So remember a few weeks ago when news emerged that Britain was looking at backtracking on its plans to buy the F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter for its new carriers that are set to be equipped with new electromagnetic catapults and next generation arrestor gear? You know, the Royal Navy might go back to ordering the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B and build its carriers without cats and traps due in order to save money.
Well, the U.S. Navy — who is spearheading development on the new catapults, known as EMALS for its Ford class aircraft carriers — has assured London that it will cost way less than the Biritish bean counters think it will to equip the Royal Navy’s new carriers with cats and traps. The best part, if the effort to develop the EMALS falters, the U.S. will foot the bill, not the Brits. Let’s hope the system keeps doing well.
From the UK’s Telegraph newspaper:
Converting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter will require significantly less than the £2 billion quoted by officials, the assistant secretary of the US Navy, Sean J Stackley, insisted.
In a letter seen by The Daily Telegraph, he told Peter Luff, the defence procurement minister, that the necessary equipment would cost £458 million before installation. Defence experts estimate the installation cost at £400 million.
The letter was sent to Mr Luff before the Prime Minister met Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, at an emergency meeting about the carrier on Monday.
The carrier project has been overshadowed by cost and technical issues. In the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010, which scrapped Harrier jump jets, the Coalition opted for a conventional take-off and landing model of the new, American-built fighter instead of a jump-jet variant.
But ministers were on the point of changing their minds after MoD officials forecast that the cost of adapting a carrier to use the conventional planes would rise from £500 million to £1.8 billion.
Following the intervention by the US Navy, David Cameron has ordered a Treasury-led re-examination of the project.
The Major Project Review Group will submit a report on April 16 which it is understood will be considered by the National Security Council the next day.
Click here to read more about the UK’s carrier dilemma and the potentia impact of switching from the C-model to the short take-off and vertical landing B-model JSF.
{ 94 comments… read them below or add one }
Maybe the Brits should've stuck with steam cats. Expensive yes, but two big carriers is a sunk investment. Use it or lose it.
Once the bugs are sorted out (and generally the program is moving along), EMALS should be cheaper to operate and free up a lot of space.
The Brits still dream of a first rate navy / military when their financial strength is worse than third rate.
I'm so disappointed. I was waiting for a comment on the failures and predicaments of the F-35 and doomstay of the United States in general. Instead, you told us how poor the Brits have become.
You failed to enlighten us with your grand expert knowledge on aerospace engineering and general know-it-all attitude… What happened, oh smart one?
lol
LOL. you aren't yet so stupid as not being able to find my previous posts and re-read them a few thousand times, are ya?
Utterly meaningless statement, UK is the 4th biggest military spender in the world and amongst the highest GDP per capita. Children dream of a 'first rate' military, adult politicians want them for complex reasons, in Britain it is partly due to a desire to support the US, a country that has protected the western world for half a century and partly in order to act independently from it should the need require it. Britain is still the only country other than the US that can independently fight a medium conflict anywhere in the world at a moments notice (China no, Russia no, France probably not) and do so on a regular basis : Korea, Falklands, Iraq, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan etc
They may spend a lot, But they have liitle for it. The UK forces are the smallest they have been in a century. If you took a real look at their forces you would see they would have a hard time fighting anybody.
Argentine thought so too back then when UK downsized their navy… of course they then learn that such is not quite the case the hard way.
Size is one thing, capability another.
quote: "UK is the 4th biggest military spender in the world and amongst the highest GDP per capita. Children dream of a 'first rate' military, adult politicians want them for complex reasons, in Britain it is partly due to a desire to support the US, a country that has protected the western world for half a century .."
Typical ignorance of military fan boys. Any wonder why the West is in such financial and economic nightmare? There are simply too many ignorant, foolish worshipers of military might – for the shrewd money masters, it would be a sin not to exploit them.
The US can't even protect itself from being exploited by the banksters. You don't understand how the game is being played on a grand scale, Lincoln. In fact, you don't even understand what GDP really shows or how it's calculated in the US and the UK.
Ok, "You don't understand how the game is being played on a grand scale, Lincoln."
And do you understand, Tyrion Lannister?
