me.

[rabby]

It means instead of proper radar we tie a dolphin to the aircraft and use that, its probably cheaper that way.

[tn201]

The name FJCA came about because the RAF and RN are due to get the same aircraft to replace Harrier GR9/FA-2. They will be joint crewed and both services will receive the same variant i.e. STOVL.

You may also see the JSF or FJCA referred to as the F-35. This is the preferred aircraft as we are due to get two new larger carriers which will be configured to operate STOVL jets.

Organic in these terms means that the fleet has its own embarked airborne early warning (AEW) and control aircraft rather than relying on an aircraft which oeprates from the land such as the E-3D. We used to have an organic capability with the old Gannet on our last proper aircraft carriers. Sea King is ok but lacks range and speed. The type of aircraft bought will probably be a Merlin with a radar strapped on the bottom as with the current Sea King ASAC or a V-22 tiltrotor aircraft.

If we get a conventional carrier (doubtful) we will probably get E-2 Hawkeye 2000 like the Yanks and frenchies.

[Mr Grimsdale]

If we get a conventional carrier (doubtful) we will probably get E-2 Hawkeye 2000 like the Yanks and frenchies.

...and if we don't there's not much point in giving the RN the JSF/FJCA/blah blah blah.

[Aldo]

Ofcourse there is. We could get the V-22 Osprey fitted out with a AEW equipment, or we could be using a UAV. There's also the possibility of having E-2 because the government want's a carrier that can be used for conventional take of aircraft if needed, meaning it could have an angled deck which could allow Hawkeyes to operate.

PS I'm pretty sure the FOAEW has been replaced by the MASC programme. (Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control)

[Mr Grimsdale]

I meant if we don't get the carriers there's not much point in the RN getting the JSF.

[goffer]

With names like HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales I think we will be getting the carriers.

Mr Grimsdale I think you are mis-understanding TN201's post, there is a difference between conventional carriers (that is carriers that can operate non-stovl aircraft) and non-conventional carriers (carriers with ski jumps etc, specifically designed for stovl aircraft I.e. Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal).

[harry hackedoff]

Then again, there`s FCWWFIP

Future Carriers What Won`t Fit In Pompey

I thought "Joint" meant the project was a joint developement between UK and Elmer, btw. We should`ve designed a Super Harrier imho,

Aye,

[Aldo]

Ever heard of the Stealth Trimaran Aircraft Carrier (STAC)? Quite a peace of equipment. It was going to have a displacement of 40,000 tonnes, only double that of the Invincibles but would carry the same air group as the current 60,000 tonne CVF design, would travel at 40 knots which is 10 knots faster than the fastest carrier in the world, would have had the radar signiture of a fishing trawler, would have been nearly invulnerable to anti ship missiles and torpedos and would have been very cost effective. The MoD wouldn't go for it because it was in there words "a bit too risky"! They don't know what they're doing.

[rabby]

Aldo, would you go for it?? How much do you think one would cost? 20 billion? 30 billion? If I was Mr MoD himself I would probably bin it straight off, although it looks a very good design and is highly capable it wouldn't be worth it. If it was worth it the Yanks will probably built it soon anyway....

[Aldo]

Actually it was to be very cost effective and cost little more than they're asking for the current CVFs. That's because it will be exactly the same technology wise as the carriers already planned so that wouldn't be any problem, and the actually Trimaran design would benefit heavily from the RV Triton that's being used to test the Trimaran design for our next class of war ship. The development costs to figure out the exact needs of the two out riggers wouldn't really be creating any cost above the two already planned because a Trimaran would only displace 40,000 tonnes as apposed to 60,000 so the cost of the design would be made up in the fewer materials needed. The real benefit comes from threw life costs, the Trimaran design is much cheaper to run and maintain because it needs a much smaller engine to propel it to the same speeds as conventional carriers. At 4 billion (same as the two CVFs) the MoD could have got a much more efficient and survivable carrier with a fraction of the threw life costs of what they're getting. Plus since it's such a revolutionary design the MoD could have got the company who designed it to pay for some part of the R&D as they did with vosperthorny croft and the RV Triton. So yes I think I would have gone with it.

[harry hackedoff]

There was a discussion project some years ago about a stealthy carrier group. All of it`s surface assets were to be semi-submersible, the carrier would rise till it`s deck was above the water to fly off the jets and the anti-air destroyers could fire missiles from the semi-submerged condition. I wonder where any of that went and if it made it as far as the drawing board?

[Aldo]

Don't suppose you know who proposed it do you Harry?