I know how its calculated in the US and UK. C+I+G+NX = GDP that G in the formula is government spending. Large military spending also contribute to larger GDP, but so what? that large military spending goes toward private contractors who are just civilians like us. In china military spending mostly goes toward government or state owned companies which obviously lead to a lot of bribes and corruptions.
the new propulsion system on the qe2 class carrier meant there was no steam for catapults, hence the need for the emals system (or f35-b).
If the Brits really want to save money and get a carrier out the door quickly, the US should sell them the retired USS Constellation or the retired USS Independence. Figure it will take them 3 years to get it back to working order, while Brit pilots train with Americans on F/A-18E/F/G’s
Even with a Boeing contract of 120+ Super Hornets this would be much cheaper and they could have a carrier ready for a combat patrol of the Falklands by 2017. You get a combat proven supercarrier and a combat proven airframe in the Super Hornet all way under budget. All the while the Queen Elizabeth is slated to enter in 2016 and probably wont be ready til 2019.
There is a use for the smaller carriers, they are cheaper for one thing, and the Brits can't afford such a huge navy like the one we have. I'm just surprised that they got rid of the only airplane capable of operating off of their carriers; the Harrier. Man, what prompted that?
- "Man, what prompted that?"
The RAF.
lol
But why did they decide to cut their only aircraft-carrier operable aircraft out of their fleet without a ready replacement? The JSF isn't ready for them, and they aren't ready themselves for the JSF. It couldn't be money, not if they are offering to buy F-35's. It seems illogical and imprudent of them. Hey, what do I know?
because money has become so tight the three arms are fighting tooth and nail to get what they can. and as said, with things so tight, the scraps so measly, you're effectively seeing the killing off of hugely important capabilities in the process.
Shouldnt even be necessary, but alas, it is.
Mike they are headed to the scrappers. Hell, they do not even have 10,000 sailors to man those ships.
What about giving them a used USS Tarawa, USS Nassau or used USS Peleiu. I think the Brits can get the F-35C with those if they have the cash and crews.
Heck we could have offered a deal to the brits where they can get a used USS Constellation or USS Independence while waiting for theirs to be built. To sweeten the package, include 120+ super hornets and growlers for them. Even if their QE carrier is not ready in time, they can still use the used USS Constellation or USS Independence while getting up to par.
They don't need a bigger worn-out carrier to replace their small worn-out carriers.
The UK does not have the money.
The UK have the money.
What they don't have is a good administration of it.
LOL. The printing press isn't the same as money. Real money comes from a strong, productive economy, which the UK doesn't have. A bad administration? yes; mountains of debt? yes; money? no!! Either print or borrow, like the US does.
quote: "The best part, if the effort to develop the EMALS falters, the U.S. will foot the bill, not the Brits."
LOL. Has the US consulted its taxpayers on that?? Oh wait, the US govt is only accountable to the Establishment. That's why it hasn't bothered to tell the taxpayers how deep a hole they are in financially — even if the govt raised the federal income tax rate to 100%, it still wouldn't be able to balance the budget.
i think the counter-argument is the fear that should the uk not buy / fix the whole emals shebang we might pull out of the f35 program too, so promising a $1 billion guarantee for emals could help secure the usa billions and billions of f35 orders. this is just speculation on my part, mind.
Exactly
So… the guarantee on the EMALS system is corporate welfare for Lockheed? Not sure that is much better.
I get that issues of national defense are not amenable to pure market systems, but the sheer volume of money being thrown at defense in this country, in a terrible economy and while shedding soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen is kind of amazing. I think defense contractors have read the tea leaves and see that their funding is pretty secure, performance or no.
except that the guarantee won't secure "billions and billions of f35 orders."
True, since -A and -B don't depend on EMALS and don't exactly have tons of orders.
i think the original plan was for a buy of around 100 f35-b variants for the uk (2 carrier air grps, spares, training etc). over the recent years it now sounds like it will ne 50-60 at most, perhaps as few as 40 f35-c variant. at unknown unit cost, lets say $150 million for easy maths, thats still $6 billion for 40 planes. plus the approx. $2-3 billion in research costs the uk has paid already as the only tier 1 partner nation, it starts adding up. of course, the usa has spent lots more, but then at one time there was talk of building over 1000 for us air force, marines etc. i don't know what any current estimates are numbers wise?
my own feeling is i'd rather we had gone for 3 or 4 40,000 tonne carriers carrying approx. 30 planes of an upgraded 'harrier version 2' design; if we definitely wanted the 2 bigger carriers, we should have developed a navalized eurofighter variant (which studies indicate wouldn't be that difficult in actuality) instead. the f35 is proving just too expensive.
The flaw in your argument is that the EMALS isn't something that's being developed exclusively for the RN and her QE carriers, it's something that's being developed for the Ford class carriers we're building and the Brits will buy a couple of sets one it's done. So we're not financing something for the RN but something that's for our use and we plan on selling to Britain so even if the Brits went back to using the F-35B and a ski jump we'd still be working on the EMALS for our own use on the Fords.
Most logical move the Brits made in a long time. The B may fail all together and is a waste of money the C can do all combat functions a B has and with assist take off doesn't need VTOL capability.Overall the Brits should have kept Harriers in service many years longer since it will take years to even get the C model of the F-35. The fact they have carriers w/o planes s a laughable showing of failures of British policies.
Why may the B fail altogether? I haven't heard anything of the sort.
Cost overruns and sequestration may kill it.
But it FLIES! And we have some orders for them. India has shown great interest, as well as the USMC.
quote: "But it FLIES!"
LOL!!! India already has a lot of cheap stuff that flies. If its decision makers have the brains to buy the Rafale, they have the brains to laugh at the F-35.
It flys but its more expensive and has alot of technical problems yet.
technically lance we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment. we have 2 helicopter carriers (ocean and illustrious, converted following the absurd retirement of the harriers). the first qe2 will be put to sea around 2016-ish and immediately mothballed – another shocking decision. the second one will be launched around 2020 and equipped with emals and f-35c variants. if in the next few years we can get our budget under control we might … might … then convert the mothballed first qe2. it is such a farce, words cannot describe how angry the stupidity of it all makes me.
you are so right,the whole thing is a complete mess,our government (UK) has wasted so much money on failed or cancelled projects it is embarrassing,what is worse is that they don't seem to learn!
at this point they may be better off buying russian nock-offs from from china.
The Royal Navy will clearly be better served to operate the C variant, so this is good news for their capabilities, even if uncle Sam foots some of the bill. A Q.E. class off shore of a trouble spot with F-35 Cs will be a potent strike tool with some legs to get the job done, not to mention heavier fuel and weapons loads at take off. In my mind, a carrier force that operates nothing but VSTOL aircraft is basically a defensive, shorter range force, while a CATOBAR force is one capable of taking the fight to the enemy. Harriers may have been good for protecting their fleet and supporting shore operations, but deep strike was always out of the question. This would be a game changer for the RN.
Do the Brits have any plans to buy an E-2 system or equivalent?
Haven't heard anything yet about electronic warfare aircraft for the QE class, but you'd have to assume it's on the cards. Hopefully the lack of buzz about it will mean they'll go for an off-the-sheft system and not some pie in the sky project that will eat up more money we don't have.
I'd love to see a few E2's brought in and maybe even some Growlers, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.
Personally I'd love to see a high-low mix of F35's, complemented by Super Hornets for the heavy lifting strike packages ones EAD are down… plus a few aforementioned Growlers. Don't see MOD deviating from the F35 though realistically.
There are currently a couple of concepts floating around with the E-2 being the likely favourite and using the same concept as the Sea King AEW but on the newer Merlin platform.
Personally I totally agree with you on the above points regarding using the C. We need to stick it out with the EMALS option and loaning E-2 and F/A-18E/F in the short term would be the best option.
We should have looked to buy Ex-USN carriers back in the 70's when the last big deck carriers were cancelled we could have equipped them the Phantoms and Buccaneers and bought new Hawkeye's from you guys.
With EMALS also opens up possibility of RAF flying F18E/F/G. Much much cheaper and almost as good in capability terms.
Now I know we're not crying about US taxpayers potentially footing a bill for one of our key allies. Foreign aid gets pissed away on shitbird "allies" annually that would make this bill look like pocket change. And when we are on the five yard line we're going to need the projecting power of the Queen Elizabeth class and her EMALS. The more technologically advance super carriers on our side the better IMHO …If I were them I would want to outclass the French's current flagship in every way, including the cat system… on principal alone.
F-18 Super is not only cheaper. It actually works! In addition the potential internation road map or block iii version is even more potent than the current.
With limited budget the Brits are fools not to seriously look at the aircraft.
By the same token they could by the Rafale from across the channel.
And that would be a great irony.
Political gun shot to the head more like!! Isn't BAE helping with the conversion of Gripen to be carrier capable?
BAE is building the QE carriers. BAE also has a VERY lucrative business servicing the sub-par Typhoon and utterly useless Tornado for the RAF. If the QE carriers were EMALS equipped before 35Cs were available, then they would be filled with cheap F/A18s or Rafales instead. These planes would rapidly prove superior to the Typhoon and Tornado, making the RAF redundant, removing BAE's slice of pie and probably killing the future F-35 (which BAE makes parts for) acquisition stone dead as well. So, surprise surprise, it turns out EMALS equipping the carriers is very expensive according to…BAE, with some hefty lobbying of UK ministers in conjunction with the RAF no doubt.
I'm assuming most of the people here are American, but this is interesting. As of last week it was reported here in the UK that the House of Commons were discussing pulling the plug on the entire F-35 programme and it seemed like most of the MPs supported it. Interesting to see another perspective on it.
i'm a fellow brit (hullo! fancy cup of tea?) … i think some of the press reporting is nothing more than gossip or scare stories supplied by interested parties (ie. the royal navy) to keep their shiny new toys coming. if we were at all serious about our defence and spending we would have pulled the plug ages ago, developed / fitted catapults and gone with something like a navalized eurofighter, rafale or f18 buy instead.
lol
the whole F-35 program will be halted very soon. along with most Western economies
maybe China will want to buy all those carriers. you know, for scrap metal or hotels
If Obama is re-elected and we shift to our 6-8 carrier USN, then there will be a few modern CVNs sitting around. They should have waited for the fire sale. We could throw in the Super Hornets and their soon to be unemployed pilots for free.
That's really nice and tempting, but I suspect the UK will soon be more worried about mass riots, endless protests, and finding enough money to fund a minimal police force just for the riots and protests. The US has been building a lot of prisons across the country lately. I wonder if they can ship a few dozen to Britain for free.
London isn't making the right question. By now, at least.
The UK wants to preserve his capabilities to project power around the globe. Very good, very good. The Royal Navy is too great to be just a Green-Water Navy.
But How? That's the missing point. After they realize what they are going to do with these carriers, they choose the JSF model;
- quote: "The Royal Navy is too great to be just a Green-Water Navy."
"great" when facing very weak opponents. How did the RN fare vs Japan in WWII? Remember the battle of Singapore? You know, having well over 80,000 troops beat by, and then surrender to, a few thousand Japanese in 8 days, after having 50,000 taken by Japan in the Malayan campaign. (There were some Aussies and Indians but hey, it's still the British Empire, right?) Pathetic!
Apparently you haven't learned a thing; it's still about brute force and equipment, not brains. (this thing might be genetic in nature, as I'm seeing similar traits in Americans.)
I had no idea the Royal Navy lost 80,000 troops in Singapore. I did hear how terribly the Army fared in the Battle of the Atlantic though, shocking.
A waste of money, we would be better off buying a few more Astutes and Daring class and ramming them both to the gills with a faster Cruise missile.
Make sure the Daring's have some BMD and buy another Ocean Class and use it to fly Apache's if and when needed.
The whole Carrier thing is a joke , it will only operate in support of US forces who would be far happier with a couple of Astutes or Daring class than a handful of not needed JSF planes , and please don't use the Falklands as an excuse to waste tens of billions on this idiotic carrier startegy.
The UK cannot cancel the CVF's at this point and expect any saving's. The money is essential spent or locked up in penalties. The current problem is not with the cost of EMALS. We assume there will be a fixed cost and the US will guarantee it's operation but with the cost estimates from the UK to convert and fit EMALS to the CVF. This is really a UK issue with BAE Systems estimates and what the US was pointing out that we are are being gouged yet again. I suspect if we had the hull built in Korea and EMALS fitted in the US we would of paid a lot less and would of been operational by now.
As to F-35C or F-35B I would just go with the Super Hornet. The UK can't afford the perfect solution at the expense of numbers or other essential platforms such as AEW and any additional cost savings can be directed to more/better standoff weapons.
That's why BAE is being less than honest over the cost of fitting EMALS. EMALS means Hornets; Hornets mean cancellation of the JSF order and planned Typhoon strike upgrade (BAE contract). No JSF and obsolete Typhoons means the RAF gets sidelined in favour of the Navy. So BAE and the RAF join forces to lobby for the over-priced, overweight, under-powered car crash that the F-35B will turn out to be, if it ever arrives, and it's directorships and lucrative service contracts all round, Minister! Pass the port.
There is definitely quite a lot to distinguish concerning this. My partner and i contemplate you made several excellent points inside characteristics additionally.
This is a last ditch attempt to save the F-35C for the British aircraft carriers. The truth is that the price of the F-35 has sky rocketed, but the performance is mediocre. The cost estimates of the US manufacturers have proven to be extremely unreliable. The first F-35B has been delivered to the UK. I hope they conduct some competitive tests with the Typhoon. in air-to-air combat. The navalized typhoon would be the best option for the UK both in terms of price and performance.
It would take take too long to build. Navalizing a design is not simple or works out well.
The Spitfire to Seafire move is a prime example. Also the FAA has been out of the arrested landing business for 40 years. Like China, there is a lot to learn.
On the bright side, come the mid 2020s, the Brits could be in a position where they have a pair of up to date EMALS equipped modern carriers flying bug-free F-35C's with a selection of off-the-shelf and catapult-launched manned/unmanned aircraft, power projecting with a variety of helicopters and tilt-rotors while escorted by Type 45s and Type 26s covered by Astutes as ever present sentinels.
Your name says it all mate! Don't we all wish!!! : )
t45s not in enough quantity. t26s still merely images on paper, one of those carriers almost certainly never to set sail with British colours.
things are always potential, the future.. but we (i am british) keep cutting back the infrastructure cuts back with it and we lose the ability to have an effective force. This is something that has become reality for some time now but nobody really cares because Defence doesnt win votes, what the government do with the NHS or pensions does. Successive governments erode further the Defence to make these short term savings in return for long term losses. The country is so bloody partisan its pathetic. There will never be this glamorous future for the Navy or indeed the armed forces as a whole simply because no government will ever make it a reality.
Glad to have a Brit with us. It's a pity about your military, especially because the British has been famous in the past for it's Royal Navy.
you mean "infamous"
invading weak countries, robbing their resources, and help selling drugs isn't all that "American", isn't it? Oh wait ……
The Falklands / Islas Malvinas war was decided mostly by big blunders on Argentina's part, not Britain's maritime power.
The RN lost 6 ships to take those Islands. The fleet is not even 100 ships today. The RAF does not have a single heavy bomber. They have a hard time just patrolling home waters as the Russians showed some time ago.
What blunders? The Argentines didn't do so badly for a South American power. They had decent aircraft and old ships. They had some dud bombs and would've destroyed more shipping if their fuzes had worked properly, though their Exocets did a nasty number on the RN.
On the ground their soldiers could've done better, but for conscripts who probably really had no dog in the fight I'm not sure it's fair to knock them.
Bad bomb fuses was blunder #1.
For one thing, they should have waited a little longer, and gotten better prepared. If I remember correctly, they actually had a plan, but failed to stick to it for political reasons.
Wikipedia suggests that the Argentines were due to receive more Exocets, Super Etendards and "ships from West Germany" (type not specified).
Edit: My best guess is that they would have been MEKOs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almirante_Brown_clas…
Hilariously, the Argentines also had Type 42 destroyers, the same ones used by the RN for Falklands. They tested Sea Dart and Exocet against their own ships and chose Exocets instead (to great effect).
The Brits do station Typhoons in the Falklands now, And most likley have a sub patrolling the area. With Argentina losing 60 aircraft without really replacing the wartime losses, all we are going to hear from Argentina is
rhetoric. Although later in the 90′s the US sold them some improved A-4AR’s,
but I dont think thats going to help.
While i personally like the heavy bombers and they do serve a purpose when you are US of A and need EXTRA large size of ordnance delivery at the scale their army likely need, why would RAF need it?
old Strategic bombing doctrine been gone for decades ever since guided weapons become relatively reliable, and considering the scope in which their army fight i don't know how to make an argument to keep heavy bomber for RAF.
They didn't retire the old cold war era strategic bomber for no reason, same with most countries that no longer bother to keep them in this age.
It must be awfully lonely down there in your mum's basement hey mate?
1 flight of Typhoons. Not even a Squadron. A sub & at least 1 destroyer on South Atlantic patrol. Another ship for Antarctica bases. & about 1200 troops.
Not only should Argentina have waited for more missiles and other military hardware and supplies to be ready, it should have waited till all its necessary military personnel and reserves had been called in, adequately trained, and equipped.
Delaying the war till the winter months would also have helped Argentina significantly as it would have been a lot more difficult for the Brits to mount a landing, and to respond / supply quickly and easily.
Ignoring all that to start a war with a stronger opponent simply as a political gimmick to stay in power was a big blunder.
I think that was a French made Exocet.
quote: "that large military spending goes toward private contractors who are just civilians like us."
that's just plain delusional. no offense intended.
quote: "In china military spending mostly goes toward government or state owned companies which obviously lead to a lot of bribes and corruptions."
I know little about China's military spending so I'm not going to comment. I don't believe you know much about it either, as you clearly know very little about US military spending and its consequences.
"….which obviously lead to a lot of bribes and corruptions".
And this is totally unknown among Western World military contractors and their customers of course….
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
too much to drink? you are mistaking me for one of your family members or relatives.
and yes, I believe I understand it a lot better than you and Lincoln, to say the least.
If I remember correctly (and I admit to having no immediate source reference for this), the bomb fuzes weren't "bad", they were simply not suited for the task at hand.
The Argentines dropped their bombs in low-level, high-speed attacks, and the fuze type(-s) they used did not have time to arm before impact.
As for the Exocets, there was a definite fuze problem, later blamed (again IIRC) by the contractor on faulty maintenance on the Argentineans' part – which may be entirely correct, for all I know.
The primary damage mechanism of the Exocets was the fires started after impact by residual rocket fuel.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Of course by then the military government would have fallen and it wouldn't have mattered.
still far better than losing the war AND political power. National interests should always come first. Of course I'm advocating a principle that's regarded as BS in Argentina then and in the United States now.
That sub alone is worth quite a bit, as I recall, during the war the Argentines were deathly scared of British attack boats to the point of not mounting rescue operations when the General Belgrano(?) was hit and sinking due to fears of the sub still lurking nearby. Iirc, the British sub even announced that it was not in the area, or something to the effect, in and effort to try to convince the Argentinians to come to the aid of their countrymen in the sinking ship.
Strat bombers can strike quickly with aerial refueling. If you can tap on America to give you air refueling and bases at Ascension Island, you can strike back much faster than the time it takes to wait for a fleet to steam into the jaws of your Exocets. However, you need ALCMs if you want to bring a bomber back home, since direct bombing would suck.
I think that would be an understatement considering the proliferation of SAM (and the speed in which they are advancing) in modern age.
Which i am guessing is part of the idea of why most countries retire them, no one probably really expected the need for one nor the survivability of one in modern age except when the enemy is completely stripped of air defense capability which by all account should mean non combat effective by modern standard.
Of course they also didn't exactly expected the need to run extensive air strikes with no actual ground forces ala Libya, or fighting neck deep against insurgents without any air capability.
I question if offensive ECM is enough to protect a bomber from SAM systems.
Option A is to outfit with ALCMs and strike long range at static targets outside of range.
Option B is to throw in more offensive ECM, kind of a hybrid of a Wild Weasel type aircraft with plenty of anti-radiation missiles to just blow your way in. However, it's kind of an armchair fantasy, and likely too expensive and costly to justify.
People will likely just stick to using fighters to clear a path and run a bomber through. However if the OPFOR simply shuts off and hides SAM batteries, then waits for bombers to cut through, then what?
Option A i think is pretty much the only real option available.
Wild Weasel on an aircraft the size of a strategic bomber frankly sounds more like a suicide given the size of the aircraft and it's radar return which the ECM is going to have difficulty obscuring.